House rebuffs Pentagon on defense spending

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House is bucking the Pentagon and pressing ahead with a $601 billion defense authorization bill that spares planes, ships and military bases in an election-year nod to hometown interests.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, Republicans and Democrats were expected to vote overwhelmingly Thursday for the sweeping policy bill, which addresses issues ranging from the pervasive problem of sexual assault in the military to the future status of the nation’s nuclear weapons to a missile defense site on the East Coast.

Spending on the military is being cut after more than a decade of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and deficit-driven budget reductions are taking a toll.

Working within spending limits, the Pentagon proposed retiring decades-old aircraft programs, including the A-10 Warthog, a close air support plane, and the U-2 spy plane of the Cold War era. The Defense Department also sought congressional approval to close unnecessary military bases and slightly increase out-of-pocket costs for housing and health care.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/22/house_rebuffs_pentagon_on_defense_spending/

[TwilightGardener]

1. Couldn't see that coming. Defense spending has little to do with defense.

Fuckers are wasting our money to boost their political chances, even when the WH and Pentagon came up with a responsible budget.

[L0oniX]

2. The vampires are draining us dry as it is. It's reduculus to spend over 1/2 of the yearly bugget ...

on our killing and secret machine.

[bossy22]

5. Lets actually be truthful here- that is not the entire federal budget

only the discretionary part- which counts for about 50% of the TOTAL federal budget



17%- Doesn't seem as ridiculous now seeing as national defense is always high priority for a government

On edit: to head off any of the usual "well look how much we spend on education when compared to defense" comments- remember, most of the education spending is done at the state and local level. In all, the u.s. spends about 5.5% of GDP on education and only about 4% of GDP on defense

[L0oniX]

20. "Lets actually be truthful here" You're kidding right? FFS

[bossy22]

6. also...the defense budget isn't what is bleeding us dry

its medicare, social security, and other mandatory spending items

I will also add that this is only the case because our tax system is so screwed up. With a proper progressive tax system in place we could afford both our safety net and our large defense budget

[happyslug]

11. Medicare and Social Security are self sufficient in revenue....

There are some concerns as to Medicare, mostly to do the fact Congress forbids them to negotiate with drug companies over prices of drugs, but that part of Social Security Taxes that is to pay for Medicare is still bringing in more money then what is going out.

As to Social Security, well it is HEADED to the point where its spending will exceed what Social Security Taxes bring in, that is still at least a couple of years away. Furthermore. Social Security Taxes has been exceeding Social Security payments since the Reagan era Reform of Social Security. That excess in payments was "borrowed" by Congress for other purposes, on the premise that the excess was to be accumulated to off set any increase in expenditures when the baby boomers retired.

Thus the "problem" with Social Security is the unwillingness of Congress to Increase Income Taxes to pay back all of the Social Security Taxes Congress has borrowed since the 1980s. That unwillingness is why we have all the talk of Social Security going broke. Social Security will only go broke IF CONGRESS SAYS IT WILL NOT PAY BACK THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES COLLECTED SINCE THE 1980s.

Now, where was most of the Social Security Surplus spent on from the 1980s till now? Yes, Defense. You have been paying Social Security taxes so the Defense Department did not have to cut out any of its programs.

As to the other "MANDATORY" spending, that includes payment to Judges, Federal Prosecutors, the FBI, The DEA, The INS, etc. The biggest "Mandatory" spending program not covered by Social Security Taxes is the Veterans Administration. Do you want that cut out? Federal Parks and Recreation is pay for by the Federal taxes on Firearms, Ammunition and some out door equipment. Thus the Park Service is discretionary to a degree, it is also tends to be self sufficient if you look at the tax passed to help pay for their services.

Please remember the Postal Service is still PROFITABLE. It has been running a deficient do to a Congressional requirement that it prepay its retirement for the next 70 years (something no one else has EVER done), but if we ignore that problem, the Postal Service is still profitable and both the reserve set up to cover such pensions and any other surplus goes into the general fund. No taxes are used to subsidise the Postal Service.

I notice the graph includes Unemployment with Social Security. Please note Unemployment taxes pays for unemployment EXCEPT when Congress extends Unemployment during times of severe long term unemployment. That extension ended 12/31/2013 so we are back in the situation where unemployment taxes pays for unemployment.

[L0oniX]

21. Let's not let that get in the way of being "truthful".

see post 2

[Swede Atlanta]

17. Regardless of what % of the discretionary budget or the overall budget......

the Pentagon specifically wants several military programs such as the A-10 Warthog terminated. They are recommending closing additional bases.

But the politicians in Congress think they know better than the military they like to claim is superior to all others.

I recognize that politicians have often been looked to to "bring home the bacon". To that I say the representatives need to moderate that mindset. I absolutely agree that when spending is done and there are jobs to be had to support legitimate, needed government or military programs, systems, etc. Congressmen should represent their districts/states in advocating for those jobs. They should sell why their state has the best trained workers, the best infrastructure to handle the projects, etc.

It is also appropriate for them to advocate for spending on programs that would benefit their districts/states such as infrastructure projects, etc. but that should still be done with a critical eye to the overall benefits.

They should NEVER advocate for spending just to be spending if that spending can be done in their districts/states. The first question should be is the spending appropriate and necessary, who will benefit and if this leads to Yes then advocate for where that spending should take place.

We still spend more on military than I believe the next 10 or 12 countries COMBINED. Really? And the rest of the world, especially Europe, laugh at us. They enjoy their 6 week vacations, free education, universal healthcare, great public transportation, etc. and let us spend on the military that will ultimately be used to protect them. They love us for being stupid.

[Angleae]

19. The air force wants the A-10 terminated so they can have more money for F-35s.

The air force has been wanting this for a couple of decades now but the army would have none of it and threatened to take the planes and more importantly the operational budget for them.

[happyslug]

22. This "Fight" has been going on since the 1970s....

The Air Force KNOWS the Army wants the A-10 and that if the Air Force cancels the A-10 the Army will lobby Congress to get it back. The Army does the same maneuver when it comes to reducing port security around foregn Air Force Bases where security is done by the Army (The Air Force has its own Security forces, but in some bases that duty belongs to the Army for it was a former Army base or it is a joint Army-Air Force base and the Army's plans to reduce Security means just patrolling its area). The Navy gets into this also, for example the Air Base in the Azores, flys US Navy planes, security is provided by the Air Force (for the base had started out as an Air Force base during WWII) and the US Army runs the port (For it the days before WWII, the Army ran Coastal Artillery and thus could ran ports and during WWII Coastal Artillery units were transferred to the Azores to provide security and to run the port). The Azores Air Base is the first base the Army and Air Forces always offers to close, for the Navy needs it and will fight to keep it.

Before WWII and the raise the the Military-Industrial Complex, the Park Service was noted for similar maneuvers. Whenever Congress cut the Park Service's budget and told the Park Service to look at the National Parks to see which one they can close down to save money, the Park Service would close Washington's and Lincoln's Memorials in DC. Prior to the opening of Disney world in Florida in the 1970s, DC was the number one tourist destination in the US. When the Tourists hit the memorials, they would protest to their Congressmen and the Park Service would get more money. Congress stopped this by making special budgets for the DC parks. To get around this, under Reagan and his budget cutters, the Park Service no longer able to use the DC parks, decided the most effective "savings" of money would be to close the camping site in Shenandoah National Park nearest DC. It seems to have had similar affect but to a much lower degree then closing the DC parks had always done.

Just a comment about the budget maneuvers in DC. The Military tends to be the worse (or the best, depending on your point of view) at such maneuvers for they have the biggest budge to play around with.

[TRoN33]

3. Wait a minute, I thought Paul Ryan said there is no more money to spend on America????!?

[LittleGirl]

4. Ron Barber is the rep in AZ

where the A-10 is highly regarded as a vehicle for jobs in Tucson's air force base.
You should read his facebook page about all this.
He replaced Gabby Giffords after she retired her position and is up for reelection this fall.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. I know this is a minority consideration here; but ...

someone above mentioned the waste of funds in order to help their political careers ... Consider this: that funding "waste" translates directly into local jobs.

If the A10 were to be mothballed, the Tucson community would suffer a 973 million dollar economic hit (and that's a lot of well-paying jobs) ... what community would want that, even if one supports the end of all wars, everywhere?

https://www.google.com/#q=economic+cost+of+mothballing+the+A10

[LittleGirl]

8. I've only lived here

for a year so I don't know about how it will impact the base in town, but I want to know is all this military spending is keeping our schools and education system starved for funds. There are many issues that need to be addressed in this town and the base and Raytheon are the largest employers. I see Phoenix 100 miles north not depending on their bases (they closed a couple in the 90s) but that city didn't die. They found other opportunities for employers there, why not in this town?

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. First ...

Raytheon pays about $40 million in property taxes.

Secondly, Tucson is significantly smaller than Phoenix, with significantly fewer employers. So, of course DM and Raytheon will have an inflated effect.

But that said, Phoenix has Significant ties to the defense industry ... to the tune of about a billion dollars/year.

[Adrahil]

12. I don't mean to be callous, but we can;t build A-10's forever.

Personally, I rather see those skilled workers building solar farms, or equipment to support the next great push into space.

[LittleGirl]

13. see that's where I am with

all that military budget money. AZ and solar farms just makes common sense. And today is frightfully windy and not a wind mill in sight. smh
We Americans need to wise up about how we spend our money. We can't continue being a military force or the world's policeman. We have "right now" that needs to be addressed and the military funds need to be stopped and how.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. So would I ...

but the realist in me says that this transition will time take and it is the role of government to facilitate that transition; rather than, just cut off the funding.

[LittleGirl]

14. Raytheon = Military Budget Spending

And my comment below (this) explains where I believe the billions should be spent instead. With former military employees, Why YES!

[Lurks Often]

10. A mixed bag

We should certainly consolidate the number of military bases we have, both here and overseas.

However, the A-10 remains an extremely effective close air support (CAS) aircraft, far more effective then the F-16 or upcoming F-35. The U-2 also remains an effective and useful reconnaissance platform, especially for short notice missions when satellite coverage is inadequate. Drone technology has not quite yet caught up to the U-2 yet.

The fighter "mafia" that runs the Air Force has never wanted or liked the A-10, it's not fast or "sexy" enough for them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. True ...

and those in military procurement will tell you ... the F-16s and 35s are next to useless against 21st century challenges.

[Bandit]

15. $601 Billion is a fifty percent cut?????

I thought because of the sequester the Defense budget was to get a fifty percent cut...I guess the sequester only counts for food stamps and family aid..