The Cruelest Cuts

Pages: 1 2

As always, this chain saw approach to the military is what every military cutback has been about for progressives: maintaining the inviolability of the welfare state, for which spending is set to hit nearly 11% of GDP by 2020, before the projected $2.6 trillion slated for ObamaCare–a number that will undoubtedly rise–is factored in. Yet this is where that inviolability inevitably leads:

“Entitlements now account for around 65 percent of all federal spending and a record 18 percent of GDP. The three largest entitlements–Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid–eclipsed defense spending in 1976 and have been growing ever since. If future taxes are held at the historical average, these three entitlements will consume all tax revenues by 2052, leaving no money for the government’s primary constitutional obligation: providing for the common defense.” (italic mine)

Yet it is more than just a desire to expand the welfare state that drives this president and his administration. Mr. Obama is a dedicated progressive who cannot hide his disdain for American exceptionalism. The Hoover Institution’s Shelby Steele explains:

“[The American left] seeks to trade the burdens of greatness for the relief of mediocrity. When greatness fades, when a nation contracts to a middling place in the world, then the world in fact no longer knocks on its door…To civilize America, to redeem the nation from its supposed avarice and hubris, the American left effectively makes a virtue of decline–as if we can redeem America only by making her indistinguishable from lesser nations.”

How far is Mr. Obama willing to go in that regard? His administration recently acknowledged that it is pursuing a policy aimed at giving Russia detailed information about the performance of our offensive and defensive missile capabilities. Ostensibly this will be instrumental in breaking the deadlock in missile defense talks with Moscow, in that it will assure the Russians we mean them no harm. Yet section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending on such a measure, until Congress receives a report on the numerous details involved. Furthermore, the president is required to certify to Congress that Russia will not share the secrets with other nations, or “develop counter-measures” to U.S. defenses.

Mr. Obama kicked section 1227 to the curb. In a signing statement, he said he considered the restrictions “non-binding.”

In conclusion, two significant questions arise.

First, are Americans willing to completely abandon this nation’s role as the “last best hope of mankind” for a welfare state that will consume 100 percent of government revenue forty years hence?

Second, for those who believe we must gut the military in order to improve the economy, how much would our economy improve following a nuclear detonation over a major American city?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Pages: 1 2

  • Flipside

    Waaaaa! Zvi Haimovitz is crying his eyes out. No High energy laser system for a Hanukkah gift from Washington this year. Stupid balanced budget!

    • Ken

      Balance budget?!?! Yeah, right!! You're delusional!! Obama will just ratchet up entitlements or provide near bankrupt crony companies with money to cover the "savings" from military cuts.

    • Rifleman

      What balanced budget? The yearly deficit has been between a trillion and a trillion and a half bucks since 2008. We could completely eliminate defense spending, and tax the top 10% at 100%, and it still won’t cover the deficit spending hussein and the dp have added since ’08. You’re hilarious.

    • Ghostwriter

      Has anyone ever told you you're an anti-semite,Flipside?

      • Flipside

        Only unpersons. No one with any balls.

  • dogvault

    I read a report a few years ago that the military Darpa etc were all looking at making drones and auto machines to take over the jobs of men on the ground. To stop the loss of life. Unfortunately this still costs a lot of money, but I am sure that many mother's and soldiers themselves would like to have soldiers safer, and if possible not going to war at all. This I am sure is the goal of both parties.

  • claspur

    Reason 3 and 5 regard this-below….

  • crackerjack

    Feed your poor, get your sick to the doctor, fix your streets and bridges, clean up your ghettoes, take care of your veterans, educate your kids and then, if there's cash to spare, try inventing laser cannon for outer space.

  • Ron Carnine

    Cuts in the military in this day and age are ridiculous. The world is at war. Islam threatens the West again and this time they will have nuclear weapons. There is no peace in Iraq and trying to negotiate with the Taliban is worse than stupid. The enemy is comfortably entrenched in our country. The estimates of mosques in favor of Jihad rests at between 80-91%. Women are enslaved or worse they are targets for rape by a religion that has no respect for them at all. Christians are being slaughtered all around the Muslim world and we do nothing. Jihadists are taking country after country. The West doesn't realize that the battle for Europe is back on. Muslim's only stopped because the West was too strong but they never made lasting peace. It was only "a pause to reload". Many American's have lost their backbone led by a spineless President that bows to a foreign king. And the Muslim world laughs at our stupidity.Maybe we deserve it.

    • Big Irish

      you are absolutely dead on Ron – why dont people understand this?…guess there too busy looking up their a……..

    • crackerjack

      And of what use are nuclear weapons, warships, stealth jets and star wars contraptions against Muslim minorities in London, Oslo or Amsterdam? What a lot of nonsense.

  • mrbean

    Yassah weez needs dah monies fah the school lunches for dah littal chilluns, cause Daddy beez a "Playaa" and Mommy has many Playaas as fathers of her chilluns. Yassah. Breakfast, Lunch, and Supper now in some schools. Yassah!

    • Ghostwriter

      Please stop with the sterotypes,mrbean. They're unnecessary and stupid. You're only promoting your own ignorance.

  • Jim_C

    I know: it hurts to see your precious foreign policy ideas coming to a sensible end. Why, Mr. Ahlert (actually one of the smarter writers here on domestic stuff)–your concern for the Iraqis is just oh-so touching!

    You know, as much as I've enjoyed watching our troops constantly, amazingly adapt to babysit these countries while our overall, open-ended, quixotic policy in Iraq–one you advocated–brought about the various power vaccuums (predicted by many think tanks, just not the ones FPM endorsed)–I think it's time we brought our sons, daughters, and neighbors home from your little shindig before another IED robs them of their future. Every time I pick up the paper and read of a kid from my town meeting up with one of them, I think of how brave he was, and how craven guys like you, who love to sit around and agitate for more war, more war, frightening weak-minded and faithless people into buying your cynical take on what constitutes a threat to the United States.

    Don't worry–I'll make sure Sharia law doesn't get amended into the Constitution, or whatever little fantasy you've got dreamed up. Deal?

    Meanwhile, stick to standing up for the Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. You do that well.

  • tanstaafl

    Islam has been at war with the infidel world for the last 1400 years. During that period, 270 million infidels have been killed by the "religion of peace".

    If you desire peace, prepare for war.