Sen.-elect Paul: GOP must consider military cuts

[danarhea]

WASHINGTON – Republican Sen.-elect Rand Paul says GOP lawmakers must be open to cutting military spending as Congress tries to reduce government spending.


The tea party favorite from Kentucky says compromise with Democrats over where to cut spending must include the military as well as social programs. Paul says all government spending must be "on the table."

Not a very popular position to take, but you know what? I completely agree with him. The defense lobby is going to go nuts over this, but Rand Paul knows the obvious - Our defense spending is equal to that of the next 27 nations combined, and that, my friends, is ridiculous.

Yes, put defense spending on the table, and give that group of corporate welfare queens a kick in the nuts too.

Article is here.

 

[Wiseone]

I totally agree, there's so much wasted money in the DoD. I'd go into details from my personal experience but quite honestly I wouldnt be completely comfortable with that.

But needless to say many DoD jobs and military bases are created or kept open long after their usefulness because they bring money and jobs to areas belonging to powerful Congressmen or Senators.

Also there's a whole lot of "Next-war-itis" that goes into the DoD. The F-22 program is a perfect example of this, its something which has no application in Iraq or Afghanitan and has in fact never been used in wartime but its been in developed and/or application for almost 2 decades, one of those decades being war years. But its something people say we may need for the "next-war" of course thats just an assumption as to what the next war will be. While its nice to be prepared, there's only so much money can afford.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I was wondering how far the apple fell from the tree

I expect a massive backlash towards Rand Paul from this statement

 

[haymarket]

This has as much chance as Alan Grayson being elected the next Speaker of the House.

 

[Hatuey]

The Pauls are simply the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[haymarket]

and we have many more years of that gift.

 

[apdst]

After the defense cuts take place, our troops will find themselves embroiled in a protracted conflict and lack equipment. Then what?

The reality of defense cuts, is that the cuts start at the bottom and go up. Which means that Sgt. Joe, his wife and three kids aren't going to be able to get quarters on post, because of the cuts and, because of the cuts, his BAQ (basic allowance for quarters) will get cut. Combat arms troops won't be able to conduct as much live fire training, which will deny them the realistic training they need to be able to transition onto an actual battlefield. Specialized training will be cut back, meaning that fewer soldiers will be qualified outside their primary MOS.

Training, is the first thing that suffers when cuts are made to the defense budget.

 

[MaggieD]

Not a very popular position to take, but you know what? I completely agree with him. The defense lobby is going to go nuts over this, but Rand Paul knows the obvious - Our defense spending is equal to that of the next 27 nations combined, and that, my friends, is ridiculous.

Yes, put defense spending on the table, and give that group of corporate welfare queens a kick in the nuts too.

Article is here.

Yeah, of course. That'll offend everyone on a bipartisan basis. I am so sure that our government could simply start by cutting our military budget by 15% and demanding accountability for the various departments involved. Easy-peasy. Then go line-by-line and cut some more.

However, until we are ready to tackle entitlements, we're still skrood.

 

[Hatuey]

and we have many more years of that gift.

It's insane because there are people who think that the ideas proposed by these guys are sensible. I mean the military is probably the 2nd or 3rd biggest social program the United States has. Congress not only signs military paychecks, it signs bills for military housing, financial aid for colleges, food aid for thousands of members.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to say that they're going to cut any of the benefits to being in the military off. The political backlash would be insane and it's not just from old cats like Navy Pride. It would be from all sides, the millions of families who are dependent on the many benefits members of the military get would go looking to lynch their local representatives.

Yeah Paul, keep this line up. It's sure to make you a one term Senator.

 

[Wiseone]

After the defense cuts take place, our troops will find themselves embroiled in a protracted conflict and lack equipment. Then what?

The reality of defense cuts, is that the cuts start at the bottom and go up. Which means that Sgt. Joe, his wife and three kids aren't going to be able to get quarters on post, because of the cuts and, because of the cuts, his BAQ (basic allowance for quarters) will get cut. Combat arms troops won't be able to conduct as much live fire training, which will deny them the realistic training they need to be able to transition onto an actual battlefield. Specialized training will be cut back, meaning that fewer soldiers will be qualified outside their primary MOS.

Training, is the first thing that suffers when cuts are made to the defense budget.

Sometimes, but no one is yet suggesting that be the case. I'm talking things like the F-22 program. You don't have to worry about training, the Army is all about modularity these days and soldiers always gets chances for training allowing them to serve outside their primary MOS. Its almost a requirement for promotion beyond SSG now.

 

[apdst]

Sometimes, but no one is yet suggesting that be the case. I'm talking things like the F-22 program. You don't have to worry about training, the Army is all about modularity these days and soldiers always gets chances for training allowing them to serve outside their primary MOS. Its almost a requirement for promotion beyond SSG now.

What unit did you serve in?

 

[MaggieD]

It's insane because there are people who think that the ideas proposed by these guys are sensible. I mean the military is probably the 2nd or 3rd biggest social program the United States has. Congress not only signs military paychecks, it signs bills for military housing, financial aid for colleges, food aid for thousands of members.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to say that they're going to cut any of the benefits to being in the military off. The political backlash would be insane and it's not just from old cats like Navy Pride. It would be from all sides, the millions of families who are dependent on the many benefits members of the military get would go looking to lynch their local representatives.

Yeah Paul, keep this line up. It's sure to make you a one term Senator.

Oh, for God's sake. Don't gore my ox!!!!!!!!! We're doomed.

 

[Wiseone]

What unit did you serve in?

In all honesty I just reported for active duty on Oct 5th this year. But I'm scheduled to report to the 46th TC company of the 501st Sustainment Brigade in Camp Stanley Korea in March. Currently I'm at Ft. Lee VA attending Transportation Corp BOLC, Basic officer leadership course, so I'm a logistican.

But I can tell you from the NCO talk and instructor talk is that the Army is planning on a serious down-sizing in the next 2-6 years and it plans to be ready by having soldiers prepared to function in multiple fields so it doesn't end up with serious shortages or excesses in one MOS when all the smoke has cleared.

 

[Hatuey]

Oh, for God's sake. Don't gore my ox!!!!!!!!! We're doomed.

Well, the thing is that the military is everybody's ox to some extent.

Even if you're not in the military you're at the very least likely to know somebody in the military. Families which depend on military paychecks aren't going to take Paul's goring all that well. After all, it's not like he ever served. His father did, but he's now a career politician. So as Navy would say 'it's no skin off their backs'.

I'm all for gutting some social programs as they're ineffective. Cutting the military budget? Depends what we're cutting and how much we're cutting. Anything above 10% would be political suicide for any politician who supports it.

 

[librep]

There are certainly some areas of military funding that could be cut (weapons modernizaton/development would be a good start), but somehow I get the feeling that Paul is talking about VA benefits and the 20-40 billion spent on foreign aid. Neither of which is a great idea. It would be good to have more transparency regarding the military budget, there is a lot of money floating around under the title of "undisclosed funds" that should be sorted.

 

[Barbbtx]

I was wondering how far the apple fell from the tree

I expect a massive backlash towards Rand Paul from this statement

So far what I've heard from the Rep. is that nothing is off that table and that includes defense spending. I don't expect much backlash at all. They were all elected to take control of the spending. They better do that or there will be backlash in 2012.

 

[Cold Highway]

There are certainly some areas of military funding that could be cut (weapons modernizaton/development would be a good start), but somehow I get the feeling that Paul is talking about VA benefits and the 20-40 billion spent on foreign aid. Neither of which is a great idea. It would be good to have more transparency regarding the military budget, there is a lot of money floating around under the title of "undisclosed funds" that should be sorted.

Cutting foreign aid should be the first military spending cut back. Im sick of subsidizing other countries.

 

[Barbbtx]

After the defense cuts take place, our troops will find themselves embroiled in a protracted conflict and lack equipment. Then what?

The reality of defense cuts, is that the cuts start at the bottom and go up. Which means that Sgt. Joe, his wife and three kids aren't going to be able to get quarters on post, because of the cuts and, because of the cuts, his BAQ (basic allowance for quarters) will get cut. Combat arms troops won't be able to conduct as much live fire training, which will deny them the realistic training they need to be able to transition onto an actual battlefield. Specialized training will be cut back, meaning that fewer soldiers will be qualified outside their primary MOS.

Training, is the first thing that suffers when cuts are made to the defense budget.

There has got to be some wasteful spending they could do away with, don't you think? I have faith in our newly elected officials to take care of our military.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

So far what I've heard from the Rep. is that nothing is off that table and that includes defense spending. I don't expect much backlash at all. They were all elected to take control of the spending. They better do that or there will

I would like to see that Paul doesnt see some backlash, but I have a feeling their will be and Paul will recant soon. Unless he is has a strong a conviction as his father

 

[Grant]

Wiseone

But I can tell you from the NCO talk and instructor talk is that the Army is planning on a serious down-sizing in the next 2-6 years and it plans to be ready by having soldiers prepared to function in multiple fields so it doesn't end up with serious shortages or excesses in one MOS when all the smoke has cleared.

It will be cut because warfare has changed so dramatically over the past decade. The way war was fought for centuries is obsolete.

No one will attack with full armies anymore, they will attack through demographics and terrorism, just as China did in Tibet. Soldiers will be highly trained but trained quite differently than they were in the past. It will be more of a clandestine war with drones playing an ever increasing role against terrorist leaders. As well, there will be more financially espionage (such as currency manipulations), computer espionage, and domestic terrorism. The propaganda wars against the democracies, so successfully developed by the Communists during their golden age, will continue

 

[librep]

Cutting foreign aid should be the first military spending cut back. Im sick of subsidizing other countries.

Economic globalization is reality, and whether or not we like the idea of that, it's presence is not debatable. I fail to see the benefit of eliminating foreign aid outside of the staggering 40 billion dollars (at most) that we'd save. There are more worthwhile and less damaging pockets of fat we could cut.

 

[apdst]

In all honesty I just reported for active duty on Oct 5th this year. But I'm scheduled to report to the 46th TC company of the 501st Sustainment Brigade in Camp Stanley Korea in March. Currently I'm at Ft. Lee VA attending Transportation Corp BOLC, Basic officer leadership course, so I'm a logistican.

But I can tell you from the NCO talk and instructor talk is that the Army is planning on a serious down-sizing in the next 2-6 years and it plans to be ready by having soldiers prepared to function in multiple fields so it doesn't end up with serious shortages or excesses in one MOS when all the smoke has cleared.

Ok! First things first: thank you for your service.

The fact that you're a butter-bar explains alot about your attitude. A word to the wise, that, "I know it all and everyone else is a dumbass", attitude you're sporting, will be the beginning and the end of your career. That's coming from an 11M/B40-H, with PLDC, BNCOC, ANCOC and 1SC under his belt; for what it's worth.

When you get to a line unit and the drawdown takes place, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[apdst]

There has got to be some wasteful spending they could do away with, don't you think? I have faith in our newly elected officials to take care of our military.

Of course there is. But, the DoD is given, "X", dollars each year and told to spend it as they wish. Typically, their wish is to keep the high dollar R&D projects and make the cuts on the bottom end; where individual soldiers are affected the most.

 

[Zyphlin]

Spot on, cut the Military Budget by 5%.

Then go to the various entitlement programs and various "general welfare" type programs that are luxuries, not necessities, of what the government is supposed to do and cut enough from all those to total the same amount of money that 5% equals.

That'd cut almost 70 billion dollars out of the budget alone.

If the MILITARY decides to take their budget and decides to screw over those on the ground rather than cutting some high end experimental projects or to attempt to examine fraud and waste more or other measures then bitch, complain, and condemn the military individuals that are making that choice. The congress can cut spending, but they don't choose where those cuts go. You don't get to act like you're incapable of being cut by threatening to deal with it in a crappy manner and act like its their fault if you act that way.

To give an analogy, if I set my houses budget to be $90 every two weeks rather than $100 and my wife chooses to continue to go out to happy hour every tuesday and spend $30 on drinks but stops buying milk and bread while shopping, the fact we're not getting essentials that we need is on HER not on ME because she's choosing to be irresponsible with the money. It could only be blamed on me if every other none-necessity had already been removed from the budget and THEN I cut it, costing her to pick which necessity to get rid of.

Kudos to Paul at being realistic about this. We can't deal with the cost of government without dealing with all of it open and honestly. There's no reason why the defense budget shouldn't be our largest singular budgetary item, and I honestly have no issue with it being huge compared to other countries, but its ridiculous to also act like its a holy cow that can not be touched. We do the military with the government because it makes the most sense and is part of their job, but that doesn't magically change it from being the same thing as any other government bureaucracy...inefficient, bloated, and needing to be checked at times.

 

[Harshaw]

Close the bases in Europe.