Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Memo To Deficit Hawks: Here's $1 Trillion To Cut -- From The Pentagon - Dan Froomkin/HuffPo

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 10:21 AM
Original message
Memo To Deficit Hawks: Here's $1 Trillion To Cut -- From The Pentagon - Dan Froomkin/HuffPo
Memo To Deficit Hawks: Here's $1 Trillion To Cut -- From The Pentagon
First Posted: 06-11-10 01:04 PM | Updated: 06-11-10 01:56 PM

<snip>

When you think about ways to tame the nation's long-term deficit, what's the first thing that comes to mind? Slashing benefits for the old and sick? Or taking a few whacks at the spectacularly bloated defense budget?

The former option has, somehow, become the default position for Washington's ruling class, including President Obama's deficit commission.

But in April, a bipartisan group of iconoclasts in Congress led by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) formed their own task force to examine the latter possibility. The group of defense experts released their report on Friday (Link to report: http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf), identifying nearly $1 trillion in defense budget cuts over the next 10 years that could contribute to deficit reduction "while not compromising the essential security of the United States."

Among the possible reductions cited in the report:

• Over $113 billion in savings by reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,050 total warheads deployed on 450 land-based missiles and seven Ohio-class submarines;

• Over $200 billion in savings by reducing U.S. routine military presence in Europe and Asia to 100,000 while reducing total uniformed military personnel to 1.3 million;

• Over $138 billion in savings by replacing costly and unworkable weapons systems with more practical, affordable alternatives. Suggested cuts would include the F-35 combat aircraft, the MV-22 Osprey, and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

• Over $60 billion in savings by reforming military health care; and

• Over $100 billion in savings by cutting unnecessary command, support and infrastructure funding.


Deficit hawkery appears to be overwhelming official Washington, despite the fact that the lackluster economy is sending clear signals even to the likes of non-radical Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the last thing the nation needs right now is government spending cuts.

Even so, the defense budget seems off limits. Despite some lip service from the deficit commission, there is no serious indication that the requisite 14 of the group's 18 members will agree on anything that would involve defense cuts.

Even President Obama's proposed freeze on discretionary spending explicitly rules out any defense cuts.

By contrast, the deficit commission seems to be drawing a bead on the social safety net in general, and Social Security in particular.

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/11/pentagon-budget-cuts-coul_n_609132.html

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sounds like a wonderful idea. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oceansaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. K&R...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. That report saves $611 billion if all of its suggestions were followed.
I think that's a pretty darn good start.

Shame on Obama for continuing the military-industrial complex, and cutting vital services to American taxpayers in the process. Such a thing shouldn't even be on the table. This is not the kind of change we voted for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-13-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Exactly !!!
:hi:

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC