Thread: conservatives push to maintain spendin'

ahoy me hearties!

thar be much thunder 'n fury on capitol hill 'bout the spendin' level 'o our federal government...'seems like its all we talk about nowadays, aye?

'tis hard to figure whar all these cuts are goin' to come from, though. fer whilst right leanin' congresspersons continue to push fer lower taxes and less government spendin', they also keep tryin' to maintain current spendin' levels in programs they favor.

ye see, on one hand we have this;

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Thursday told Congress the administration is seeking $78 billion in cuts to the Defense budget over the next five years on top of $100 billion in efficiencies.

Gates surprises lawmakers with plan to cut $78 billion from defense budget - TheHill.com

this would be good news, aye? less government spendin'...thats a virtuous thing!

but alas....

The GOP leadership's reaction? Less surprising.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said after the morning briefing that he was deeply concerned about the surprising depth of the spending cuts. McKeon said he had gone into the meeting expecting to oppose the plan to trim $100 billion in waste when Gates announced the additional $78 billion in reductions.
“We are fighting two wars, you have China, you have Iran: Is this the time to be making these types of cuts?” McKeon said.

Presumably the time to make these kinds of cuts is after China and Iran cease to exist.

Defence cuts: Those spending cuts you said you wanted | The Economist

and now...almost six months later, the pro-military overspendin' group be diggin' in thar heels.

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California, chairman of the powerful House Armed Services Committee, wrote a memo to his fellow committee Republicans strongly criticizing the so-called Senate "Gang of Six" congressional plan that would result in $886 billion in defense cuts over 10 years.

"It is our belief that this proposal raises serious implications for defense and would not allow us to perform our constitutional responsibility to provide for the safety and security of our country, " he said.

mateys...if the congresspersons that be bought 'n paid fer by the military industrial buccaneers refuse to allow any cuts in programs that benefit thar districts, what part 'o government spendin' is supposed to be trimmed back?

- MeadHallPirate

I realize I am probably overly suspicious of the motives of congresspeople. But I suspect that any spending which might benefit union workers, poor minorities, education, or blue states in general will be targeted by the republicans for cuts. On the other hand spending which benefits wall street or the executives and large shareholders of multinational corporations will be maintained - by both parties. I also would not be shocked if the military cuts are just a ploy by dems to exact concessions from the republicans. Obama has proven himself to be just as enamored of military adventure as w was.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

mateys...if the congresspersons that be bought 'n paid fer by the military industrial buccaneers refuse to allow any cuts in programs that benefit thar districts, what part 'o government spendin' is supposed to be trimmed back?

- MeadHallPirate

That's a really good question and it also applies to those on these committees:
Agriculture
Appropriations
Armed Services
Budget
Education and the Workforce
Energy and Commerce
Ethics
Financial Services
Foreign Affairs
Homeland Security
House Administration
Judiciary
Natural Resources
Oversight and Government Reform
Rules
Science, Space, and Technology
Small Business
Transportation and Infrastructure
Veterans’ Affairs
Ways and Means
Intelligence
Joint Economic Committee
Joint Committee on Taxation

Originally Posted by lutherf

That's a really good question and it also applies to those on these committees:
Agriculture
Appropriations
Armed Services
Budget
Education and the Workforce
Energy and Commerce
Ethics
Financial Services
Foreign Affairs
Homeland Security
House Administration
Judiciary
Natural Resources
Oversight and Government Reform
Rules
Science, Space, and Technology
Small Business
Transportation and Infrastructure
Veterans’ Affairs
Ways and Means
Intelligence
Joint Economic Committee
Joint Committee on Taxation

ahoy thar officer Lutherf,

aye, i was goin' to list each agency.

i mean, are them Texans at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston goin' to vote that NASA's spendin' be cut? i have a really easy time imaginin' that americans want things like a balanced budget amendment and CUT-CAP-BALANCE. them things sound so sensible, afterall.

one look at the way them congresspersons are protestin' any cuts in the military tells me that whilst populist slogans stir the heart, 'tis all just mindless cheerleadin' by folks who really don't grasp what the execution 'o these policies entail.

*coughs*

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by timj219

I realize I am probably overly suspicious of the motives of congresspeople. But I suspect that any spending which might benefit union workers, poor minorities, education, or blue states in general will be targeted by the republicans for cuts. On the other hand spending which benefits wall street or the executives and large shareholders of multinational corporations will be maintained - by both parties. I also would not be shocked if the military cuts are just a ploy by dems to exact concessions from the republicans. Obama has proven himself to be just as enamored of military adventure as w was.

ahoy timj219,

as the departed Dblack would say....

"ayup!"

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by timj219

I realize I am probably overly suspicious of the motives of congresspeople. But I suspect that any spending which might benefit union workers, poor minorities, education, or blue states in general will be targeted by the republicans for cuts. On the other hand spending which benefits wall street or the executives and large shareholders of multinational corporations will be maintained - by both parties. I also would not be shocked if the military cuts are just a ploy by dems to exact concessions from the republicans. Obama has proven himself to be just as enamored of military adventure as w was.

One cut neither side had any trouble making is on the Military Retired. Our health insurance has risen across the board, Monthly premiums, Meds, and Dr. visit Copays have all gone up. They now take more tax out of our monthly pay.

We haven't had a cost of living raise in three years, but they got their raises.


But they haven't offered to pay more for their health insurance.

Congress has always resisted the Pentagon when it tries to save a buck. You will see congresscritters with any sort of military operation in their district snap to when this comes up. Its the same regardless of party as evidenced by my two dem senators and reps waking up when they decided to close the Joint Ops Command here VA.

I say if the Pentagon sees efficiency, let them DO IT.

Defense is something actually authorized by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Commodore

Defense is something actually authorized by the Constitution.

ahoy Commodore,

me hearty, imma not questionin' whether defense be in the constitution or not.

does yer reply mean that because the constitution authorizes "offense" spendin', that thar be no limit to how far our military spendin' plunges us into debt?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Commodore,

me hearty, imma not questionin' whether defense be in the constitution or not.

does yer reply mean that because the constitution authorizes "offense" spendin', that thar be no limit to how far our military spendin' plunges us into debt?

- MeadHallPirate

With the exception of full scale war, defense spending never puts us into debt.

90% of any military is logistics, and if done correctly, military spending builds up an infrastructure that you only have to pay for once, unlike entitlements. It is the difference between giving a man a fish, and teaching him to fish.