Obama wants to cut the deficit.  First thing he wants to cut, as all Democrats are want to do… Military Spending.  Who could have seen that coming?  Yeah, that’s shocking.  78 Billion reduction in spending.  That’s interesting, because I bet we could cut a lot more from other useless programs before we touched our National Defense.  For example, we gave the Art Institute Of California Hollywood a total of 16.5 Million dollars.  The Art Institute Of Houston was given 38.9 Million.  28 Million went to the Art Institute of Las Vegas.  Of all this money, really and honestly how necessary was this spending?  In what national interest was this spending made?

Look, I’m not against art.  But Art should be privately funded and not Federally funded.  I don’t need my tax money going to artists in Hollywood.  Are there not enough concerned Hollywood millionaires to support Art?  Come on.

This is just an example of where spending cuts can be made.  There are a lot of other areas in a similar vein that can be cut… and on principle alone, should be cut.
I’m sure there are some programs in the Depart of Defense that can be cut or trimmed.  I’m still not a fan of the V-22 Osprey.  It seems of limited benefit compared to the numerous liabilities.  The Stryker, okay, I was wrong about the Stryker and it’s proven to be a great vehicle.  But I have yet to hear from any expert how an LAV25 with upgraded communications gear would be a lesser vehicle.  Especially when the Stryker is so much money.   Do we need a Lincoln Navigator instead of a workable Tahoe?  I don’t know.  But I’m looking at the LAV and the Stryker looks really similar for a whole lot more money.  How can we shave some money from that?  I bet we can.
The Marine’s floating assault tank is a nice rig… when the Marines asked for it 20 years ago.  I find it insulting that there are Republicans that took the Marines to task when the Marines said, “Yeah, we can cut that.”  The Republicans seemed to disparage the Marines that they gave it up too easily.  “They pushed for it hard enough 20 years ago.”  Well, yeah, they did.  But they have learned to do their thing without out… because they have been doing without them for twenty years.
Other cuts, the C-17, I think is a bad idea.  The F-35 can program can be streamlined.  Simplify the F-35, and start building them in quantity.  The F-22 program was killed, when it needed to be fast tracked.  Now that China has a 5th Gen fighter, we need our own more than ever.  Because when China tools up for production, they are going to make quite a few of them.  What do we have to put up against that?  F-18’s mostly, because we don’t have enough F-22’s.
Government has the duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the US, and it’s people.  Cutting Military Spending hampers it’s ability to carry out that function.   Obama needs to look at other things.
Let’s not forget that Military Spending is a huge chunk of our National Economy.  Almost 5% of our GDP.
I wonder if some reorganization would help maximize our return on our Defense Dollars.  I’ve said in the past that Privatization is the answer to almost every problem with the Government.  I bet we could do the same with the US Military.  Operate it like it was a series of businesses.  Just a thought.

7 thoughts on “Spending”

  1. I knew a guy who got to fly an F-22 a few times, he said it was one of the coolest things he’s ever done. But yes, they are expensive, so let’s the F-35 the new F-16. To streamline production, let’s make them all VTOL and put tail hooks on them. That should cover all take-off and landing situations, and maybe it won’t go as fast, but it’ll have the radar signature of an iPod. If they can’t make the VTOL thing work, then make them like normal planes until we can get the VTOL working. Maybe we could sell our old fighters to friends to raise the money to buy the new ones.

    Oh Canada, how would you like some F-15s?

  2. Ogre,
    My dad was an USAF Pilot for 20+ years. After 9/11, he reentered through the USAF Reserves as an OSS Commander stationed in Charlestown. C-Town is a Haven for the C-17. I thought it odd at first that my dad, who was a career B-1 pilot, would begin flying cargo class aircraft. However, after the first few years, and hearing everything that he was involved in, I began to understand how paramount this aircraft is. Now, from your wording, I cannot exactly understand if you mean cutting C-17 budgets is a bad idea or not but as a son of a flying warrior, I just wanted to offer my own commentary… The C-17 is an excellent instrument of National Defense and though operated by the USAF is a workhorse for any branch that needs anything from people to pizza anywhere on the Globe. They don’t call it the “Globemaster” for nothing. These kind of decisions make me question the military advisment that is going on up there in DC. I’m sure we can find some things that are no longer financially responsible to cut that would improve our efforts but looking at a price list from high to low and slashing is irresponsible. Some things are that expensive for a reason, they save lives and you pay for what you get.

    Of course in a dream, I’d like to see a centralized and streamlined database that tracks all manners of equipment for all force branches. That level of efficiency could really destroy waste funding. But I digress……..

    1. Cutting the C-17 is a disaster. One of our main aircraft now for moving Men and Machine. Cutting that cuts our Military’s ability to get things done. This is one of the most retarded ideas I’ve ever heard of for the Military. This is just as stupid as saying “The US Navy doesn’t need Aircraft Carriers.”

  3. I’d like to see us sell some F-22’s. Make an Export Version and we sell them to the UK, Japan, Australia, and Singapore.

  4. As for the Osprey, I’m not impressed. Admittedly, a lot of that comes from watching multiple videos of them crashing. But they don’t seem like a good idea. They even need to remove the gun from the back in order to transport vehicles in it. I’m not a huge fan of any aircraft that is defenseless.

  5. hmmm, cut art institute funding that promotes such things as a depiction of a woman peeing in a jar, or cut funding for any type of military aircraft that might (will) save even one (or untold numbers) American lives? Please just tap me behind the ear with the butt of your 1911 and let me wake up in 1982!

  6. The problem with running the US military as a private business is that you get what you pay for. The FOB’s in Iraq were guarded by Ugandan mercenaries when I was there. They got good money with respect to their home country to sit in a tower all day sighting down the barrel of a machine gun.

    The rest of the world can’t afford to “hire” the US military. The only consumer for our “services” is the fedgov. We have the best toys and a very professional cadre of volunteers, but on the international market others are willing to work for pennies on the dollar without demanding such luxuries as “body armor”, “radios”, or “helicopters”.

    The best way to maintain strategic military capacity is to force shift power to the Reserves and National Guard. The reserve component takes up 5% of the budget but makes up over 50% of the available manpower. No loss of combat capabilities, only a slightly slower deployment time for the bulk of combat power.

    Although I hear what you are saying about the LAV-25. A great vehicle, only problem is that it carries fewer dismounts than a Bradley. The cost of a Stryker is on par with the Italian Centauro family of wheeled 8×8 fighting vehicles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *