Comments on: A sequestration solution for the Pentagon http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/28/a-sequestration-solution-for-the-pentagon/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: OneOfTheSheep http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/28/a-sequestration-solution-for-the-pentagon/#comment-71040 Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:54:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18451#comment-71040 “…our leaders avoid explaining that there are two kinds of sequester. Only one slashes arbitrarily. The other enforces spending caps, which cut while encouraging prioritization. Pentagon leaders hoping to dodge any cuts conflate the two…”. Quite right, and this is not by coincidence.

And so it is “…Because [any] option [that] preserves deficit reduction without raising taxes and lets the military drawdown intelligently…” would give frustrated citizen/taxpayers precisely what they know this country needs, no “congressional majority” dare support it.

Yes, “The Pentagon’s predictions are mostly nightmares, meant to frighten. The uncapped war budget remains a safe haven for programs little related to war. Transfer and reprogramming authority can allow managers to move funds. The U.S. military will remain far superior to all others.”

So there is NO incentive to those who benefit so richly from the “status quo” to cooperate to achieve necessary, logical and relatively painless reductions in spending. That is precisely why it is simply not true that “This year’s sequestration should be avoided.”

History shows us that “delayed cuts…never arrive” and that…presidents and Congresses…undo them if the pressure for austerity fades.” If Sequestration “forces choice, which the U.S. political system evades…” bring it on!

Anyone that thinks this problem limited to defense spending alone is head-in-sand blind. The “imposition of discipline” on ALL agencies that have “…pursued too many ambitions at excessive expense…” is LONG overdue.

]]>
By: brotherkenny4 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/28/a-sequestration-solution-for-the-pentagon/#comment-71039 Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:11:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18451#comment-71039 What enemy can we not destroy instantaneously if we so choose? Just because our will to kill is less than it used to be, doesn’t mean we face a higher threat. Occupations were never considered defense in the past, but now we can’t fight any war without going in after to pick up and brush off the enemy. That is not defense, that is politicing for the business opportunities.

]]>
By: Concernedcitz http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/28/a-sequestration-solution-for-the-pentagon/#comment-71038 Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:52:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18451#comment-71038 We had two wars in the last decade with no increase in revenues but instead a decrease in revenues. We had a global meltdown due to de-regulating our banks. Both the bankers, whom we bailed out, and the Industrial War Complex made out very well during this time. The average American lost ground. Now everyone is so interested in preventing these same industries from paying higher taxes or cutting their spending, as the case may be, but do nothing to prevent the loss of income for those who have paid a lifetime for SS and medicare and have reached or are almost ready to reach retirement. It was impossible to save for retirement with 401ks sinking, your mortgage tanked or loss of your home entirely,savings rates at the most anemic or pathetic rate ever since banking began, and people age 50 and over loosing jobs with zero ability to become fully employed ever again. And still our leaders do nothing to stop the rape and pillage of those whose main economic stay will be through SS and medicare – instead they, including the President, offer cuts in those areas while all they can talk about is how it will affect the Pentegon or the Industrial War Complex. What is wrong with this picture??? Where is the “for the general welfare of the people”? Somehow we enpahsize only those interested in big business, big corrupt bankers, and those who already get all the tax loopholes. What about the rest of us who have paid our taxes for 50 years, and have paid into our SS Insurance and Medicare our entire lives and have worked all along? Why don’t we count? Until we resolve that the American people are more important than corporations or greedy bankers – we are doomed as a nation.

]]>
By: Acetracy http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/28/a-sequestration-solution-for-the-pentagon/#comment-71036 Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:44:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18451#comment-71036 Pavoter1946’s comments are exactly right. The Defense Budget is where huge dollars are funneled into special interests, esp. DC contractors, and major campaign funders.

Look at the 2012 ranking of the largest government contractors: http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists  /top-100-lists/2012.aspx. Especially notice the private consulting firms that do squat for US Defense. Also take a look at the latest contracts awarded and your eyes will glaze at the $millions spent on projects like procurement software, efficiency reviews, etc. From the list of private contractors, just google the names of the directors and you will find that nearly 80% of the top directors had worked in the departments that are now awarding them these contracts.

I for one applaud the sequester. Yes it will hit the most vulnerable – the poor, children, unemployed – basically anyone who doesn’t have a DC lobby. However, for the first time in decades the Defense Budget is being cut. It’s about time.

]]>
By: pavoter1946 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/02/28/a-sequestration-solution-for-the-pentagon/#comment-71034 Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:23:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=18451#comment-71034 Take every required spending imposed upon the Pentagon by Congressmen and Senators, that the Pentagon didn’t want or didn’t need, and cut that. The savings will be quite a few shekels.

Kill some of the fancy toys the military wants, that will never work as expected, are for enemies that do not exist, and are for wars that will not be fought. That will add up to more savings, and will not ‘hollow’ out the military.

Third, look realistically at the staffing, which is very top heavy. Do we really need that many Generals and Admirals, which are more then we had in WWII?

]]>