they'll never be asked and they'll never tell you

[welshTerrier2]

There's a question that will never be asked at any of these debates and, with the exception of Gravel and Kucinich, the other candidates will never discuss:

Do you support deep cuts in the defense budget to pay for health care for all, better public education and real mass transit to help fight global warming?

Why is this question never asked? Why is it never addressed by the corporate candidates? Both Gravel and Kucinich raised the issue last night. The reaction? The other candidates fell all over themselves talking about education and health care. It's incredible that anyone believes a word that they say. Until we stop pouring money down the "defense" rat hole, nothing will change. And until we stop supporting corporate candidates, we will continue pouring money down the "defense" rat hole.

[MADem]

1. Because the truth is, like it or not, that most Americans will not vote for anyone who supports DEEP

cuts in the defense establishment.

You might not like that answer, but it's the truth. Most people believe that if we beat our swords into plowshares, the Chinese, the Russkies or some other bunch will come over here and steal our plowshares and beat us over the head with them.

I'm not saying that would happen, but it is what most Americans believe. They like a strong defense--not a bloated one, a strong one.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Problem is, it's bloated beyond all conceivable need

We spend more on defense than the rest of the developed world COMBINED.

You're right about the politics of this, but I'm sure you'll also agree that Ike would be rolling in his grave over what we've done.

[MADem]

26. I don't disagree with you at all. Ike warned us. The person who will be able to roll back the

bloated machine will have to invoke Ike in a very compelling fashion. It can't be framed as "weakening"--it will have to be framed as "lean and mean" and "efficient."

[welshTerrier2]

4. maybe and maybe not

i'm not arguing for doing away with "a strong defense". I'm arguing that spending the kind of money we're spending right now AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER PRIORITIES is making the country much WEAKER. i'm deeply concerned that our public education system is NOT globally competitive. I'm deeply concerned that our entire health care system is dragging the country down. i'm deeply concerned that the very real risks posed by global warming are greater than the risks that the US will be attacked by a foreign power with sophisticated weapons systems.

i'm often told what the American people will and won't support. you stated that most Americans will not vote for anyone who supports deep cuts in the defense establishment. you may or may not be right. but there's a gaping hole in your argument.

let's assume your assessment of the American people is correct. I have no idea if it is. Your argument belies an acceptance that to get elected you have to FOLLOW the American people instead of providing LEADERSHIP. regardless of how they might see the issue today, my position is that a bloated defense budget is killing the country. your argument creates a self-fulfilling prophecy or a Catch-22 if you prefer. To argue that most people wouldn't support deep cuts when even the so called "opposition party" is NOT even making the case is just a little bit crazy.

[MADem]

27. Look, I just responded to the question, which spoke of DEEP cuts.

America won't buy off on deep cuts. They just won't. You're reading into my answer with "assumptions" that go beyond that, and aren't supported at all by wheat I actually said. You're also morphing my "deep cuts" into a general "bloated military." They are two different things.

A bloated military, certainly, is a different story. But we aren't talking about that. The question went to deep cuts, and deep cuts, to me (and I have considerable military experience--decades of it, in fact) equate to the modern day equivalent of the military we had just before WW2--which wasn't much. It's a miracle, really, that we aren't all speaking German.

Bush was selected and kept the campaign percentages razor thin simply because he was a 'strong defense' bullshit artist who advocated all sorts of new defense toys on the one hand while lying through his teeth about eschewing foreign entanglements on the other. And then, he got us into a war, started feeding our young into the grinder, and he STILL kept it close enough in 04 to steal. Hell, even Kerry trotted out his Nam credentials in an effort to "out defense" the little Chickenhawk.

If America didn't like a strong defense sales pitch, they would reject it out of hand. But they DO like it, and they continue to buy it. The challenge is, as I said upthread, for someone to invoke Eisenhower in order to bring the entire DOD down to some level of sanity. You won't get any takers of consequence on a "Deep Cuts" platform, though. A "bloated military" platform? Maybe, with the right pitch, with Ike on your shoulder, and some egregious examples of waste. But not right now--not with troops still in the sandbox. That would be a suicide mission, a sure way to lose an election that we should be able to win, easily.

I won't even go into the corporate donors' involvement in all this. They own the media, and they also own the companies that make massive profits off of DOD and government contracts. It's all rather entangled, and thus, it's a challenge to rein those guys in--that's their payday you're messing with, after all.

[ThomCat]

16. I don't think that's true.

I think the corporate media, backed by their corporate advertisers, would go on the offensive and never stop with the attacks. They're the ones who would be rabidly against the cuts.

Most people would support cuts if we emphasised how much more we send into the pentagon than every other nation combined spends on defense. Most people would respond to the idea that most of that money is wasted on subsidizing the military industrial complex. Most people would would be outraged to find out how much of that money disappears and cannot be accounted for every year.

I think the voters would support slashing the pentagon budget. It's the people feeding out of that trough, and all of their vendors and partners, who would never support this.

[welshTerrier2]

17. very well said, ThomCat

it's absurd to have both major parties totally buying in to the defense budget and then pointing out that the American people wouldn't support cuts. let's get the policy right and spend some time EDUCATING the American people about this issue and then see how they feel. LEADERSHIP is not about taking polls; it's about knowing what the country needs, educating the American public, and leading the country in the right direction.

those supporting corporate candidates whose campaigns are run by marketing departments and focus groups and taste testers don't understand that ...

[MADem]

28. Again, those are not DEEP CUTS. Deep cuts are different from

"efficiencies" and "streamlining" and "spending only what we need for a strong defense." It's all in the framing, which I discuss in other posts upthread (the Ike invocation).

People really don't give a shit how much we spend on defense, so long as it is touted as LESS, "percentage-wise" than other countries--usually framed as 'countries who intend to do us harm' like those Russkies and those Chinese, and when we're desperate, we'll trot out a few Middle Eastern suspects, preferably with unverified WMD. You've heard the arguments before, during the Cold War: Well, WE only spend three percent, and those RUSSKIES spend twenty FIVE percent...blah, blah, blah.

If it were such a great idea, and everyone would jump on the bandwagon if ONLY someone would suggest it, someone would have DONE IT already. Well, actually, someone is doing it--and look at his poll numbers--Kucinich. What's he got now, one-one hundredth of one percent of the vote? If THAT??

There's no way to slash DOD. Trust me, I worked for them for a long-ass time; I know. The only way to do it is to sneak up on the bastards, and cut their funding surgically and incrementally, when they least expect it. You have to be aggressive, and you have to keep doing it a hunk at a time, over a period of several long, uncomfortable, morale-crushing years. But you don't do it all at once. You start chopping out whole programs wholesale, and you throw a huge chunk of this nation out of work--and that's not good for local and regional economies. See, all of the stuff they buy up in the Pentagon, it's made in America--they have to do that, by law, you see. And that stuff is made by Americans. Everything from aircraft engines to bombs to body bags to body armor to the little cloth nametags Johnny Soldier sews on his camo uni. You make deep cuts, and a massive percentage of American workers suddenly find themselves UNEMPLOYED. See how well THAT would go over with those folks.

Most people don't realize, though, that the biggest chunk of the Pentagon budget isn't bombs and bullets and high tech equipment and planes and ships--it's PEOPLE. Personnel expenditures, from pay to medical to retirement benefits to PCS costs to family support costs are the biggest chunk of that DOD budget. And one way to cut that budget (Cheney will tell you--he started that engine up when HE was SECDEF) is to fire up a bigass military drawdown. And once we're out of Iraq, and IF we ever get out of the Stan, that's going to be interesting to see....

[ThomCat]

30. I AM talking about deep cuts. I think the public could be

easily brought around to cut 20-30% of the Pentagon budget in a short period of time. And I think that might be just a start.

"If it were such a great idea, and everyone would jump on the bandwagon if ONLY someone would suggest it..."
That is absolutely NOT what I said. I said that people don't currently jump on it because the media and corporate america don't allow the idea to be treated seriously.

The biggest chunks of the pentagon budget is NOT people. It's probably contracts and payments to vendors. That's not even counting all the black budgets that are never accounted for.

Your post seems to be very defeatist. "nothing will work, nobody will care, everyone is stupid." There many be reason for pessimism, but look at the public pressure that hit the pentagon in the early 80s when it was discovered that they were paying $400 for toilet seats and $60 for screws. Even Reagan was forced to push for accountability. If that kind of pressure could be sustained, and the media could be browbeaten into taking it seriously, then we could make some significant changes.

[MADem]

32. Well, I think you're wrong. So we'll just have to differ.

And I speak from experience. I spent a good deal of time doing the very work that a drawdown entails. It's hard work, too--real "hard work" as opposed to Bush "hard work."

If you do it too quickly, you will fuck America sideways. People will be thrown out of work, large businesses will fold, entire regions will suffer, and there will be an impact to our national economy that will affect every American and reverberate overseas. You might not like that, but that's not being "negative" or "defeatist"--it's trading in simple facts, as opposed to wishes. ( As a side note, I do find it amazing how so many people want to tell me not only what I think, but how I feel.)

I would also ask you to please read for comprehension. There isn't a soul on earth who wouldn't support "efficiencies" such as stopping the twenty-five-plus year old (I believe it was six hundred and forty dollars) toilet seat fiasco that you throw out there to make some sort of point. We did do a drawdown AFTER the toilet seat, the claw hammer and the coffee maker, you know. Cheney came up with the plan, and Clinton took the hit for it.

The topic was DEEP cuts. Deep cuts aren't just shavings around the margins like your toilet seat example, you're talking complete cancellation of large-scale weapons programs, vertical cuts that are substantial, and an entire retooling of the organizational structure, well in excess of what we did between 1988 and 2000.

And you don't seem to have any understanding of who "the media" is, I'm afraid. Let's look at MSNBC, NBC, CNBC--the whole NBC-Universal "family." You know, the home of Olbermann. Who owns them?

Why General Electric does.

And who's a top ten Pentagon contractor, earning BILLIONS from the Pentagon (far more than they get from their piddling little media enterprise)?

Why, General Electric: We Bring Good Wars To Life.

I am not saying that the DOD can't be drawn down incrementally. You've got to wean those GEs and General Motors and Halliburtons and Boeings off of the Pentagon teat. It takes time to do that. It takes time for the affected businesses to retool and refocus. That doesn't happen overnight, even if you want it to. Assuming you can convince the military-industrial-corporate-media complex that peace is a good thing, they'll need time (and they'll take it, too), in order to transition without a shock to the economy and the workforce.

But the OP talked about DEEP cuts. Budget slashes.

Deep cuts just ain't gonna happen. And that's not defeatist, that is realistic. There's a difference.

[ThomCat]

34. You keep assuming that other people don't know anything.

I know very well who the media is. I work for one of the worlds largest advertising agencies. :eyes:

We will have to disagree, but it's not because you know things that nobody else is smart enough or informed enough to understand.

[MADem]

35. There you go again. Telling me what I think and what I know.

And gee, what I assume, too!!!

The purpose of a discussion board is to "discuss" issues. Not for me to agree with your half-baked ideas, else you'll take your ball and go home.

I've responded to your points maturely, and you come back with that rather childish response.

Fine, whatever. Have a nice life.

[ThomCat]

36. You're the one who keeps saying things like

"And you don't seem to have any understanding..."

:eyes:

I think we're done here.

[MADem]

37. Yes, I think we are. nt

[petunia.here]

18. Maybe if we started calling it what it really is

an offensive, first strike budget more sheeple would get it.:shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

20. influencing public opinion

i think your point is valid but I think a more effective approach is to focus the nation on the traditional "guns or butter" argument. we are destroying this country's infrastructure and that is making us weaker, not stronger.

we need to make it clear that excessive spending in one area weakens all the other areas. how important is it to have a new bomber that can protect you if you can't get health care for a life threatening illness? what good is our high tech weapons arsenal when other countries are turning out more scientists? if we don't start spending more on education, we will not be able to compete either militarily or in business against the rest of the world. if we do not spend billions and billions on real mass transit, the ravages of global warming will likely destroy this country and the rest of the world. money for that kind of expensive mass transit project could only come from the bloated defense budget.

those are the kinds of arguments I think we need to be making. we need to awaken Americans NOT to the idea that defense, and even to a degree offense isn't important, but rather to the fact that we need to choose better priorities for national spending.

[petunia.here]

25. I shouldn't have been so snarky

I really can have more productive thoughts. :)

I completely agree with what you're saying. In fact "most people" I know would agree.

[Totally Committed]

2. "Do you support deep cuts in the defense budget to pay for health care for all, ...

... better public education and real mass transit to help fight global warming?

Yes. A thousand times yes.

TC

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Amen!

[Lasher]

5. Ike was right.

For the same reason none but Kucinich dares propose single provider universal healthcare. They're afraid of the corporations that have a stranglehold on the country. Here's a video clip by Andy Rooney:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/30/60minutes/main892398.shtml

And it is also true what MADem said upthread; that most Americans are opposed to big defense spending cuts.

[Karenina]

31. Indeed, Ike was right. Butter or GUNS.

[slipslidingaway]

6. K&R for another topic that will not be discussed n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

7. The American people have been told 2 things all their lives: The first

is to be afraid of anybody different from themselves. Be afraid of any political, civil system that isn't based on full-blown, unregulated capitalism. Be afraid of anyone who doesn't look like you and be sure to be afraid of anyone who worships another god.

Second, they've been told that the USA is number ONE. We are a superior people with a superior system and so we need a superior military to keep out all those evil ones. Little do most realize, that the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on our beloved military is to our attempt to dominate the world. Nor do most know that we are the world's largest supplier of weapons and the cause of most conflicts.

That's why most Americans will not support major cuts in military spending.

[ieoeja]

8. You're 60 years out of date.

40 years of "we must have a bigger military than the commies" left its mark on the American psyche. You don't erase 40 years of thinking overnight. The first president Bush actually made the attempt saying it was time we collected the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War. He then initiated a program of base closings which continued through the Clinton administration (though Clinton tried countering the "liberals are weak on defense" myth by slightly increasing the number of active duty personnel).

The base closings are, of course, highly political. A full third of the county where I grew up in southern Indiana is a navy base. It is also far and away the largest employer in the area. Closing that suddenly would devastate the local economy. Fortunately it is largely a technical site which (1) keeps it open longer than many bases and (2) can be shifted to non-military production.

That last is part of the reason for privatizing portions of the military. It isn't *all* about connected individuals ripping off the taxpayer. That only makes up about 90% of it, let's say.

[welshTerrier2]

9. i don't accept the politics you're citing

if we accept the premise that the defense budget is starving many other badly needed programs, and some do NOT, then we have to EDUCATE the public about the need to alter the current funding balance.

if the argument is made that the American people will NOT accept defense cuts because they believe we have to be "safe", we need to start making the case that we are NOT safe when we cannot afford health care; we are NOT safe when we are falling behind the rest of the world in education; we are NOT safe if we continue to spend so much of our national budget on defense instead of on badly needed mass transit to help fight global warming.

the point is that where the American people may or may not be at today is NOT the point. the point is that we have to make some critically needed changes and those who put country ahead of party or policy ahead of polities need to show some LEADERSHIP. the American people had no interest in going to the moon either ... until someone challenged them to do it ...

[MADem]

29. And the greatest irony of all, was that the architect of that "Peace Dividend" drawdown

was none other than Darth Dick CHENEY!!!!!!!!

It wasn't just BRAC (Base Closure and Realignment), and the subsequent loss of civilian jobs, there was also the concurrent massive military personnel drawdown.

As you note, the closure of an installation can have a devastating impact on a town, a county, in some cases an entire region. And it's not always easy to convert those bases to civilian use. Why? Because some of them are contaminated with all kinds of shit, from back in the Cold War Days. If you've got a runway, odds are good you've got trouble and a million dollar cleanup job. If you've got a weapons storage facility of any consequence, well, stand by for headaches. In most cases, the towns are wisely refusing to accept turnover of any properties unless it's been cleaned up properly.

Another reason for privitizing the military is that it's actually cheaper in the long run. If you pay a guy for twenty years, and then pay him retirement for thirty or fifty more, you're shelling out a lot of money. By contrast, even if you hire a guy at five times the salary of the military person, and only keep him on the books for a year or five, with NO retirement benefits, you've still saved a bundle. And when you no longer need that person's services, you just toss them over the side. No "drawdown"--no "temporary early retirement"--not even any severance pay. "So long, sucker!" is the phrase of the day, with an exhortation for the hapless employee not to let the door hit him...

[Adelante]

10. Yes, I do

"Do you support deep cuts in the defense budget to pay for health care for all, better public education and real mass transit to help fight global warming?"

Sensibly applied deep cuts. It would help if someone who knew where the money caches are buried and understood how to get at them were in a position to do this. As Donna Zen has often said, "Only a General can go to the Pentagon."

In 2004 Clark promised a 25% cut in defense spending to be applied to domestic programs. It's one of the reasons I remain deeply interested in a Clark candidacy if it can happen. It would at least bring this to the forefront of the primaries discussion.

[welshTerrier2]

12. Clark: "25% cut in defense spending for domestic programs"

that's very impressive to me. any chance you have a link to where he discusses this issue?

I've never heard that statement before but it meets one of my most critical criteria.

[Adelante]

13. I'd have to look

It was part of his regular platform in 2003-2004. I will find it and get back to you. I have to run out for a while first, though.

[welshTerrier2]

14. thanks so much, WesDem

mucho appreciato!! no hurry at all but it would be very helpful.

[Donna Zen]

47. WT2

I left a note attached to WesDem's post.

[Donna Zen]

46. A radio interview

While Clark has often talked about cleaning up waste fraud and abuse as being the place to start looking for money, he did mention the Pentagon specifically during a radio interview. I remember the day very clearly. I was in the kitchen and casually listening and doing kitchen things. The interviewer guy asked him where would he find this money. General Clark said that he would start with the budget he knows best at Pentagon. And then he said, "Or as I like to call it: the make-want budget."

I don't remember the %, but I'm not sure that is important. The make-want budget soaks up so much money that any president unwilling or unable to unpack the numbers, will never be able to find the money needed for domestic spending. If Clark had been elected president, I just figured that like all presidents, he'd want to look good. That means that one needs to find the money for the stuff you promised. So yes, he would have unpacked it.

In his book Winning Modern Wars he writes about how the procurement process currently works. The MIC has learned to spread the manufacturing process around to various districts. Example: When the Pentagon asks for a new plane...actually an improvement...the congress critters from the old plane's manufacturing districts ban together and throw a fit. The critters from the newly proposed plane's districts also start to lobby. There are promises made to yet other critters to vote for this or that if they help them either get the new plane or keep the old plane. Clark said that in the end the funding for the old plane is doubled and the new plane is approved. Now the military doesn't really need the old plane, but knowing how the process works, they just take whatever the congress sausage machine grinds out. Oh, and defense dollars just keep going up.

Of course it needs to stop, but what names on the list of declared candidates would ever mess with this broken system. It means that a president must have the credentials to take the bully pulpit and tell America why he/she disagrees with keeping the old junk, or refusing some new junk. (Clark said the the Air Force gets the most toys.)

The Pentagon is now exempt from the audit required from other agencies. There is no audit. (Just thought that needed repeating.)

During the 04 online wars, I always thought that one of dumbest arguments against Clark was the charge that he would shift spending to the military. Why? He's knows where all the bodies are buried. Besides, it's the politicians who don't want any dust up about the military or the troops who will be shoveling the money toward defense. I am very serious: it takes a General to go knock, knock, knocking on the Pentagon door.

Note: When Eisenhower first coined his phrase he crossed out a word. He originally wrote: The Military Political Industrial Complex. He too knew how the system worked.

The transcript may or may not exist. It's been a while. If it is around I would look for a radio interview that he did before NH.

[welshTerrier2]

15. did no one notice?

all the comments thus far have either supported my point of view on military spending or argued that the American people aren't ready for "deep cuts in the military budget."

what's especially interesting to me is that no one commented on the first part of the subject line which was: "they'll never be asked". you might want to ponder that just a wee bit ...

[petunia.here]

19. I think it's a myth.

Just like "most people" don't want impeachment. Or "most people" don't want to get the hell out of Iraq. Or "most people" don't give a fig about global warming. We could go on and on here. Sad, huh?

If you poll us or look at our local and state governments a different story is crystal clear.
Big Media is in bed with Big Guns. All we have to do is look back and remember the vast quantities of spooge that dripped down our television screens in the lead up to the occupation of Iraq.

[welshTerrier2]

22. "Big Media is in bed with Big Guns"

i just love that one ... you said it much better than I did ...

[Totally Committed]

21. Sorry... I just took it as a "given"...

Of course they won't be asked. Not ever.

This country is run by corporations who make a profit from war. They own the media that controls what is asked, answered and "heard". They own most of the politicians who run for office.

What's to hear? -- Am I missing something?

TC

[welshTerrier2]

23. on the Gravel and Kucinich thing

it's amazing to me that they're even being allowed on the stage in these "debates" ... it really is ... I wonder whether they'll find a way to exclude them at some point ... maybe some network will invite only the "viable" candidates so that the voters' time is not "wasted" ... we'll see ...

and even when they appear, the forum provided allows the corporate candidates to completely ignore the progressive candidates and the points they raise. if we were having real debates in a real democracy, that would never happen. the moderator should not let the corpo candidates spew their press releases without being challenged. the moderator, when a new idea is raised, should require all candidates to address it and not let them off the hook until they do.

yeah, that will happen ...

[Totally Committed]

24. Think about it...

Can you see ANYONE trying to keep either of those two off of a stage and succeeding? They are pit-bulls!

I dunno...... Dennis is little, but we KNOW he's scrappy and has a blessedly loud mouth, and Gravel is just that crazy old guy in line at the post office -- do you really want to piss him off? :rofl:

TC

[MADem]

33. Well, that's a given. The media isn't going to bite the hand that feeds them.

They're all owned by defense industries.

[PBass]

38. That's a LOSE-LOSE question for any Democratic candidate.

Voters want a strong national defense. There is no way to answer that question without losing support from one major faction of voters, or another. If you say you want Defense budget cuts, you reinforce the stereotype that Dems are weak on defense (and lose votes). If you say "no cuts" to the Defense budget, you alienate people who think that military spending is out of proportion (and lose votes). And it's not a smart or proper approach to starting a national dialogue about defense spending (as part of a one-minute answer in a campaign debate). It's a bumper sticker approach to a much more complicated and important topic.

Here's another LOSE-LOSE question that you should be glad that nobody has to answer:

"Would you be willing to use nuclear weapons in response to an attack on America?"

A candidate cannot answer that question either way, without alienating a huge segment of the voters. Now if your desire is to see Democratic candidates lose support from Democratic voters, then you're right... it sucks that nobody is asking these questions in a TV debate.

[welshTerrier2]

39. here's some Lose-Lose for you

one LL strategy is to continue to allow the military-industrial-Congressional complex (micc) to run the country and continue electing candidates heavily dependent on micc for their financial support

another LL strategy is to give so much money to good old micc that our schools stink, our health care stinks, our infrastructure stinks, our foreign policy stinks and our environmental policies stink.

here's the kicker to your "putting the politics ahead of what the country needs" approach: my belief is that if Democrats ever starting standing up to these anti-democratic demons and starting putting the interests of the American people ahead of the "special interests", we would realize huge political gains. for all your talk, keep in mind that a recent survey gave the Democratically controlled Congress a great big whopping 13% approval rating. it might just be a good idea to try a new approach. your way ain't working. you might beat republicans for an election or two because bush has been such a colossal failure, but peddling the status quo will get old in a hurry.

btw, just to be clear, i think this country should pay for all the defense it really needs. do we really need 737 military bases overseas? did we really, really, really need to invade Iraq? are we expecting some high-tech adversary to attack or invade the US anytime soon? good defense does not mean bankrupting the country to pad the bottom lines of the greedy micc. the micc is a cancer on US priorities.

I think we've created a totally disproportionate and insane allocation of available resources. instead of really protecting the American people with quality health care for all, we offer corporate welfare to the micc using hundreds of billions of dollars in no bid contracts. is pointing that out what you think might cost the Democrats votes? we have almost 50 MILLION people including children with no health care coverage let alone actual health care. medical expenses are the number one cause of bankruptcy filings in the US. would it hurt the Democrats to make that case? i don't think so. instead of the insanity of building missiles and bombers to protect us from "terrorists" (which certainly do exist), maybe a more benevolent foreign policy and better world image might be a better approach. do you think that would turn off voters? I don't. And what about education? Almost every town in America is strapped with awful choices about whether to protect people from higher taxes or pay for new schools and teachers. it's obscene that such choices are forced on the American people. Do you think cutting wasteful defense spending and transferring some of those funds to local needs would hurt the Democratic Party? I don't. And how about global warming. The last energy bill the Democrats just pushed through, while a step in the right direction, was a joke. We need major reductions in auto use. Some global warming experts are saying we may have to permanently evacuate coastal cities. This deserves a wee bit of attention, don't you think? If we're going to try to seriously address the problem and head off a catastrophe before it's too late, we have to do much, much more than what has been proposed so far. My proposal is to build mass transit systems wherever possible and force reductions in auto use. It's not nice; it might not be politically popular; we might have to evacuate our cities otherwise. We might destroy some of our key agricultural areas. We might not have any fish left in the oceans. Get the idea? We have no funds to build mass transit everywhere in the country. Unless we balance these needs with our defense needs. We've gone way overboard on defense and some of the clowns who are currently running for office are falling all over themselves to convince everyone they're tough on defense. We need real leadership on these issues; not political pandering. The country and all of our futures hang in the balance.

That's the Lose-Lose that concerns me. Not the one you pointed out.

[Prophet 451]

40. Because voters won't go for it

The fact is, Americans seem to believe that they need a ridiculously overpowered military to keep them safe.

It's unnecessary of course. As much as they rant about "throwing money at the problem", they never apply that thinking to the military, they just assume that the more spent, the better. Truth is, you could halve teh defence budget without any real difference in results.

[welshTerrier2]

42. because they are not hearing the arguments

consider these two questions ...

1. Do you think it's wise to make deep cuts in the defense budget at a time when terrorirst groups, who have already successfully attacked this country, are growing rapidly in size and strength? Also, consider that several states from the former Soviet Union appear very hostile to the US and the Chinese have started developing very sophisticated weaponry.

2. Do you think that there is room to make deep cuts in the defense budget as long as we ensure that we provide for all the defense the country could possibly need? Also consider that the strength of the country is determined by more than just defense weaponry. America has numerous domestic problems that are threatening the well-being of the American people. These include failing to provide adequate health care to almost 100 million Americans. That's one-third of our population. Our education systems are falling way behind our global competitors putting the country at risk. And global warming threatens not just the US but the entire planet. The most effective measures we can take to address this, until new technologies can be developed and deployed, are to make a national commitment to developing a real system of mass transit that would be funded by re-prioritizing expenditures from the defense budget.

My response to the "voters won't go for it" argument is that voters are only hearing argument number one. The response to this has been "well, what about Kucinich? He's saying similar things." Something like one-third of Americans can't even name the vice-president; they have not spent much time listening to policy speeches by Dennis Kucinich. The propaganda for the military-industrial-Congressional complex has been overwhelming for many, many years. "If you don't support every increase in defense spending, you're an irresponsible McGovernite who doesn't care about protecting the country." The reality is, the obscene amounts we are spending on defense is bloated with corporate welfare and it is being spent at the expense of many important national priorities. The point is NOT whether the American people would support deep cuts in defense today; the point is to educate them and to lead the country in the right direction.

your argument is good for followers. your argument focuses on politics. my argument is calling for leadership. by definition, leadership implies CHANGE. we cannot continue bankrupting the nation with so much wasteful defense spending. we must change. and as far as the political impact, I think a leader with the courage and vision to lead the country in the right direction and set the right priorities will be very well rewarded politically. those who play it safe might win an election or two but, because they offer little more than the status quo and no sustaining vision, their success will be transitory and the balance of power will shift back and forth between republicans and Democrats. I think we can do better.

[PBass]

48. We are looking at this differently...

We both think that military spending is too high.... Way too high, actually.

But apparently you think "Cut Military Spending" should be a central plank in the Democratic campaign, and I don't.

You also seem to believe that the general public can be educated on this issue, during the course of a presidential campaign, and that a campaign is the proper time and place to do it. I do not, I believe that issue would require the bully pulpit (as well as a clear majority) and IMO a candidate will never get to the bully pulpit by making military cuts one of his central talking points.... certainly not in the current "climate".

Maybe you think that a candidate (or Party) talking about "military cuts" during the context of a campaign would successfully change the poltical climate for that issue, and a national change in voter attitude would happen in time for an election. I don't. I think change will take more time and effort, and it needs a different context than election season. We are talking about a big change in peoples' attitudes, IMO.

Maybe a good analogy here would be to compare this issue to how Republican candidates feel about privitizing Social Security. How come none of the GOP candidates will make that a part of their campaign platform? Because talking about changing SS during a campaign is a losing proposition at the polls.

[welshTerrier2]

49. Catch-22

the process you're defining, if i'm understanding you correctly, would need to wait until after we elect a Democratic president who could then use the bully pulpit and the power that goes with it to push a new agenda. your primary argument for not calling for cuts in defense during the campaign is that it would be politically risky. have I more or less captured your essential argument correctly?

I see huge problems with this approach.

First, as voters, how do we elect someone who won't tell us they're in favor of these budget cuts who then can be counted on, once in office, to actually fight for them. Are you suggesting we deceive the voters by nominating a candidate who will say one thing and then do another? That's kind of crazy, isn't it? If the military-industrial complex pours millions and millions of dollars into a candidate's campaign who supports their agenda and that candidate wins, with our support yet, what mechanism do you hope to trigger once they win to have them magically flip-flop and become a defense budget cutter?

Second, during the campaign itself, you're presumably suggesting that our candidate at a minimum not make any case for defense cuts and perhaps even focus on the substantial risks we face from foreign powers and terrorists and either directly call for more military spending or at least lay the foundation why more spending might be needed. The "political" argument you propose thus tells us to endorse someone who is campaigning against the very positions we hold. That's kind of crazy too, isn't it?

And finally, this business of putting off until tomorrow what you can do today asks the very disturbing question: Is it ever a good time? If you really believe calling for cuts is a political loser, and you are correct that I don't believe it is, when is the time to take the political hit? We elect a new president. Let's say we either do or do not control the Congress. Given your perspective of the political impact, take the current Congress as an example, the Democrats are not going to want to have their first six months in office to scream "weak on defense". They aren't going to want to be seen as not adhering to their campaign promises the way the current Congress is viewed largely because they caved in on the Iraq vote. You can't run on "strong defense" and then turn right around and vote for cuts in defense unless you've previously made the case that spending on defense does not equate to "strong defense".

So, perhaps pushing deep cuts right after an election that did not contain cuts as a plank is not politically viable either. Perhaps you would suggest waiting a bit longer. Well, no sooner do you know it but the next campaign is underway. And all the original arguments you've made come back into play.

Using your arguments, I don't believe you can get there from here. I think we've become so fearful of bold new ideas that we equate calling for change as political risk. My message, regardless of the politics, is that the country is in desperate need of leadership and that we have no choice but to change. I do believe, as you suggested, that a candidate with the gravitas and vision and skill who is willing to talk straight to the American people and explain where this country needs to go will awaken us from our long dark nightmare mired in the status quo and will be politically rewarded for doing so.

[Totally Committed]

43. If they never hear thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments for it,

how could they ever make an informed decision? Right now, their decisions are all visceral ones, spurred by a government and a media who are conspiring to keep them terrified.

Then, when there isn't enough "terrorism" to keep us occupied, there is the "infotainment" they call our news today shoving their latest (blonde, female) "darlings" in our faces... Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan.

How could we possibly even NOTICE a thing as complex and minute as the Pentagon budget? They make sure most people don't even CARE about it.

If that changed, and people knew the money wasted there every year that could go for peaceful humanitarian programs that would aid Americans, and maybe even help give them Universal Health Care, more people would be for it than against it. I'd bet my last dollar on it.

TC

[rucky]

41. Our "defense" spending is INSANE

bigger than all the other countries put together.

It's a racket that's created a paranoid populace to allow it to continue.

It MUST stop.

[tbyg52]

44. And deep cuts in the right places

like for the defense contractors, not the troops.

[welshTerrier2]

45. an excellent refinement ...

that's exactly the focus I have too ...