A reply to Newsweek’s stupid question

The ultraliberal Newsweek magazine falsely claimed that there is now an era of “warmer relations” of the US and Russia, and stupidly asked why did the FBI arrest 10 Russian spies this week, rather than earlier.

The answer is simple: because this week was (apparently) the best opportunity to cap them, as the FBI proving by capturing these 10 spies. If the FBI had struck earlier, it might’ve failed to cap these folks.

As for the ludicrous claim – frequently repeated by the Newsweek mag, the MSNBC, other liberal media, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats – that the Obama Admin has repaired America’s relations with Russia and thus achieved an “unqualified foreign policy success” – this is rubbish. It’s a blatant lie.

The supposedly “new Russo-American partnership”, the supposedly “warmer era of Russo-American relations”, is actually a one-way street of American unilateral concessions, as documented by the Heritage Foundation:

“

However, the compromises made in the past year by the Obama Administration demonstrate that what Senator Kerry and the Administration hail as a “partnership” is in fact a one-way street full of unilateral concessions. The U.S. cannot build a lasting relationship with Russia by giving out the farm.

The concessions include severely diluting and limiting the U.S. ballistic missile defense; recognition of Russia’s ‘exclusive zone of interests in the post-Soviet “near abroad”; and consideration of a new security architecture in Europe.  In short, Russia will be milking the reset for all its worth.

The U.S. concessions also include the so-called 123 civilian nuclear reactor agreement, which will provide Russia with $10 billion-$15 billion in new nuclear fuel reprocessing business and support for Russia’s entry into the WTO.

Consider arms control. According to Senator Kerry, the New START Treaty signed on April 6, 2010, limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads. Actually, what the treaty limits are only numbers of accountable nuclear warheads, and the U.S. has to eliminate 80 warheads more than Russia. Worse yet, America will have to eliminate 150 delivery platforms (subs, bombers or silos), while Russia can add more than 130 vehicles!

What the Treaty clearly limits, both in the Preamble and Article V in the main body, is the U.S. ability to deploy effective missile defenses to protect the homeland and its allies. When viewed together, it is clear that the treaty’s Preamble, the Russian unilateral statement on missile defense, and remarks by senior Russian officials suggest an attempt by Russia to future U.S. missile defense capabilities by threatening to withdraw from the treaty should the U.S. expand its missile defense. It is hard to imagine an administration committed to getting to zero nuclear weapons risking the viability of this treaty by upsetting the Russians.

In addition to this, credible published reports indicate that there may be a secret deal to further limit U.S. ballistic missile defense. It is no wonder that Sergei Karaganov, Chairman of the Russian Council on Defense and Foreign Policy, said that “In the course of the negotiations, Russia reached almost all of the objectives it could possibly set.””

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/23/what-senator-kerry-is-missing-on-obamas-russian-reset/#more-36923

I would add that Russia (together with China) continues to block genuine UN sanctions against North Korea, remains an ally of that country (as shown by Vladimir Putin, who shook hands with Kim Jong Il, and Sergei Lavrov, who paid tribute to Kim Il Sung), continues to build a nuclear reactor in Iran, and continues to sell modern weapons (including  SAM systems) to Iran, Venezuela and Syria.

And no claims of “a new era of warmer relations with Moscow” or “a true Russo-American partnership” can change these facts.

Sure, the Russians do speak nicely of Obama, do shake hands with him, do eat burgers with him, and do claim that there is “a new era of relations” – but that is because Obama has made (and plans to continue to make) unilateral concessions to them, so that they get all they want. The Russians WANT a softie like Obama to be President of the United States. But what they want is contrary to America’s interests. America needs a tough president who will not make any unilateral concessions, not a pacifist appeaser like Obama. 

The Obama Administration has NOT made relations with Russia “warmer” or anyhow better. It has not convinced Russia to make ANY significant concessions. It has not convinced Russia to help the US with anything. It has not achieved an “unqualified foreign policy success”. It has not achieved any foreign policy success of any kind – neither with Russia nor with any other foreign country. Its entire foreign policy record is one of dismal failure.

Communist symbols in Russia

Here’s an incomplete list of Communist symbols which Russia retains:
1) Military banners which include communist and tsarist symbols alike.
2) The Lenin Mausoleum.
3) The Statue of Felix Dzierzynski (the founder of the VChK, the precursor of the NKVD), which was formerly at Lubyanka Square, is still in Moscow – in a park in a Moscow suburb.
4) In Russia, there is still a city called Dzierzynsk.
5) The district around Petersburg is still called Leningradskaya Oblast (Leningrad District).
6) The district around Yekaterinburg is still called Sverdlovskaya Oblast (Sverdlovsk District; Sverdlovsk was the former name of that city).
7) In Russia, there is still a city named Kaliningrad and a district named Kaliningradskaya Oblast, named after Mikhail Kalinin, one of Stalin’s most loyal allies.
8) The special division of the Internal Troops of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs is still named after Felix Dzierzynski.

9) In Yekaterinburg, there is still a street named after Vladimir Lenin, and there are probably many other streets named after Lenin in Russia. The HQ of the Volga-Urals Military District is located on bldg #71 of that street. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga-Urals_Military_District; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospekt_Lenina,_Yekaterinburg)

10) The city of Simbirsk, where Vladimir Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov) was born, is still named  Ulyanovsk, and the district around it is still named the Ulyanovsk District.

11) The melody of the Russian anthem is the same as the melody of the Soviet anthem.

Why the Dems always pursue a foreign policy of appeasement

The Obama Administration ridiculously proclaimed a “new era of warm relations with Russia” and continues to pursue a foreign policy of appeasement towards the Kremlin. Meanwhile, Russia is blocking harsh sanctions against Iran and North Korea, is making friendly gestures towards these countries, is arming Iran, Venezuela and Syria, and continues to build a nuclear electric plan in Iran.

Obama continues to dismantle America’s defenses and appease China, even as it refuses to back genuine sanctions against Iran and NK, remains a formal ally of the DPRK, sells weapons to Iran and the Taleban, is waging an arms race against the US, continues to undermine American industry with its mercantilist policies, continues to aggressively spy on the US, and continues to attack American cyber networks daily.

Obama has taken the military option “off the table” regarding Iran, and continues to appease Tehran, even as the mullahcracy continues to pursue nuclear weapons, develop ballistic missiles and sponsor terrorist groups.

Results of the appeasement policies of previous Democratic Administrations were no better. So why do the Dems continue to pursue these disastrous policies even despite a mountain of evidence that it’s a recipe for failure?

Because of their pacifist ideology. They believe that every weapon, every dollar spent on defense and every hawkish policy is bad. Furthermore, they believe that there are NO threats to America in the world today, except those which America has supposedly brought upon itself with its foreign policy.

They claimed Carter’s pacifist foreign policy would prevent war. They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.

The Democrats are blinded by their pacifist ideology. They will never admit they’re wrong, nor will they correct their foreign policy.

My opinion on the McDonald v Chicago ruling

My opinion on the McDonald v Chicago ruling is as follows:

This ruling was certainly (by itself) a great victory for all conservatives – regardless of everything else, the fact is that the SCOTUS has decided to incorporate the 2nd Amendment, thus making it legally binding on state and local governments.

Nonetheless, I am troubled by a few aspects of the ruling, as well as a few issues related to the SCOTUS.

1) The SCOTUS ruled that it needed to incorporate the 2nd Amendment to make it legally binding against state and local governments. This means that, according to the SCOTUS, if it hadn’t been incorporated, it would’ve been legally binding only on the federal government, even though it (like the First Amendment and Amendments #3-9) doesn’t contain any qualifiers that would’ve made it apply only to the FG. Under this theory, before the 14th Amendment (which enabled the SCOTUS to incorporate the first 10 Amendments) was ratified, state and local governments were allowed by the US Constitution to establish a state religion, prohibit certain (or all religions), censor speeches and the media, prohibit petitions, prohibit assemblies, quarter soldiers at a house without the consent of its owner, arrest anyone without any reason, detain anyone incommunicando indefinitely without the right to an attorney, refuse anyone a speedy public trial, refuse to tell inmates why were they arrested, refuse someone a trial by jury, refuse to allow confrontations of witnesses, and mete out cruel and unusual punishment, including death by torture. This is a ridiculous proposition, but this is essentially what the SCOTUS claimed.

2) The 4 strident liberals who sit on the SCOTUS bench claimed that even after the Heller v. DC ruling was issued, cities could STILL ignore the 2nd Amendment.

3) 3 of the 5 judges of the majority incorporate the 2nd Amendment under the Due Process clause, rather than the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

4) Obama’s most recent SCOTUS nominee claims that the government can curb certain categories of speech if the societal “damage” inflicted by those categories of speech is big.

5) If any of the conservative Supremes, or the moderate Anthony Kennedy, is replaced by a liberal, the US Constitution will mean nothing, because liberal judges will be allowed to twist it like wax.

My opinion on DOD budgets

Two days ago, I rebutted the lies of an anti-defense liberal, Josh Burro, who wrote a litany of lies about defense spending, defense budgets, and DOD equipment programs. I also defended the topline DOD budget figures for FY2010 and FY2011 (planned) as necessary to protect America. I wish to comment on that a little further.

It is not possible for the DOD (given the low value of the dollar and inflation) to maintain a strong military on-the-cheap, with a microscopic defense budget, without a defense budget to the tune of at least $534 bn (in today’s dollars), i.e. 3.65% of GDP. So called “defense-on-the-cheap”, a cheap military or “providing the same defense at a lower cost” is not possible. That is a fiscal fact. Only in the alternate universe called Washington DC is “defense-on-the-cheap” possible.

Many reputable defense experts, such as John Tkacik, have estimated that the real topline figure needed by the DOD is 4% of GDP. Both of these figures are small. (During the entire Cold War except FY1948, America spent a larger amount of money on defense than 4% of GDP.)

I believe that it is ridiculous to claim that defense budgets (enacted or planned) which equal 3.65% of GDP or 3.75% of GDP are excessive.

I believe that the aggregate DOD topline budget figures for FY2010 and FY2011 ($534 bn budgeted for FY2010 and $549 planned for FY2011) are necessary.

Do I believe that every particular item in the DOD budget is necessary? No. I believe that Gulfstream-III VIP jets, the Alternative Engine Program, the VIP helicopter program, and 32 large bases are unnecessary. I believe that personnel costs and defense health program costs are way too high, and that overhead costs and bureaucracies of the DOD are too large.

But I also believe that any savings made at the DOD must be REINVESTED in the DOD. I oppose any reductions of the topline budget figure (i.e. the total size of the defense budget). I also believe that every current weapon program of the DOD, except the LCS program, is necessary.

I also believe that defense is the most important of all issues, that it is the most important task of any government, and that no government can maintain a strong defense without an appropriately-sized defense budget. Hence, I believe that defense spending must never be reduced.

The US Constitution clearly states that one of the roles of the federal government is to “provide for the common defense” and to “protect them [the states] against invasion”. It is NOT the role of the federal government to dictate school curriculums, protect unions, build bridges to nowhere and highways that states don’t want, maintain local transit systems, build useless high-speed rail lines, subsidize agriculture, provide welfare rolls to welfare bums and welfare queens, or decide which products Americans can buy.

But  – as the Constitution clearly states – the federal government IS called on to “provide for the common defense” and to “protect them [the states] against invasion”. And any failure of the federal government to execute that obligation is a violation of the Constitution.

The federal government shall not, and should not, save money on defense, its constitutional obligation.

The need for a government that could provide for the common reason was the principal reason why the federal government was created in the first place. This fact is told by the Constitution (whose preamble states that the American people ordained this Constitution “to form a more perfect Union, provide for the common defense, provide for the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty”) and the writings of James Madison (the principal author of the Constitution) and Alexander Hamilton. They explained that the Confederation (1783-1789) was inadequate, and that a federal government was needed to provide for the common defense.

Today, the federal government is doing everything EXCEPT providing for the common defense. It is neglecting its duty. Yet, Burro believes that the small budget the DOD now has, and the small budget that the DOD has requested, are big, excessive and unnecessary. I beg to differ. And the facts back me, not him.

Another anti-defense liberal has utterly discredited himself

Yet another anti-defense liberal has utterly discredited himself. His name is Josh Barro, and his article of 8th June 2010, written for “RealWorldMarkets” (it should be called Alternate Universe Markets) claims that Senator Tom Coburn has tacked America’s supposed “runaway defense spending”.

The claim that America maintains “runaway defense spending” (i.e. “out-of-control defense spending”) is merely the first of the many lies included in his defense-bashing article. The truth is that defense spending – unlike entitlement spending – is tightly controlled by the OMB and the Congress, which carefully scrutinizes defense budgets, often refuses to authorize many programs and weapon orders, and usually authorizes less defense spending than what the executive branch requests. Not to mention the fact that ever since FY1995, defense spending has constantly remained below 4% of GDP and below the record Reagan-era levels.

Burro claims that defense spending is the second-largest cause of America’s debt and deficit. He’s lying. After the splurge of entitlement costs, which he correctly named as the biggest cause, the second-largest item in the federal budget (and therefore the second-largest cause of budget deficits and the federal debt) is welfare spending, not defense funding. This FY, welfare spending reached a record-high level – $888 bn, that is, much more than defense spending ($534 bn).

He claimed that defense spending “often gets short shrift”. He’s wrong. Defense spending is always the favorite “whipping boy” of almost every politician whenever the federal government posts a yearly budget deficit. This is also true today – very few politicians promise to reduce civilian programs and agencies, but almost every politician is calling for defense spending cuts.

He then falsely claimed that

“That national security is important does not mean that the Pentagon should be exempt from fiscal oversight or off the table when we talk about balancing the federal budget. This is especially true because higher defense spending does not always make us safer.”

This is NOT true. And yes, the DOD should be off the table when people talk about balancing the federal budget, because 1) the DOD is not to blame for the current budget deficits; 2) the DOD is responsible for the government’s most important, constitutionally-ordained, no-fail task: national defense. Any reduction of defense spending makes it hard for the DOD to execute that task.

Barro is apparently nostalgic about Clinton and his treasonous defense cuts, because he claimed that:

“With the Soviet threat eliminated, the “Peace Dividend” allowed a reduction in defense spending as a share of the economy, bottoming out at 3% of GDP in 1999 and 2000. This restraint was one of the key drivers of the budget surpluses of the Clinton-Gingrich era.”

Every defense issues expert recognizes that the “Peace Dividend” (which should be called “the procurement holiday”) was a foolish mistake. Over a period of 12 years, the first Bush Admin and the Clinton Admin literally massacred the US military and instituted a procurement holiday from which the US military still hasn’t recovered due to insufficient weapons spending. The US military was decrepit by 2001. As of 2000, the then Joint Chiefs of Staff complained that their services needed permanent budgetary increases measured in tens of billions of dollars. When the FY2001 defense budget was signed, liberals and defense conservatives alike estimated that it was inadequate. Some estimated that it was too small by $100 bn per annum. The Air Force Association wrote back then that the FY2001 DOD budget did not even begin to address the military’s financial and equipment requirements.

The deep reduction of defense spending was indeed a key driver of the Clinton-era budget deficits (because civilian spending wasn’t reduced significantly – vested interest groups defended it and singled out defense spending for reductions), but it was a foolish mistake.

Burro also claimed that:

“In 2010, defense spending will again reach 4.9% of GDP, the same level as in 1980. About half of this increase has been driven by specific costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rest by growth in base military spending faster than economic growth. With deficits expected to run in the range of 4% of GDP over the next decade, a 2% of GDP rise in defense spending is a huge deal.”

All of these claims are false. This year, defense spending will not exceed 3.65% of GDP ($534 bn divided by a GDP of $14.61 trillion is 3.65%). Defense spending does not include the cost of the Iraqi war and the Afghan war (which have NOTHING to do with defense spending, which is about maintaining the military), but even if you do include these costs, total “military spending” (the defense budget plus the GWOT cost) will reach only 4.5% of GDP this year ($664 bn /14.61 trillion = 4.5%). So the 4.9% figure (whether you count defense spending or total “military spending” is totally false. Furthermore, given that defense spending has risen from 3% of GDP only to 3.65% of GDP, it has risen by 0.65% of GDP, not 2%.

The defense budget, which stands at 3.65% of GDP, is, as a proportion of GDP, the SMALLEST defense budget since FY1948, if you exclude the last few Clinton defense budgets. During the entire Cold War, except FY1948, America’s defense spending was much higher than today. Total “military spending”, as a proportion of GDP, is also lower than America’s defense spending levels of the entire Cold War era (except FY1948).

Burro complains that the level of military spending will be “the same as the level of 1980″. I guess he believes that the tragically inadequate defense budgets of the Carter Administration (1977-1981) were also excessive, because he decried those defense budgets. During the Carter era, the US military was decrepit, and America’s adversaries were emboldened by Carter’s defense cuts and pacifist foreign policy.

Burro then claimed that “Senator Tom Coburn made these points last month in a letter to the chairmen of the president’s deficit commission. Coburn, who sits on the commission, puts a spotlight on rapid, inflation-adjusted growth in military spending and the lack of oversight at the Pentagon as that money is spent.”

Both of these claims are false. SECDEF Gates does exercise oversight on how the money is spent, and there has been no rapid growth of military spending during the last 20 years. See below.

Burro wrote that

“In his letter, Coburn notes that inflation-adjusted base Pentagon spending (that is, the figure excluding the additional costs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) rose from $407 billion in 2001 to $553 billion — a 36% increase — by 2011. “Supplemental” spending to cover the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will add a further $159 billion in 2011.”

This is utter gibberish. Firstly, spending levels for FY2011 have NOT been authorized yet and FY2011 hasn’t begun yet, so no one can honestly claim that defense spending already has risen  to “2011 levels”. Secondly, the figure proposed by the Administration is $549 bn, not $553 bn. Thirdly, that 36% budget increase – if it happens – will be an increase conducted over ten fiscal years, not over one year. (By comparison, Obama has increased federal welfare spending by 70% during the last 16 months.) Fourthly, even if the $549 budget for FY2011 is approved, it will nonetheless stand at only 3.75% of GDP, and, like the current defense budget, will be the lowest since FY1948 (excluding the last few Clinton budgets). Fifthly, the FY2001 defense budget – as stated earlier – was tragically inadequate, and the current levels of defense spending are absolutely necessary to enable the US military to recover from the 1990s procurement holiday imposed on it by two idiotic presidents.

Burro then asks, “Is all this spending necessary to protect America? Coburn gives reason to believe that it isn’t.” And that’s a lie, because Coburn has given no reason to believe that it isn’t. Quite the contrary, it is necessary to protect America. It is necessary to enable the US military to recover from the 1990s procurement holiday. Some savings could be made in the DOD (on unneeded bases and bureaucracies, as well as fuel costs, personnel costs and healthcare program costs), but all of these savings should be reinvested at the DOD.

Burro wrote that

“Coburn notes first that even though military spending has risen significantly in real terms — and will continue to do so under the Obama administration’s current plans — we are spending more to get less.”

Coburn is lying. Military spending has not risen significantly in real terms. Like I wrote earlier, that 36% increase from a dismally low level (the FY2001 level) is an increase over 10 fiscal years, which means it’s small.

Burro then claimed,

“For example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program has experienced a cost overrun from $226 billion projected in 2001 to $328 billion projected today. This is despite the fact that the number of F-35 planes to be purchased has gone down by 14%; the overrun is driven by a unit-cost increase of 68%. And yet, there are serious concerns about the F-35′s suitability for combat operations currently performed ably by its nine-times-cheaper predecessor, the A-10.”

This is utter gibberish which proves that Burro knows nothing about defense issues. One of the chief reasons why the cost of one F-35 and the total F-35 program cost have grown is that the order for F-35s has been significantly reduced from 2001 levels. Moreover, the F-35 type is, by all metrics, superior to A-10 aircraft, which are obsolete, large, unstealthy, and very expensive to maintain. Plus, there are almost no spare parts for A-10s at AMARC any longer – the spare parts supply has already been depleted.

Burro noted that

“Coburn is likely to find an ally in the White House, which has sought to rein in the Pentagon’s spending culture. Obama used significant political capital to kill the overrun-plagued F-22 fighter program, threatening to veto any defense spending bill that did not terminate it. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been encouraging military brass to reevaluate their decisions about what purchases are useful for today’s wars, including an emphasis on widely used — and less expensive — unmanned aircraft.”

The F-22 program was absolutely necessary to protect America from peer competitors (Russia and China, one of whom has already flown a 5th generation “Raptorski” fighterplane and the other is projected by the US intel community to field a domestic 5th generation fighterplane by 2018), and the chief cause of its cost overruns was the deep reduction of the number of planes ordered by the DOD: from 750 in 1989 to 187 in 2008. Every credible defense expert now recognizes that the decision to close the F-22 program was a foolish mistake.

“The Pentagon’s spending culture”? Since the defense budget equals only 3.65% of GDP, it’s hardly profligate. As for Robert Gates – he hasn’t been “encouraging military brass to reevaluate their decisions about what purchases are useful for today’s wars”, he has imposed draconian weapon program cuts on them.

For today’s wars as well as for future wars (which are more important than today’s conflicts), the US military needs a very wide range of weapons, ranging from MRAP vehicles and UAVs to high-tech fighterplanes, bombers and submarines. America is facing a very diverse range of enemies ranging from China and Russia, to North Korea, Iran Venezuela, Syria, Al Qaeda and the Taleban. To deter and defeat them, the US military needs a very wide range of weapons. In other words, America needs an “all-of-the-above” weapons purchase policy, just like it needs an “all-of-the-above” plan to wean itself off foreign oil.

UAVs have been oversold. UAVs cannot do anything other than ISR and limited ground attack. The claim that UAVs can replace fighterplanes, attack aircraft and bombers is a fantasy.

Burro praised President Obama for his planned further defense cuts:

“Over the medium term, the president’s budget forecasts a steep drop in defense spending as a share of GDP — from 4.9% in 2010 and 2011 back down to 3.5% in 2015. But projecting that is one thing, and getting there is another. Doing so will require a scaling back of our military operations abroad, and will require that Congress go along with the Administration’s plans to restrain cost growth for personnel and procurement.”

Firstly, it will not be a reduction “from 4.9% in 2010 and 2011 back down to 3.5% in 2015″, because defense spending, as I wrote earlier, is NOT at the level of 4.9% of GDP (it stands at a mere 3.65% of GDP), and even total military spending stands at only 4.4% of GDP. Secondly, that defense spending reduction is unjustified and will badly hurt the US military, which still hasn’t recovered from the 12-year-long procurement holiday (because, since FY1995, defense spending has always been below 4% of GDP). Thirdly, the Obama Admin doesn’t plan to “restrain cost growth for procurement”, it plans to arbitrarily close crucial weapon programs. Missile defense is rumored to be on the chopping block, and the Obama Admin is reportedly talking to the Russians about an agreement that will unilaterally curtail and reduce America’s missile defense.

Burro then noted:

“This assumes that a scaling back of foreign military operations is a good idea. Iraq and Afghanistan are budgeted as “contingency” operations, with the idea being that they reflect temporary spending and should not be included in the ongoing budget baseline. If we expect to have over a hundred thousand troops fighting a war or two abroad on an essentially permanent basis, we should be budgeting accordingly — and adjusting our tax code or other government programs to accommodate a permanently higher level of expenditure.”

I oppose the Iraqi war and the Afghan war, and the sooner they end, the better. However, even a military spending level of 4.4% of GDP (let alone a defense spending level of 3.65% of GDP) DO NOT require the American people to make any additional sacrifices, do not require a tax hike, and do not require “a permanently higher level of expenditure”. It merely requires that the REAL causes of America’s budget deficits and debt – namely, entitlement programs, bloated bureaucracies and welfare spending – are curtailed and reduced. But this must be done anyway, to balance the budget if for no other purpose.

Burro then wrote:

“But regardless of macro-level foreign policy decisions, Coburn’s letter gives reason to believe that we can find significant savings in military spending — though perhaps not as much as 1.4% of GDP — just by increasing accountability and making wiser spending choices.”

Other than ending the Iraqi war and the Afghan war – which should be done ASAP – no significant savings can be found in military spending. Certainly not savings to the tune of 1.4% of GDP. Certain savings could be made (on bases, personnel, socialized medicine, fuel costs, overhead, and O&M costs), and my Defense Reform Proposals Package proposes such savings. But all defense spending savings should be reinvested in the DOD. Moreover, no big savings that could significantly reduce the budget deficit can be made at the DOD.

To reduce and ultimately eliminate the budget deficit, the Congress needs to tackle the REAL causes (if you don’t tackle the causes, you cannot cure the patient): the failed “stimulus”, the TARP program, entitlements and welfare spending. FY2010 welfare spending stands at $888 bn, the TARP program cost taxpayers $700 bn, the cost of the stimulus is over $820 bn, and entitlement programs collectively cost $1.438 trillion per year. These are the real culprits. Defense spending is microscopic compared to these programs.

I’m proud that I’m the only person who has written a comprehensive DOD reform blueprint. Burro and Coburn have not done so. But given that defense spending equals only 3.65% of GDP, no significant budget-rescuing savings can be made at the DOD.

The article I replied to is published at the following address:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/06/08/sen_coburn_tackles_runaway_defense_spending_98501.html

Welfare spending is the LARGEST item in the federal budget.

<BODY>

Liberals and libertarians constantly decry defense spending as excessive and single it out for reductions. Yet, defense spending is microscopic compared to welfare spending.

Today, welfare spending is the largest item in the federal budget, standing at $888 bn out of the $3.6 trillion of the federal budget, that is, almost 25% of it.

The $888 bn sum represents ALL federal welfare programs, but doesn’t include non-welfare-programs (and therefore doesn’t include the SS program nor the Medicare program).

These 70 welfare programs are spread among 14 different federal agencies.

When Bush left office, annual federal welfare spending was already gargantuan – $522 bn – and was larger than Bush’s last defense budget ($512 bn in 2008 dollars, which is $517 bn in today’s dollars). But Obama significantly increased welfare spending – by $366 bn by FY2010, that is, more than 50%.

Already during FY2009, Obama increased welfare spending to $697 bn – by $255 bn, i.e. 48.85% – but now, welfare spending is even higher ($888 bn per annum).

The $366 bn welfare spending growth since January 2009 is the largest welfare spending increase ever. And yet, even though welfare spending is the largest cause of America’s budget deficits and America’s debt, Obama intends to continue to grow it. He plans to spend $1 trillion per annum on welfare programs by FY2014 and has set a plan for the federal, state and local governments to spend $10.3 trillion on welfare programs during the next several decades. Of that sum, $7.5 trillion is to be spent by the federal government itself, and $2.8 trillion by state governments as a result of federal diktats.

Historically:

1) Since LBJ began the “War on Poverty”, the federal government has spent $15.9 TRILLION (in 2009 dollars) on welfare programs. (By contrast, the combined cost of every war America has ever fought, including the Revolutionary War, was $6.4 trillion in 2009 dollars.)

2) Welfare spending has always been the fastest-growing part of federal spending. It has grown by 292% (yes, by 292 percent) since 1989, while the SS program and the Medicare program have grown by 213% since 1989.

3) In 1965, welfare spending was only 1.2% of GDP. Today, it accounts for 5.92% of GDP, while defense spending stands at a meagre 3.56% of GDP.

4) Obama’s FY2010 welfare spending ($888 bn) is larger than the entire sum spent on the Iraqi war than the Bush Admin ($622 bn).

5) Already as of FY2000, welfare spending cost over 4% of America’s GDP (while Clinton deliberately kept defense spending at 3% of GDP, the lowest level since FY1941). During the Bush era, welfare spending was always higher than ANY other item in the federal budget except the SS program.

6) As of 7th March 2001, federal welfare spending cost 4.4% of GDP.

7) The welfare spending level as of 2000 was $434 bn in 2000 dollars, that is, $549.88 bn in FY2010 dollars. This sum is larger than the defense budget of FY2000, the defense budget for the current fiscal year ($534 bn), and the proposed defense budget for FY2011 ($547 bn). Of course, the FY2010 welfare spending level is not $434 bn, it is $888 bn.

During the 1990s, there was a much-vaunted, but minor, welfare roll reform, which reformed only ONE of the 70 federal welfare programs, namely the “Aid for Families with Dependent Children” program (and that reform was abolished by Obama’s stimulus package). The other 69 federal welfare programs remain unreformed to this day. None of these 70 programs were ever abolished.

The US Census Bureau constantly lies, “Oh my goodness, we have 40 million poor people. We need to spend more money.” and claims that “poverty levels” are high. But it counts only 4% of welfare spending as income.

One of the reasons why welfare costs are so high is that there are many single mothers in the US. Almost all single mothers are dependent on welfare programs. These single mothers alone get welfare rolls worth $350 bn per year. Last year, 41% of all newborn American kids were born out of wedlock. (By comparison, as of 1963, 93% of newborn American kids were born to married parents.) Of course, 70% of unmarried single women voted for Obama, because they always vote for the guy who offers the biggest giveaways.

Another reason is the ethos. Before the 1960s, troubled individuals applied to their local government or to a private charity (e.g. the Salvation Army). A downtrodden individual had to explain how he got into trouble and how he intended to rescue himself from it. He was monitored to ensure that he wasn’t lying. Welfare program costs were relatively small. Today, with minimal qualifications, you can receive welfare rolls if you’re willing to bother to come to your mailbox once a month.

Before the 1960s, welfare programs were seldom talked about, because they weren’t compelling issues. They were small programs operated by local governments, and were available only to truly downtrodden individuals. Today, the welfare state is a national scandal. Obama has hiked welfare spending to $888 bn per year during just 16 months, and there is a permanent dependency class.

Yet, politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike) are refusing to reduce welfare spending. They seldom even talk about it. Instead, they are working to cut the meagre defense budget in order to maintain and expand federal welfare programs. Recently, a panel of pacifists convened by Congressman Barney Frank of MA called for $1 trillion defense spending cuts – which means a total abolition of the US military for 2 fiscal years. Obama proposes to reduce defense spending by FY2012 by $92 bn, to a meagre level of $457 bn, while he continues to increase welfare spending so that the welfare bums who voted him into office will vote for his Congressional allies.

Why do politicians continue to sabotage America’s defense while increasing (rather than reducing) welfare programs?

Because these programs have an entire dependency class that lives off them, depends on them (and therefore on the federal government, which wants as many people as possible to be dependent on it, so that it can manage them like puppets), and is not willing to surrender them. This dependency class will vote out of office any politician who proposes to reduce (or eliminate) welfare programs.

On the other hand, defense has very few defenders (myself an a few other people) and no constituency to defend it. That’s why for the last 57 years politicians have been shamelessly using the DOD as a piggy bank to finance their bloated, unjustified, unnecessary domestic programs while lying that the defense budget is “profligate”.

The sources:

http://blogs.examiner.net/blogs/teapartykccom/prez-spends-more-welfare-spent-entire-iraq-war

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Means-Tested-Welfare-Spending-Past-and-Future-Growth

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Married-Fathers-Americas-Greatest-Weapon-Against-Child-Poverty

<script type=”text/javascript”>
    var infolink_pid = 109683;
    var infolink_wsid = 0;
</script>
<script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://resources.infolinks.com/js/infolinks_main.js”&gt; </script>

</BODY>

Obama plans a huge defense budget cut for FY2012

Obama boasts that he has excepted the DOD from his spending freeze. And that’s true – but his five-year budget plan for the DOD is much worse than a spending freeze.

Obama’s Five Year Defense Plan, revealed by the Heritage Foundation (http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/01/the-obama-five-year-defense-bud…), indicates that Obama plans to REDUCE defense spending (i.e. the defense budget) by a whopping $92 billion (in real terms) during FY2012, from the planned FY2011 level ($549 bn). This means that during just one fiscal year, he will reduce defense spending (in real terms) by a whopping $92 bn.

This would be a reduction of 16.75% from the planned FY2011 spending level and would bring defense spending down to $457 billion – the lowest level of defense spending (in absolute terms) since FY2003! The FY2012 defense budget, planned by Obama to be $457 bn, would be smaller not than most Bush budgets, most Reagan budgets, and some McNamara budgets.

This deep reduction of defense spending – which Obama promised to his extremely liberal voters – is a gift to extremely liberal members of the Congress such as Barney Frank, the socialist Congressman from Massachusetts, who recently demanded a defense spending cut of $1 TRILLION, which would mean abolishing the entire US military, because the DOD’s current budget (the FY2010 budget) is only $534 bn.

Make no mistake: a $92 bn defense spending reduction will render the US military impotent. It cannot be compensated with a new BRAC round, or a reduction of bureaucracies, or a reduction of fuel costs. It will force the DOD to cut programs that are truly necessary – e.g. modernization programs. This means that the DOD will be forced to stop modernizing the military. This means a sharp reduction of the military and a sharp reduction of equipment stocks.

Please call (or email) your Congressman and your Senators, and political candidates from your district/state, and tell them that you will never vote for them if they approve Obama’ defense cuts.

The lies of the treasonous Slate magazine

The treasonous Slate magazine, by writing that “Another option is cutting discretionary, or nonentitlement, spending, which made up 35 percent of the 2010 budget. The Obama administration recently called for federal agencies to cut their budgets by 5 percent. It’s a drop in the ocean of overall spending—but the ocean is made of drops. If there’s going to be significant discretionary spending cut, it’s going to be on the military side. Military dollars are sacrosanct in Washington. But there is fat to be trimmed: A panel convened by Rep. Barney Frank recently recommended nearly $1 trillion in defense cuts.”
claimed that 1) If there is going to be a significant discretionary spending reduction, it’s going to be on the military side of the discretionary budget, i.e. if there will be a significant DSR, it will be a reduction of military spending; 2) it should be; 3) military spending is sacrosanct for Washington; 4) there is $1 trillion of fat to be trimmed at the DOD; 5) Frank’s recommended defense cuts are right.
All of these claims are false and treasonous.
Defense spending accounts for merely 37.5% of the FY2010 discretionary budget ($1421 bn). Total military spending accounts for a minority of the discretionary budget (46%). The majority of the discretionary budget is civilian spending. No significant discretionary spending reductions can be made by cutting military spending, because it accounts for only a minority of the discretionary budget. No significant savings can be made by cutting military spending.
There shouldn’t be and mustn’t be any defense spending cut.

Military dollars should be sacrosanct for Washington, but they aren’t. If they were, the federal government and the Congress would’ve never reduced defense spending.

There is very little fat to be trimmed at the DOD – only unneeded bases and unneeded bureaucrats. Only a few billion dollars per year. There is no $1 trillion waste (or any kind of fat even similar to that sum) to be trimmed at the DOD. Cutting defense spending by $1 trillion would mean abolishing the entire DOD budget and the entire US military for 2 fiscal years. Moreover, any defense spending reductions are treasonous and wrong, and must not be made.

Barney Frank and his panel of pacifists have falsified their report, because they are anti-military liberals. They are pacifists who believe that any kind of defense spending and defense program is bad. They want to weaken and ultimately eliminate the US military entirely and that’s why they proposed their $1 trillion defense spending cut.

They don’t want to balance the budget. They’re not concerned about budget deficits. They don’t want to save taxpayers money – they want that money to be reinvested in wasteful domestic programs such as welfare programs, the porkulus and the TARP program.

The DOD’s budget is NOT profligate

Recently, a fake conservative named Reihan Salam claimed that “[Like] a growing number of conservatives, including Sen. Tom Coburn, I’m concerned about profligacy in the defense budget.”

Firstly, he’s not a conservative, and neither is Tom Coburn. A genuine conservative doesn’t protest against a strong defense nor against a large defense budget (which is necessary to finance a strong defense).

Secondly, the DOD’s budget is NOT profligate. It amounts to a mere 3.65% of GDP, which, excluding the record-small defense budgets of the late 1990s, is the LOWEST level of defense spending since FY1948. In absolute terms, the $534 bn DOD budget for FY2010 (the current fiscal year) is smaller than the defense budgets of WW2 and of FY1985, FY1986, FY2005 and FY2006. As a percentage of the federal budget, defense spending constitutes only a minor proportion – 14.44% (18% if you include the GWOT supplemental). Whichever of these 2 figures you choose, this is the lowest proportion of the federal budget devoted to the US military since the post-WW2 drawndown of the military.

In other words, if you examine the FACTS, rather than the false claims of liberals like Reihan Salam, you’ll notice that today, American defense spending is miniscule.

During the 12 years of the Peace Dividend Era (1989-2001), defense spending was dramatically reduced to its lowest level since FY1941, to 3% of GDP and $369 bn (in 2010 dollars), and the people who did this didn’t even care about the consequences of such low defense spending. They imposed a “procurement holiday” on the military – a holiday that continues to this day. The relatively small increase of defense spending by Bush ended in FY2009 and since then, President Obama and SECDEF Gates have been reducing defense spending and weakening the military, ignoring the inevitable consequences of such low defense spending. Under Obama’s plans for the next 10 FYs, defense spending would DECLINE in real terms (although it would grow in inflation-unadjusted terms by a smidgen) and as a percentage of GDP (down to 3% of GDP, the Clinton-era level of defense spending). The US military lacks $100 bn to replace obsolete equipment, according to the Heritage Foundation. Plus, the HF’s analysts have written that

“Compare for a moment the size of the Obama stimulus package in 2009 — nearly $800 billion — with the more than $300 billion Gates has already cut from the Pentagon’s budget and the planned “flat-lining” of defense expenditures in the years ahead. … Defense spending has gone up. But never in our history have we fought wars of this magnitude as cheaply. Take, for example, the percentage of the federal budget allocated to defense: In 1994, two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Pentagon spending amounted to slightly more than 19 percent of the budget.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/big-squeeze

So any claim that the DOD’s budget is “profligate” is a blatant lie.

Are there a few unneeded items in the DOD’s budget? Yes – the Alternative Engine Program and additional VIP jets. All of these things have been imposed by the Congress on the Pentagon, however, even though the DOD didn’t request them and doesn’t want them.

As for the huge bureaucracy that the DOD is, I’m proud that I’m the ONLY person on Earth who has devised a comprehensive DOD reform blueprint, which would entail significantly reducing the DOD bureaucracy and would redirect 100% of the resulting savings to military equipment.