I must be psychic

| February 5, 2009

TSO sends me a piece from Josh Rogin at the Congressional Quarterly about the future of defense spending. Rogin writes that;

The current path of defense spending is unsustainable, due primarily to the rising cost of military entitlements and runaway acquisition costs, two defense budget experts told the House Budget Committee on Wednesday.
“The first factor driving up the price of defense is, simply, the growing cost of uniformed military personnel,” [Stephen Daggett, defense budget specialist for the Congressional Research Service] said in his written testimony.
“This may suggest that if defense budget shortfalls continue, we will, later if not now, have to consider reductions in the number of personnel”.

I wrote last year before the election that the Democrats would see human resource issues in the Defense Department as a way to reduce the budget. the Democrats see the military and it’s supporters as a bloc of voters they’ll never impress, but apparently all of the welfare recipients, the lobbyists and all of those other people who suckle at the Federal teat, the ones who need to be cut off, are too politically important to consider cutting off.

J. Michael Gilmore, assistant director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified that by increasing fees for military health care and restructuring pay raises, the Pentagon could save about $111 billion between fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2026.

The House Budget Committee’s ranking Republican, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, agreed that personnel costs were a problem. “DoD’s health care spending is increasing at an unsustainable rate,” he said.

And yet the Democrats are convinced that they can give healthcare to all Americans – by increasing the personal costs of active duty military personnel’s health care? Yeah, this how we support the troops, by them taking the budget cuts in their rear, while we continue to expand government to pay for the Democrats’ constituency.

Category: Liberals suck, Politics, Support the troops

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. War On Terror News | February 5, 2009
  2. War On Terror News | February 5, 2009
  1. Bob in Cypress TX says:

    Why not stop paying for illegal immigrant healthcare and use that money for our military healthcare? Am I the only American outraged by this?????

  2. Spade says:

    Don’t forget that Obama wants to increase the size of the Army and USMC. So the ‘problem’ will just grow.

  3. Eddie Willers says:

    Ahhh yes, the age-old socialism argument: who should get the most money from the government, my special interest or yours?

    You’re making the same argument for military budgets as the liberals make for health care. You couch your argument in the vague “defense of this country” rhetoric while liberals disguise their sinister intentions by claiming their programs are for the children. Meanwhile, government expands.

    In some respects, the liberals are more honest than you, Jonn. At least the liberals have the gusto to admit they’re for big government as opposed to masquerading as some small government-minded conservative like you.

    Jonn wrote: Yeah, well, unlike you Libertines, I believe that the Constitution demands that the US government “provide for the common defense” of the States. I guess you skip over that part in the preamble, when you read it, huh?

  4. Eddie Willers says:

    LOLLZ!!! You just referenced the Constitution, Jonn…this truly is an extraordinary day!

    Since when do you care about such archaic pieces of paper? Your politics suggest otherwise, but I suppose that’s part of being a cosmopolitan conservative.

    Jonn: That’s funny – a libertine who has never read the Constitution claiming I don’t read the Constitution.

  5. TSO says:

    Not surprisingly, Willers misses the point entirely. This would result in cuts to pay for the military (you know, low income folks) and retirees would pay more for their retirement. Both in direct conflict with things they campaigned on. The hypocrisy I would think would be obvious, even do a snivelling little toilet brush like Eddie.

  6. airborne injun says:

    Eddie Willers….Vague defense of country? Archaic piece of paper? DO you even have a fucking clue as to why we serve? It sure as hell isnt for the money, benefits, or “glory” but to answer a need within ourselves to serve and defend this great country of OURS so we can be free and argue about health care and other issues we face.I did not serve almost my entire adult life, watch friends die or become a cripple for life due to injuries sustained in combat.I to am a combat disabled veteran who struggles daily to provide for my family as well as putting up with racism and discrimination in my daily life,but when it is said and done, I would do all over again!!! Im starting to believe we are fighting the wrong damn people!! MR. WILLERS, please feel free to kiss my red airborne ass!!!

  7. defendUSA says:

    Eddie Willers needs a can o’ whoop ass opened up on his sorry one.

    Only an idiot would dis the document that let’s his diarrhea of the mouth do what it does.

  8. cbullitt says:

    Following this logic, when the costs of socialized medicine mushroom to galactic proportions, His Oness will conclude that “there are just too many people.” Soylent Green anyone??

  9. AW1 Tim says:

    There was an interesting comment over to Neptunuslex regarding welfare benefits. basically, it went thuds: Why is it that at my place of employment, I am required to take a piss test to earn my pay, but those who collect welfare, which my taxes help to pay for, are not required to take a piss test?

    I think that is an excellent question. I would have no problem at all making it a requirement that you take and pass a piss test to receive your welfare assistance. You fail the test, you lose your benefits and go to the back of the line.

    Military men and women are required to pass random piss tests to ensure the safety of the armed forces, their comrades, and the nation is in good hands. Why not extend the same requirement to those who hold elected office?

    In fact, I’d be happy to require it of ANYONE who receives and sort of salary or benefits based upon tax money, with the exception of retirees who no longer work.

    But yeah, if cops and soldiers and firefighters and medics are required to take a piss test, then every government worker ought to as well, and so should every elected official. You fail, you go to treatment/rehab. You fail a second test, you get fired and never work in the public sector again.

    just sayin’…..

  10. airborne injun says:

    AW1 Tim…(pause for deep thought effect!)Damn straight!!! Thats got to be the best f…king thing ive heard of!!! Shit, you damn sure got my vote! Drive on little brother,drive on!

  11. Smorgasbord says:

    Obama is going to end fighting around the world. If you remember he said he was going to reduce our nukes. Other countries would be EMBARRASSED and they would reduce theirs.

    I am guessing when the nukes are gone all over the world Obama will start on the military and reduce it. Other countries will be EMBARRASSED again and reduce theirs.

    Obama is going to use EMBARRASSMENT as our first line of defense. Wether or not you agree with his tactic, you have to admit, his way will be a lot cheaper than Reagan’s was.

    AW1 Tim
    I have suggested the same thing about those receiving Federal money. The only thing I add to yours is I want the tests ON A REGULAR SCHEDULE. Who knows how many politicians the drug lords own.

  12. The Sniper says:

    This all makes perfect sense from a politically strategic perspective. Drop military pay, and a lot of troops will want to get out… then involuntarily seperate a metric assload more troops that would prefer to stay in and then he’s really cooking. Boot out all these former troops during an economic down-turn the likes of which we haven’t seen in a LOOOONG time, and you’ve got the recipe for a lib-dem (read:socialist) wet dream. Let me explain…

    The former soldiers that can’t find jobs will have three choices:
    1. Welfare
    2. Crime
    3. Wasting away to dust and blowing away.

    Since number 3 isn’t going to happen, numbers two and one will and in large numbers. The dem voter base grows if the former Joes choose option #1. The more unemployed voters out there, the more they’ll feel the need for relief, the more they’ll want to protect themselves, the more they’ll vote for Pelosi, Reid, and Co.

    If they choose option #2, then they will most likely put their firearms training to use and then the administration can claim a high gun-crime rate (they’ll call it a crisis) and they’ll be able to enact draconian gun bans of all sorts. Been in combat? Oooooh, you’re a “gun violence risk”… sorry, no gun for you. Oh, and no job for you either. Or health care. Or dignity.

  13. codesix says:

    Ever since I remember the Dems first choice for cuts have always been the military, active, retirees and vets across the board.

    Where’s Army Sergeant on this one?

  14. AW1 Tim says:

    As was said many times before..

    Beware the fury of the Legions.

    Look at the response from veterans when action wa threatened against the Vietnam memorial in DC. Back on that cold St Patty’s day, thousands of veterans came to town by the busloads to stand in defense of a cold piece of stone.

    If those old fellows (and I was among them) can drop what they were doing and rally on such short notice from all over the nation for to protect a monument, what do the idiot Congress Critters think will happen when they turn there financial knives on the very men and women who have kept them alive and safe these many years?

    There is an old line that goes: “There you stand with your laws. Here I stand with my bayonets. Which side so you think God will support?”

    Napoleon always understood that God favoured the strongest battalions. Politicians might scream and pontificate about laws and regulations, but they’ll scream like stuck pigs when faced by armed men intent on defending the Constitution, and not some state’s favourite son.

    Politicians and lifelong government wonks place themselves at substantial risk when they wade into issues such as these. You can only beat a dog so many times before it bites back.

  15. its_a_trap says:

    As much as I hate to defend this particular report from CQ and CBO…they have a point, but don’t carry it far enough.

    Yeah, the military gets one hell of a deal if you stay in for 20 (pension, plus Tricare, plus one of the better 401(k)s out there). Yeah, according to some reports if the DoD were to shut down right now and fire everyone…it would require a budget 40% the size of last years budget to meet the personnel obligation. Yeah, that’s better than just about anyone in the private sector gets.

    But it doesn’t compare to benefits to police, fire fighters, ATCs, postal workers (sad…). Teachers have more job security and everyone gets better pay on average than the military. (Average firefighter earns $140k or so in SoCal, and average police officer gets $130k)

    Annnnnnnnnnnd most every government pension fund is underfunded anywhere between 20-60%. Government benefits packages are a huge cost, and there is a reason why most of the private sector has gone away from that structure.

    So…the point is valid (especially as a reason why government run healthcare isn’t a great plan), but I’ll be pissed if that talk goes anywhere without going through the pain of bringing everyone’s benefits back to sustainability.