Realistically, How Can The USA Ever Cut The Defense Budget?

[KittyWampus]

I just googled "cut defense budget" and got returns squawking about how Obama was cutting the Defense Budget even though it was slightly raised.

One reason I felt so strongly that Wesley Clark would have been a good POTUS was that he might have been able to cut some funding. Although he still would have had the Mediawhores, Republicans and Democratic hawks pummeling him. I thought maybe even Joe Biden might have potentially had a shot.

So my question is- how can we ever get around to cutting the bloated tick that is the Defense Budget? Realistically. Strategy that might work. Taking into account the above mentioned, Republicans, hawks and compliant Mediahores.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Get rid of the $175K Contractors

[KittyWampus]

7. you mean stop outsourcing any and all jobs that military can do for itself? That would be a great

start. And Democrats could probably work out a way to market it as patriotic.

I LIKE IT.

[mod mom]

34. $175K? This new KBR contract alone is worth $2.8 BILLION!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7832381

[FreakinDJ]

40. I rather see our service members get that money

as opposed to "The Investor Class"

[mod mom]

49. Absolutely and since they were providing services for other w/in the military,

you can bet that not only would it be cheaper but the level of work would be done to protect the soldiers rather than protecting the bottom line.

[spanone]

2. by having a president that will stand up to the military industrial complex

enough is enough

of course, they would probably assassinate said president

[KittyWampus]

4. and your solution for the resultant shit storm from Republicans, Dem hawks and Mediawhores?

See- I said realistic.

[dionysus]

12. the problem is, sometimes the "right thing" equals political suicide...

[msongs]

14. problem is having a president strong enough to "do the right thing" in the first place nt

[laughingliberal]

26. And, as President Obama himself said, sometimes your own job security is not the priority

Sometimes we get a leader who does the right thing without worrying about their reelection campaign. Admittedly, it's been a while but there have been some.

[dionysus]

30. could be counterproductive if he does it, gets tossed out, and a repug switches it right back.

[laughingliberal]

33. I guess we could say that about any changes that might be made.

Is the answer to do nothing cause the repugs might regain power some day and undo it?

[dionysus]

38. not if you can do it in a way the public buys. if you can cut the spending without half the country

buying the "weak on terra!" card, it'd work.

[spanone]

31. that's realistic imo. if you see no hope, why ask the question?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Act like he doesn't CARE what his opponents say about him

Both Clinton and Obama share a common weakness: They care too much about what Republicans think of them, so they compromise excessively. This is like giving a bully your lunch money. It marks you as an insecure pushover. It is like painting a target on your butt.

Bush and Reagan got what they wanted because they had an air of self-confidence and, if they cared what the Democrats thought about them, they never let it show.

[grahamhgreen]

56. +1

[n2doc]

3. We did it after the end of the cold war.

Realistically, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan would save hundreds of billions. But it would take a President with the guts to do it, to stand up and be accountable.

[Johonny]

25. I agree

[MadHound]

27. We did? I don't think so.

The so called peace dividend was largely a joke. Clinton cut the defense budget by a couple of percentage points in the official budget, but those weren't real cuts. The money was simply shuffled around and given back to military contractors under the aegis of different departmental agencies or through black box operation funding. There was no real cut to the military in terms of spending.

Sure, some bases were shut down and such, but that money didn't come back to us, it was used for other military projects.

We haven't had a significant cut in military spending since the end of WWI. And since the end of WWII the MIC has owned this country and our government.

[truedelphi]

69. Yes sirree, under Clinton we had advisers running around the coca fields

Of Colombia, doing dirty deeds and getting paid top dollars.

Though in Clinton's defense, he said one very big very loud "No!" when he was asked if he wouldn't consider an all out war against Iraq.

Some seven or eight weeks later, and the Monica Lewinksy thing was all over the press.

[Enthusiast]

44. Obama would have to be

willing to be labeled "weak on terrorism". Because the Republicans would have a field day with that claim. They would be so happy if the country was attacked.

[n2doc]

50. And he isn't already?

Who cares what the Republicans on TV think or say. I wish Obama would ignore them completely.

[Enthusiast]

51. Of course he is already

being accused of being weak on terrorism. Even after escalating the war in Afghanistan. The problem is the media.

There is a renewed GOP media assault going on, they have ramped it up. They smell blood.

[zbdent]

5. and don't forget ...

even though they started closing under Clinton, the military base closures were set in motion under Bush41, with Dick Cheney's blessing ... but then, the "liberal media" was even then kowtowing to the Republicans ...

[dkf]

6. Get off oil.

No need to protect the oil supplies all over the world. There. Done.

[KittyWampus]

8. I think the MIC would still be able to find a rationale for maintaining its massive girth.

[dkf]

23. It's part of the shadow cost of oil.

They would need to find a new justification. At least we would have a chance to make the argument it is no longer necessary.

[truedelphi]

70. heh. heh. n/t

[90-percent]

9. Yes!

Where the fuck is our "Peace Dividend" we earned by winning the cold war?

This "war on terrorism" (I prefer Gore Vidal's "war on dandruff") has maneuvered itself in the place of the cold war.

America's Military Industrial Congressional Complex is devouring our taxes and all we get in return is $175,000 contractors ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE, instead of $25,000 enlistees that are accountable to military and US law!

Spending TRILLIONS to make stuff that blows up real good is no way to use America's tax dollars, son!

-90% jimmy

[KittyWampus]

10. I see you put in the word "Congressional". The way Eisenhower intended to label the behemoth

[90-percent]

29. "Congressional"

I throw that in because it makes me seem extra special on the subject.

I use the word because of a guy on Moyers in about the last 12 months did a show all about the MIC. He knew his stuff and that's where I learned that Eisenhower was going to incorporate the word, but changed his mind or got it changed for him.

The MIC these days is horrific. We can now start bogus wars that accomplish nothing towards their stated mission and everybody's fine.

It's almost like the USA engages in Wars just for the hell of it!

it's amazing that a war based on lies and obviously not for any good national security purpose is so blindly accepted by all of us! We should be torching and pitchforking the entirety of DC over crap like this!


-90% Jimmy

[dionysus]

11. if you cut out the fraud and wasteful spending, we could save a shit-ton of dough and still

have the best military in the world, by far. The problem is, you've got whole programs (there was this huge, self-propelled artillary piece that cost millions upon millions but would never be used, for example) that could be cut, but it provides tons of jobs to states that produce these things. the senators will fight tooth and nail to keep these programs funded even though they'll never be used.

they should but those factories to work building other stuff...

[Odin2005]

17. Yep. there is way to much defense contract pork.

A lot of these expensive toys will never be used, anyway.

[dionysus]

18. i do believe we need a strong military (hopefully rarely used) but we could cut a ton of spending

and still have one.

[Demeter]

13. I Will Lend Them My Scissors and a Red Ink Pen

and a swift boot to the backside, if further incentive is needed...

[Odin2005]

15. IMO it will rake a military man as President to gut the M-I Complex.

"Nixon going to China" and all that. Which is exactly why I like Wes Clark.

Don't forget that it was a military man, Ike, that first criticized the M-I Complex.

[pampango]

16. Everyone says: Just don't cut the projects that result in jobs in my district.

DoD knows this and spreads the projects out for political reasons, not because it makes in terms of the efficiency of production.

[izquierdista]

19. Just say no

Make Nancy Reagan Secretary of Defense and tell her that all that military equipment is being used to smuggle drugs.

[Jennicut]

20. Joe Lieberman and my state of CT has single handedly added to the cost of the military budget

"Although the State of Connecticut is the third smallest state in the union, it is the home of many major defense contractors, including Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, Sikorsky Aircraft, and Electric Boat. In addition, the United States Navy maintains a submarine base in Groton, Connecticut. There are twenty-five public airports in Connecticut, two of which offer commercial service, including Bradley International Airport, which also serves the Greater Springfield, Massachusetts area from Windsor Locks. There are deep-water ports at Bridgeport, New Haven and New London, as well as two nuclear power generating stations in Connecticut, one of which has been deactivated."
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ct/attf.html

In other words, we have major defense contractors that cost the govt. tons of money. I have family working at Pratt and Whitney (my mother in law and her husband) but it is wrong that we get huge contracts for crap we don't need.

[sinkingfeeling]

21. To quote Nike, "Just do it". Let the Pentagon worry over the details.

[Warpy]

22. As the country hurtles toward bankruptcy

cutting the bloated Pentagon budget might look good even to Republicans, but expect them to shriek about it like they shriek about everything else any Democrat ever does, no matter how necessary.

My suggestion is to cut it 10% per year until our expenditures are in line with the rest of the world's expenditures. That will force a change in the Pentagon culture of using up every dime they get on nonsense so they can demand more money the next year. We need to force them to make some hard decisions: which bases to keep open offshore (not many), which obsolete on the drawing board, overengineered hardware they really need, whether or not they can buy toilet seats in bulk from the manufacturer instead of ordering them to fit military specs and driving the price up 20X, and generally getting the biggest bang for the defense buck.

Things will have to get completely desperate before either party is ready to do the things this country so desperately needs to survive: reinstitute the progressive tax structure, abandon Empire, cut the military budget, and regulate the thieves out of existence. Until we do those things, there will be no hope of economic recovery.

[mmonk]

24. Don't reelect anyone except the progressive caucus.

Our masters require being fed.

[Hubert Flottz]

28. With A Terrible Swift Sword...

and some even swifter kicks in the @$$!

It kind of makes you wonder...How much money will China lend us to buy weapons, if some republican pResident or vice pResident someday, declares war on China, because he had too many drinks at the country club?

[kentuck]

32. A million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan.

Cut 10,000 of those and save $10 billion. Cut the weapons programs and save billions more.

[90-percent]

35. Half

Fully half of the American Boots on the ground are contractors. Out of that, I think most do logistics support type stuff, not combat stuff.

Contractors make approximately $100,000 per year in salary. Enlisted approximate $25,000.

Contractors are giving us one person for the price of four enlisted!

Privatization sucks and it's nothing more than funneling our tax dollars to billionaire scum like Erik Prince.

-90% Jimmy

[Union Yes]

36. National Strike. Nothing less will bring change. Nothing. nt

[kentuck]

39. Not realistic...

People have to eat. They live paycheck to paycheck.

It simply will not happen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Don't vote for those that vote for it.

Works for me.

[bamacrat]

42. Reduce our presence in WW2 countries for one.

We have about 100,000 soldiers in Germany and Japan. We could reduce that to about 30,000 and save billions. Stop inventing new planes every other day and use and upgrade the ones we have that are great and reliable. The A10 "Warthog" is the most requested plane by ground troops for air support. It is fast , nimble and can carry a large payload of bombs yet the Pentagon wants to find a new way to do the same thing. Fixing what isn't broken could save us alot. Also use our military smarter. Stop given contracts to private companies to go to war alongside our soldiers but operate under different rules. If they want to fight they should be in the Army.

Of course ending the wars would help, but I doubt that would reduce spending, they would just spend that money elsewhere. Reduce the Navy. Our Navy is as large as the next 13 countries Navies combined and 11 are our allies. Alqueida doesnt have a Navy. We do need one but scale it back. Also use our special forces better. We have them, we need to stop using regular ground troops to do their jobs.

Or and here is something that will never happen in a million years. Let people opt out of defense funding. Let people sign a waiver saying they either do not want their taxes to go to pay for the military or only a small portion, enough to sustain a military but not enough to balloon its budget.

[KittyWampus]

45. That was an incredibly well thought out post. Thank You.

[Kaleva]

67. Bush tried to do this back in 2004

"The announcement drew criticism from former Nato commander Wesley Clark - a senior adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3568548.stm

[daleo]

43. Same way the British cut their naval budget in the 20th century

Go hugely into debt, to where you just can't afford it anymore.

[PVnRT]

46. Start closing contractor-operated military bases

The one near me, for instance, is a depot for ammunition. Ammo comes in, goes into a warehouse, then gets shipped out again. Everything is run by contractors; there are a handful of actual military personnel on the base, but that's it. Sometimes, soldiers cycle through for some training.

Realistically, the only reason this base should even exist is because they can't ship away the chemical agents there, and we're working on building a plant to get rid of those. Once those are gone, what the hell is the point of this base?

[KittyWampus]

54. politically, this seems most feasible.

[PVnRT]

68. Not necessarily

Those bases are also a huge source of civilian jobs, so closing them is damn near impossible. Pork barrel and all that.

[Kitsune]

47. Simple. Demobilize. We haven't since the end of World War II.

This is NOT the normal state of affairs. We're not supposed to have a massive standing army.

[invictus]

48. Who are the assholes unrecing this thread?

Fuck you, neo-con assholes, and fuck your wars which are destroying this country.

[L0oniX]

52. Who? ...people that join the military for money and others who hold stocks in the MIC.

[nemo137]

53. One of the ideas I've seen kicked around

albeit sort of abortively, is the idea of getting rid of the Air Force, at least as an independent service, which I think you might be able to make a good case for.

[KittyWampus]

55. that is kind of a curve ball. I've never heard that.

[nemo137]

65. Here's the link to some discussion at LGM

it concludes that no one would do it, but I've heard discussion a few places so the idea's out there.

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-does-country-need-independent-air.html

[walldude]

57. Cut weapons development... We spend billions on weapons

every year that never see the light of day. Greg Palast's book Armed Madhouse talks about some of the crazy shit we have spent money on and saw nothing for. The one I seem to remember most is spending 28 billion trying to figure out how to shoot Armed Marines out of submarine torpedo tubes. This way they could justify spending money on submarines while fighting a war in a desert.

Also get someone to start making the Pentagon account for every damn penny. To see a story claiming that the Pentagon can't account for 1 trillion dollars and then not hearing anything about who the hell is responsible for this and what are they going to do about it is a slap in the face to every taxpayer in America..

[Greyhound]

58. A President, a very popular President, will have to fall on his/her sword.

And even then it might not work, we are/have become a martial culture.

[amborin]

59. reining in our military escapades?

[grahamhgreen]

60. You need a paradigm shift in the way you're thinking. You have to villify the industry as a bunch of

psychopaths hell-bent on the destruction of America by fighting foolhardy wars in foreign lands. As well as bankrupting the treasury and using funds that should be used to feed and clothe and house and provide health care .

Historically, these fools have been ginning up bullshit wars since the dawn of man.

Afghanistan is a bullshit war.

You could start with prosecuting Bush for war crimes.

But you will never get these guys to capitulate through any type of reasoned process. You can not be candy pants about it. You can not allow them to set the framing (ie - America is engaged in a critical fight in the ME - we are not - these are wars for profit and profit alone).

They expect a fight, but are not fighters, inherently they are chicken-hawks and will never fight any fights themselves, once their proxies are displaced to our side, they will cave like the cowards that they are.

IMHO.

[invictus]

61. +1,000,000,000,000

[anonymous171]

62. Just frame it as "cutting wasteful spending"

and highlight all the exorbitant deals that the death merchants get on a regular basis.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Politically, it's not really possible

George McGovern campaigned on it and lost 49 states. Anybody who tries it again will probably face a similar fate.

[Ildem09]

64. here is my ideas for what they are worth

1) consolidate all branches into one unified command. there is no reason we have separate air naval and army forces. along with the various special forces. Sweden did this years ago and the still rival us in littoral naval combat ability. I understand we need a naval version of airplane x and a air force version of it too. however with a unified structure we could phase out several programs and redundant technologies.

2) shrink the overall size of the military. we are not fighting the Cold War anymore, we are dealing with peacekeeping and fighting terrorists which is more a criminal issue. we don't need 1 million men and women in the service maybe 400,000, a smaller military will make us think 2x before going into a foolish war

3) devote a few thousand troops to be permement blue-helmets to have a permement peace keeping force

[warm regards]

66. Everything is going to have to be cut. Otherwise, the interest on the debt

(which costs almost as much as defense) will cause our entire economy to come crashing down on us.

[fishbulb703]

71. The military-industrial complex employs A LOT of peaople in the DC area.