Military readiness is essential for peace
Mr. Robert L. Davis writes about his solutions to the deficit (“A plan to decrease debt,” Letters to the editor, Jan. 23 print edition). As a fellow veteran, I’d like to respectfully counter his points.
First, the facts. Politicians decide to declare war, not generals and military leaders. In fact, the most reluctant people to engage in war are the very military leaders that know the sacrifices and lives that will be lost in battle. In spite of the Hollywood stereotype of generals, they are the most likely to advise not to engage and prefer diplomatic solutions.
Shrinking the military budget will cause long-term damage to the very servicemen we want to support. Candidate Kennedy ran on a platform of increased defense spending in 1960 when over half the budget was consumed by the Department of Defense. Furthermore, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has been drastically reduced since it’s peak in the mid-‘60s, when the U.S. deployed over 30,000 weapons, and the USSR reached a peak of over 40,000 in the 1980s, to our present level of about 5,000 for the U.S. and 8,000 for Russia. Anyway measured, both nuclear stockpiles have been drastically reduced already.
I do agree with the writer about closing most military bases in other parts of the world, both to save money and to eliminate our political obligations.
Now the emotion: returning our military to the thinking of the 1970s will put our troops in more danger. The “hollow force” days saw drastic reductions in fuel, maintenance, spare parts, etc. These cutbacks directly affected the readiness and capability and safety of our servicemen. Fighter pilots were getting only 11-12 hours per month of practice; consequently, they were less prepared and combat ready than they should have been.
Most telling was the Carter administration’s attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages. The mission was complex and the military ultimately failed. Five Air Force and three Marines died because the military was asked to do what the commander-in-chief failed to prepare them for. Military readiness is essential to avoid wars; not an incentive to start them.
Lastly, if Mr. Davis is right in his thinking, let’s try it here in Ann Arbor. Cut the police force in half, and let’s see if crime drops,
Mr. Davis, there are bad people the world over, including Ann Arbor, and I want this country prepared - the military budget is less than 19 percent of the total budget. It should be discussed and on the table, but not to the extent you’d cut.
Wade A. Kellogg Chelsea
Comments
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, Feb 11, 2011 : 12:46 a.m.
OK. I get it. Because you cannot justify your opinion in terms of the Constitution's words, or in terms of the person most responsible for its creation, or in terms of the people who debated the document's strengths and weakness, you concede that it is not "self-evident" that national defense is the government's primary mission. So you have moved from "self-evident" to "logical." But the question remains. Can you justify that so-called "logic" in terms of the people who created that document. Answer: Nope. Indeed, were you to do just a LITTLE research into the subject, they feared the implications of a military establishment in the VERY same terms expressed by President Eisenhower (and, of course, he knew NOTHING about the subject) in his farewell address in 1960. The answer to your question is crystal clear: the founders believed that forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty ALL were important goals in the writing of the Constitution, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the founders believed that any one of those goals was more important than the others. And every one of your examples clearly fall under promoting the general welfare. But if you can provide and actual FACTS that get past what is logical to YOU and what is self-evident to YOU, please present them. Or are you one of those crazy liberals who think the Constitution is a living and breathing document whose meaning changes over time? If so, what the founders wrote really doesn't have much meaning, does it? Good Night and Good Luck
Diagenes
Thu, Feb 10, 2011 : 7:53 p.m.
Edward, Logic dictates that in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and insure domestic tranquility, you must first provide for the common defense. Look at the Bill of Rights; the first amendment outlines our rights as citizens, the second amendment gives us the power to protect those rights. Since our rights are God given as humans, it is up to Government and individuals to protect those rights with the use of force if need be. There for the primary function of the Federal government is national defense. It is the only organization capable of doing it. If defense is not the Feds primary function what is its primary function? Regulate the airline industry? Establish wind farms? Promote solar energy? Provide health care for poor people? All worthy functions to some people but not primary.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Feb 10, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.
"The truth is self evident." OK. I get it. The words that are actually WRITTEN in the Constitution mean less than what YOU think is self-evident. Because, as written, the Constitution establishes several co-equal goals, making no distinction among them as to their importance. Just wondering: is there anything in the Federalist Papers, or in the Anti-Federalist Papers, or in the Federalist Farmer's writings, or in James Madison's account of the Constitutional Convention that support this "self-evident" truth? Answer: No, there is not. Conclusion: Your "self-evident" truth is a work of fiction. Good Night and Good Luck
Diagenes
Thu, Feb 10, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
Edward, The truth is self evident. Without the Federal Government insuring our National defense we will be powerless to enjoy the rights and principles so eloquently expressed in our Constitution. Within the life time of millions of Americans our country has been threatened and attacked by Germany, Japan, and radical islamic terrorists. Unfortunately the Constitution could not stop the planes that crashed into the WTC. But our National defense team has stopped additional attacks on our soil.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, Feb 11, 2011 : 4:05 p.m.
Every piece of evidence there is suggests that if we were not as deeply engaged in Middle Easter affairs as we are, and that if we had not had military bases in the Islamic Holy Land, the attacks on 9/11 would not have happened. In other words, it was precisely our so-called "strength" that made us a target for attack. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Feb 10, 2011 : 3:08 a.m.
"The primary function of the Fedral Government is to provide for the national defense. Everything else is secondary." Really?? Can you tell me exactly where in the Constitution it says that? Here. Let me help: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Where does it say that providing for the national defense is the primary function of the federal government? I won't be holding my breath waiting for an answer. Good Night and Good Luck
Diagenes
Wed, Feb 9, 2011 : 3:04 a.m.
Beside projecting force our military can be a source of life saving for the people effected by the Indonesia tsuname or the Haiti earthquake. It was the AMERICAN military that had the equipment and training to deliver supplies within days to remote areas of Asia that were devistated by the tidal wave. It was the men and women of the US armed forces that picked people off roof tops in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Military hospital ships treated the injured people of Haiti after the earthquake. The US tax payers provide the equipment and men and women of goodwill volunteer to serve their fellow man in our military. The primary function of the Fedral Government is to provide for the national defense. Everything else is secondary. In the end the world is governed by the use of force. We all wish is was not so. But it is. I for one want the United States of America to be the country that takes the lead in world afairs. We have the moral capacity to be a force for good in the world, while defending ourselves and our allies.
Roadman
Tue, Feb 8, 2011 : 12:10 a.m.
Spiraling defese spending is bankrupting America. It is being financed by borrowing from our ostensible enemy- Red China.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 11:33 p.m.
Moonraker and sbbuilder, That is EXACTLY the point. Our taxpayers are shouldering the burden of defending the rest of the world. It is bankrupting us, distorting our economy, and creating enemies around the globe. That, apparently, is OK with you. So be it. Good Night and Good Luck
David Briegel
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 11:22 p.m.
Yes, just ask Pat Tillman .
sbbuilder
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 11:08 p.m.
Re Canada: When a country is practically surrounded on three sides by the world's most powerful military, it needn't spend so much on it's own defense. I'll now weigh in on many of the other points, but I will say that one clear benefit of large military expenditure, is that we have far, far, far fewer battlefield deaths. I'm sure the people on the front line really appreciate having the best weaponry around. Or, would you rather we spend their blood instead?
moonraker7
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 11:02 p.m.
Andy Jacobs and ghost, Your Canadian example must be some kind of joke. Canada takes full advantage of living under the umbrella of U.S. protection cost free.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Feb 7, 2011 : 12:19 a.m.
Joke's on you, bud. You, apparently, don't mind spending American treasure, human and otherwise, defending the Canadians, the British, the Norwegians, the Fins, the Swedes, the Danes, the French, the Poles, the French (need to defend them twice), the Germans, the Japanese, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, the Saudis, the Egyptians, . . . That's fine. It's bankrupting us and creating global enemies. But so long as you're OK with it . . . Good Night and Good Luck
David Briegel
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 11:09 p.m.
Yes, and Canadians get to live in a civilized country.
shepard145
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 9:31 p.m.
I agree with this opinion. Regarding Eisenhower: Like Soviet leaders, Eisenhower's opinions were severely effected by his experience during WWII and no longer apply today. National security is not a math formula that plugs and plays throughout history regardless of global diplomatic conditions. A fundamental mistake many amateurs make is to arrogantly believe that other nations are incapable of forming their doctrine independent of what the US does or does not do in their region. That simple idea is responsible for more world event confusion in government and mass media then you could possibly imagine. The key to global peace is for the US to remain a force for good and the world's only super power. The United States should maintain the dominant military and nuclear weapons forces that have kept the world relatively peaceful since the end of WWII. The United States might work harder to remind the world that we have protected, saved, liberated, financed and generally helped countless millions of people since WWII while asking little in return. That does not mean that we are immune from errors but certainly there has never been another nation like us throughout history. …and those who know the history of war, are best aware of the "peace through strength" benefit granted by nuclear weapons and the shocking theocratic ignorance demonstrated by our president in that regard.
Cash
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 10:44 p.m.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 8:53 p.m.
Mr. Landes needs to look up the definition of the word "mercenary." Whatever reason they exist, Blackwater (now Xe) and others of their ilk are the textbook definition. He also needs to look at the global status of maritime commerce. Other nations have merchant fleets. Many nations have fleets larger than ours. Most nations, to one degree or another, depend on overseas trade. None of them have 11 A/C battle groups. Yes, I understand their capabilities. I am suggesting that we need to adopt a less imperialistic, less aggressive foreign policy, one that does not require 11 of them. History tells us that the larger and more powerful an empire becomes, the more feared and loathed it is, and the less secure it therefore becomes, leading to it spending more on its military . . . and the vicious circle never ends except when the empire collapses, either from the economic costs it can no longer bear, or from the inevitable assault by the enemies it has made. Frequently both have happened simultaneously. The United States is not immune to this. Andy Jacobs' post above raises the key question: how is it that Canada can be peaceful and prosperous without spending $700 billion on "defense" every year and fighting two simultaneous wars? Canada's example should suggest to us that there is another way. The only question is whether or not we figure it out before it's too late to change course. Good Night and Good Luck
Cash
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 8:41 p.m.
Well, I'll stick the the words of the man who served as president and served as an honored General of World War II. The man knew government's inner working and budgeting from the most powerful position in the world; and as a five star general he knew from the highest position. His words are in my post above. The man saw the worst of war, felt the responsibility of sending men to their death, and came home and made choices about the future of our country with full knowledge of war. Then, he knew beyond a shadow of doubt what he was talking about. Talk is cheap. DDE LOWERED the military spending as president. Then he negotiated an end to the Korean War and expanded Social Security and began the Federal Highway system. _________________ "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." Five Star General and President...... Dwight David Eisenhower Those words coming from a military genius...take on a special meaning. Or we have learned NOTHING from history.
bedrog
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 7:14 p.m.
re 'jake c's comment to mine, which points out that the since worst of the terrorists we face are not conventional armies themselves ,why should we use a conventional military to do what the CIA /covert ops etc might do better: Thats a legitimate question and i actually do think that extra- conventional ( but still forceful) means are needed in this very real war....and that includes everything from drones , to targeted assassinations of known terrorists , to bribery , to the nicer infrastructure and 'hearts and mindsy' things. The latter are indeed preferable in an ideal world...but in the real one ( especially in the geographical areas most at issue) the 'fist' absolutely needs to be there alongside the 'carrot', or else many of your well- meaning NGO volunteers will wind up kidnapped or dead, and t their schools and hospitals will wind up torched ...along with the locals they benefitted. To pretend otherwise is itself being 'culturally insensitive' to the deeply entrenched 'might makes right', eye for an eye' bases of respect and behavior in these regions.**** A well-staffed military in uniform is often the best resource against this, although clearly not a panacea when the local cultures are themselves often so divided and hostile to each other , let alone "the foreigner". Obama 'gets' all this and doesn't deserve the rap he gets from the 'right' ( for being too 'weak") let alone from some of those on the ( his/ my!) 'left , who often seem like reality-adverse 'bliss ninnys'. *** for your reading pleasure some pearls from the heart of the regions of conflict: --"when you treat enemies like friends, one will distain you and the other will distrust you" ( Ibn Hazm, medieval arab philosopher) --"strong water can flow uphill" ( power can contravene the law of gravity).: Baluch proverb, sw pakistan --"if you don't know who farted, blame the powerless" ( same as above)
johnnya2
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 7:12 p.m.
The fact is the US military spending is NOT EFFICIENT. Total military spending for EVERY country in the world is $1.531 trillion. The United States accounts for 46.5% of that. The next closest country, China with only 6.6% of that total. The population of China is more than 4 times that of the US and spends far less than the US. China has not been attacked by radical Islamic groups. They are not involved in a war that has no hope for success. The US is acting like the British did in the revolutionary war. They are fighting a 21st century war based on 20th century ideas. The things you see in Egypt, Tunesia, Yemen etc were all accomplished on 21st century ideals (the internet is the tool for democracy). US soldiers invading and occupying countries is set up for failure. Finally, the country that "harbored" the terrorists from 911 were from Saudi Arabia. This country is the problem in the middle east, but has been let off the hook from a fear of no oil, or friendships with US politicos.
Stephen Landes
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.
Mr. Kellogg -- you are right on target. As for some of the other comments: We do not use "mercenaries", but we do hire contractors to do tasks that were formerly done by the military. The rationale is that we reduce the size of the standing military to what is required to actually do the fighting and direct support and hire people as needed to fill in the gaps. Overall the objective is to reduce the cost of the military and the real cost is personnel. We have an all volunteer force because that is what the elected government of our Country decided to do and our military does what it is told by civilian leadership. We have aircraft carriers because they can project power when and wherever needed without having to ask permission to base aircraft on foreign soil. We are a seafaring nation with trade and sea-going interests around the world. The Navy protects those interests whether they are threatened by pirates, North Koreans, Libyans, or others. It is very easy to sit back in quiet, leafy (well not at the moment) Ann Arbor and complain about the military, but we all must remember that the best use of a military force is NOT TO USE IT. That means it must be prepared, supplied, trained, competent, and feared, so that no one gets the idea that they can attack our interests without cost. By maintaining military readiness within the scope defined by civilian leadership we may just save some overly enthusiastic pirate's life.
Soothslayer
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.
And building a strong military, stockpilling equipment and amassing tremendous military based debt is exactly how Canada has been able to maintain peace all these years.. oh wait.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 8:24 p.m.
Andy--how DARE you apply logic to this issue!! Good Night and Good Luck
snoopdog
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.
Spot on Mr. Davis, great opinion piece. Good post "bedrog", from previous posts, it is obvious you have more "wordly" experience/knowledge than any of us that post here on A2.com. While you are far more liberal than I, I very much appreciate your rational and educated thinking. Others here just think with their heart and raw emotions.
bedrog
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 5:34 p.m.
Thanks snoopdog...as a retired anthropologist whose main research area was the pakistan afghanistan region , i do see current headlines through a lens that makes me more sympathetic to forceful engagement with the region than many of the more liberal commentators here with whom i may have things in common in other areas... But i also have become more 'centrist' and willing to listen to those to my 'right' than i onece was , largely because of the islamist /terrorist issue...so thanks, osama, for my newfound tolerance!!
bedrog
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.
While no fan of wasteful spending, or of gratuitous " imperialist" aggression, neither of those applies particularly to our current conflicts with the truly imperialist radical Islamists whose main centers of influence and recruitment are ultimately in the afghanistans,Irans, Yemens, Somalias etc...and maybe Egypt in times to come. That they have operative cells in the west , per 'topcats', does not mean the motherships of funding and instigation can be ignored militarily ( although other strategies should be employed too). oh yeah...and then theres n. korea. Soooo glad that David Briegel is not in charge of the policy making in all this ,( although his one-note ,retro-60's riff never gets tired, although I gave it up ---having once been a performer of it ...after 9/11 and since.).
Jake C
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 6:19 p.m.
But since Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist movements are not in any sense a "military", it makes little sense for the United States Armed Forces to be waging a nebulous, never-ending war against them. Yes, the military is trying its best to adapt to an urban, 21st-century type of warfare, but it's taking a heavy toll on both the military and the countries they're occupying. Instead, it makes sense to more heavily utilize agencies like the CIA that have more training in the subtlety and nuance needed to undermine such terrorist organizations from within, instead of just bombing entire tribal regions back to the stone age. You can kill men, but you can't kill ideas.
David Briegel
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 4:31 p.m.
If the Fortune 500 needs their "American Empire" protected, let them take their massive wealth accumulated over the last 30 years to hire Haliburton and purchase their own nuclear powered aircraft carrier groups and B1 bombers.
David Briegel
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 4:26 p.m.
Ghost and Cash are correct about Eisenhower who would roll over in his grave at what we have today. Eisenhower was only half right. Even he could not have envisioned his beloved nation befuddled by Perpetual War Profiteering.
David Briegel
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.
A point not yet mentioned is the fact that both Carter and W were told by their "more knowlegable, better informed and experienced" military leaders that the "missions" could be accomplished. In both instances they could not and would not have been achieved. The critics were right about Carter and Top Cat and others are correct about Afghanistan.
Top Cat
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.
The fact is that World War 2, the Korean War and the Cold War are long behind us, yet we are still over there. We borrow and then spend billions defending other countries so they can defer their defense expenditures to build factories and pay for their welfare states. We persist in a losing war in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were planned in Hamburg, Germany and within our own country. Yet we fail to defend our southern border from violence and illegal invasion. In the name of political correctness, we force our loyal citizens to endure humiliation at airports rather than profile and target those likely to harm us. Our military readiness needs to be focused on protecting America.
Ignatz
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 3:24 p.m.
I wouldn't mind the current high levels of funding we bestow upon our military, if it actually all went to the military. I'm weary of funding mercenaries just so the citizens don't actually have to feel the effects of our politicians' decisions. We're supposed to be at war since the tragedies of September 11, 2001. Since then we've not instituted a draft, to man our forces, nor have we increased taxes to fund it. These two things are hallmarks of a true war, declared or not. We don't even protect our supply line for the Afghan conflict. We pay warlords. We used mercenaries in the early days of the Iraq invasion and we still do. Let's fight our own wars and not leave it to those inclined to fight, need a job or are influenced by patriotic fervor. Then we can talk about funding.
Cash
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
Having never fought a war or been president, I listen to an expert : "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Dwight D. Eisenhower "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."Dwight D. Eisenhower "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
Ike's farewell address--a profound speech to which few pay attention. Nice post, Cash. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.
OK, first, for some budgetary education. The 2010 budget came to $3.4 Trillion. Of that, $1.7 Trillion was dedicated to mandatory spending programs that have their own source of revenue separate from the general budget (e.g., Social Security is funded by FICA taxes paid separately from income and corporate taxes). That left approximately $1.7 Trillion in the general budget for all other expenditures. From that $1.7 Trillion came other required spending, the largest of which was interest on the debt (more than $200 billion). Other mandatory programs totaled nearly $100 billion. This left roughly $1.4 Trillion in "discretionary" spending. The defense budget in 2010 totaled nearly $700 billion. In other words, the "defense" budget might be but 19% of the total federal budget, as Mr. Kellogg claims, but it is 50% of the discretionary budget, and growing. Moreover, we as a nation spend more money on our military than all other western nations combined. It is time to ask WHY that magnitude of expenditure is necessary. --Why do we have hundreds of bases around the world when the vast majority of other nations have no bases outside of their borders? --Why do we have 11 nuclear powered aircraft carrier battle groups when no nation has a single aircraft carrier that can match the capabilities of a Nimitz-class carrier? --Why do we insist on having force-projection capabilities that permit us to place Army brigades and divisions and Marine MEFs half a world away in a moment's notice when no one else on the planet has a similar capability? (Continued in 1st reply)
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
One last point: Mr. Kellogg blames the Carter administration defense budgets for the Iran Hostage rescue fiasco. He needs to read up on the subject. In 1988 Dan Bolger wrote a book entitled "Americans at War" that assessed the mostly minor conflicts in which the United States had engaged since the end of the Vietnam War. One of its chapters was on the Iran Hostage rescue mission. He concluded (as most subsequently did) that the mission failed largely due to the fact that each service had to have its piece of the pie—its slice of the glory—in the mission and that there was no joint headquarters, as there is today, overseeing training, preparation, and execution of operations such as these. In other words, the mission failed due to the military's shortcomings, not those of the Carter administration. And, for the record, at the time he wrote "Americans at War", Dan was a major in the United States Army and was teaching military history at the United States Military Academy. He subsequently has served numerous tours in Iraq, has been assigned as the assistant division commander of the 101st Airborne Division and as the commander of the 1st Cavalry Division. He currently is a lieutenant general (three stars) and is serving as the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. I think he know what he's talking about. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 2:50 p.m.
And the critical question: what national interests to these organizations assets serve? How, exactly, do they make our nation more secure? Isn't it possible that their existence and that US bases far from home create a sense of threat for other nations and peoples, a sense of threat that feeds their fear and loathing which itself feeds our sense of needing more military power? And the answer to that last question is an overwhelming "YES!!" If you think not—time to look in the mirror and remember our response in the 1980s when we discovered a brigade of Soviet infantry was stationed in Cuba. Or, if that history is too distant, to consider what our reaction might be to find 50,000 Chinese soldiers in Mexico. I'm certain we'd see their presence as a threat to our national security. In other words, it is time our foreign policy and our global presence undergo drastic reconsideration. Empires are, by definition, hated. No one likes an empire next door. Empires are threats. And let there be no mistake that we are an empire. It is time to end that global imperial presence. Not only will it reduce the costs of the military, but it likely will result in reduced anti-American tensions around the world. (Continued in 2nd reply)
EyeHeartA2
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 2:39 p.m.
You forgot the most important reason of all. According to last weeks piece: "I guarantee that if my suggestions are adopted we will not only not have to increase the debt limit, we will create a surplus. " The only problem with this factoid is that it is not true. For 2010 Spending $3456 Taxes $2162 Deficit $1294 Military Spending = $689 So even if spending is cut to zero, it wouldn't eliminate the deficit. By the way, our Canadian weekend censors saw fit to delete this comment last week. I'm hanging on to a copy this week for quick re-post.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Feb 6, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.
You are absolutely correct, eyeheart. The deficit in 2010 will still would have been about $600 billion had every penny been cut from the defense budget. And the reverse is true, as well--had every penny of discretionary spending outside of the defense budget been cut in 2010, the deficit would have been about $600 billion. The inescapable conclusion: The ONLY way to balance the budget is to cut spending across the board AND to raise taxes. Anyone, Republican or Democrat, who proclaims the budget can be balanced by cutting just "social" spending, or by cutting just defense spending only, or by just raising taxes, is either ignorant or is being disingenuous. There is no other possibility. Good Night and Good Luck