The Congressional Super Committee that was such a big part of Minority leader Mitch McConnell's sucker's deal with President Obama has admitted failure...just as I predicted, here and here. Instead of presenting cut cap and balance, passed by the House and by every Republican in the Senate as a final offer and letting the president take the onus for shutting the government down, McConnell gave the president everything he wanted..including a brand new higher credit card limit.
The way it was set up, President Obama won either way, thanks to McConnell's gutless approach. With the sort of Democrats that were appointed to the committee, they were never going to agree to any compromises. Either the GOP was going to go along with the massive tax hikes the Democrats love - oh, sorry, 'new revenues' - and destroy itself politically or the committee, which like the President favors hollowing out our military and defense budget would just sit on their hands and let the massive automatic cuts in those areas take place.
And the cuts aimed at defense are downright irresponsible. SecDef Pannetta has already targeted the military with over $450 billion in cuts as it is. Add that to the proposed $600 billion and we're talking over one trillion in cuts from our defense budget.
President Obama is channeling his model Tony Blair and New Labour once again. This is exactly how Blair and his cronies destroyed Britain's armed forces.
Even the Republican's craven offer to accept $500 billion in tax hikes wasn't enough - the Democrats insisted on one trillion. In other words, they never had any attention of seriously making a deal.
McConnell and the Republicans who signed on to the budget deal and the supercommittee scam got nothing except a screwing done without the benefit of any sort of lubrication.
President Obama, sporting one of his trademark smiles happily announced that he will veto any attempt by Congress to try and protect our military or defense establishment from any of the mandated cuts. He and the Democrats got exactly what they wanted, more money to use on domestic spending to reward the president's political allies in the run up to the elections.
A number of political figures are pointing fingers at each other in an effort to assign blame, but I put this squarely on the shoulders of the Republican leadership for allowing themselves to be conned in the first place.
10 comments:
Essentially the United States is bankrupt. Actually no essentailly about it. The United States is bankrupt. As such, EVERYONE and this includes the military is going to need to take a serious haircut.
Essentially these cuts are a good start. When one is faced with an overwhelming problem, it is often helpful for oen to start with the easier aspects first. The military represents low hanging fruit so to speak. As such, cuts here are going to be fairly easy to make. After this we can move on to cuts in other areas. These are going to be significantly harder.
Since I think both major political parties knew they would not be able to reach an agreement this was actually quite smart to make cuts mandatory should an agreement not be reached. This suggests that maybe we are finally starting to get serious about making the spending cuts we need.
While these cuts are a good start, they are not steep enough and we need to build on them. Cuts to the military are easy politically and cost very little and have only minimal political costs associated with them, other cuts will be harder and their will be pressures from special interests and the news media to come up with "work arounds" on many of them. We nust resist the urge to suspend the cuts and yes even Mr. Obama's friends will need to take hair cuts. EVERYONE will have to.
Start with these cuts and buidl upon them and in time we may be able to restore the economic and fiscal health of America. Many corporations have emerged from bankruptcy stronge than when they entered bankruptcy. With good leadership and character America can do the same.
As for those include the Sec of Defense who have expressed concern over military spending cuts, they are not asking the right questions. They need to ask the following questions. 1.) We spend about 600 billion on military expenditures. Russia and China spend about 60 billion each on military expenditures yet both of those countries are militarily superior to the United States in most every area of importance. Where is the money we are spending going? 2.)The military is so badly depleted that if called upon to defend the American mainland from invasion such an operation would be problematic at best. How can we do more with less money?
I suspec the answer to question one is the same as for most government agencies. There is much waste and out and out fraud. We absolutely must get a handle on this. As for question 2, we should invest more in upgrades to and improvements to the nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver these weapons. Given our lack of financial ability, industrial capabilities, and scientific know how relative to the world's major powers we aren't going to be able to compete with them in conventional forces in the forseeable future. By investing more in the nuclear arsenal this gives us a fighting chance to defend our country should they choose to make aggressive moves against us.
Also, redeploy our troops to defensible positions along our borders. I suspect such a move would improve troop morale and troop retention.
Finally its inevitable now that the US dollar will soon lose its role as world's reserve currency. Theere is no longer any thing that can be doen to prevent there. The US government and other major leaders in America need to be preparing for this.
You sound like a Ron Paul retard.Yeah, let's pull back from everywhere and let our enemies have a free pass. You think they won't eventually come here and try and take us out?
We have the best and most advanced military in the world. The key to seeing who spends what is to look at the percentage of GNP a country spends, and ours is a lot lower than Russia or China.
And where did you get your figures,anyway. Pannetta is already on board with $450 billion is defense cuts, and the failure of the super committee means another $600 billion. Based on your figures, does that mean we now will be spending minus $450 billion?
TL,
By repositioning our forces we have a fighting chance to defend ourselves. With our economic situation, our lack of a meaningful industrial base, and crumbling infrastructure that is going to need to be addressed it is simply not realistic for us to be able to compete with the major world powers. We are going to have to adjust to this reality whether we or our leaders like it or not. Good outcomes for our country are possible but we are going to have to face up to reality and act accordingly. Ignoring reality or pretending it is not true gets us no where.
There is nothing "retard" about what I suggest. Its based upon common sense and what is in the best interest of our nation.
While we may still have a qualitative edge militarily over China, China's numerical edge more than offsets any qualitiative edge we have. In the case of Russia, its large and advanced nuclear arsenal more than offsets any conventional edge we may still have. Also, Russia and China have made significant upgrades to their militaries in recent years. America not only has not done so but has allowed the military capabilities it has to diminish.
When various publications discuss America's military situation, there is the tendency to ignore or downplay the strengths of China and Russia while overstating the strength of America. I suspect much of this has to do with the desire to sell magiznes, subscriptions, and to get advertising dollars, etc.
As for where I get my information, according to a FOX News report Nr. Panetta had expressed concerns over military spending cuts. Perhaps this was in error. It probably was. Its hard to imagine any one choosing to support military expenditures.
Frankly Americans need a serious attitude adjustment. It costs one very little and is quite profitable for one to rant and rail against the "military industrial complex." Hardly a week goes by where some taling head pundit resists the urge to do this. Its quite profitable and easy. Why should they?
Instead of viewing the military industrial complex as something that is headed up by evil, greedy corporate executives who waste tax dollars, Americans need to start to view the military industrial complex as something that is vital the defense of a free and soverign nation.
I asked you specifically about your claim that we spend $600 billion on our military in light of the $450 billion in cuts Panetta is already on board with and the $600 billion mandated if the supercommittee failed.
Either you pulled your figures out of your behind ( which would make all your other arguments suspect)or we're 'cutting' more from defense than we're spending.
In your earlier comment,you said Russia and China are militarily superior to the US..now your changing your story and saying we're 'qualitatively superior' to them, but China's numerical advantage outweighs that.
Tell me B. Poster, how many PLA divisions do you think it would take to win out in a head to head against an ICBM launched from one of our submarines? Ten? Twenty? Fifty?
Quality almost ALWAYS overcomes quantity, unless the better force is incompetently led or makes huge tactical mistakes. Do a search on Rourke's Drift sometime.
Most of Russia's nukes are relics from the Cold War era and a number of them may not even work.That's why they wanted the START treaty. And to turn your logic around,if quantity beats quality, why wouldn't we win in a head to head with Russia..assuming they'd be stupid enough to start anything with us anyway?
I think you should answer those questions before we go any further.
What I think you are is a Ron Paul lover who has fantasies of us pulling back to fortress America and expecting the world to leave us alone. That's a silly notion, and I think you need to do some serious thinking about your beliefs.
The annual expenditures of approximately 600 billion are from multiple internet searches. You can do this yourself. I think the cuts in spending are over 10 years. If so, this would still have us spending significantly more on military expenditures than either Russia or China.
Any qualitative military edge we may still have is very likely overwhelmed by China's superior numbers. Also, in any fight with China we will probably have to fight Russia as well. Since we have not upgraded our nuclear forces in quite some time, its much more likley ours will not work than it is that Russia's will not work. Furthermore, if we used nuclear weapons against Chinese forces, Russia would almost certainly get involved.
Russia has upgraded their nuclear arsenal in recent years and the means to deliver it. This can be read about in a basic internet search. The US does not seem to have done so. Russia wanted START to further solidify their advantage in this area.
I think this answers your questions.
With regards to "Fortress America" the concept may not work as well as it once did. In the past we had vast oceans to separate us from poetential enemies and we had first rate industrial capabilities so we could build up war making capabilities very quickly. Now we don't have much of an industrial base and on top of this we have massive national debt. This is going to make any kind of military build up of the type that one past wars problematic at best. In addtion, Russia, China, and soon to be other countries will have weapons that can hit us any where at any time within an hour or less. As such, a robust nuclear deterrent is going to be an absolute must. We should work to get our arsenal upgraded and expanded. Also, secure the borders. Every other nation does this. I'd also like for Western European nations and other members of the so called "west" to invest more in their militaries.
While Dr. Paul has some good ideas, he also has some flaws. To refer to me as a Ron Paul lover is inaccurate.
Actually it doesn't. Answer my questions, that is. And it brings up new ones.
However you slice it, we still spend substantially LESS than Russia and China in terms of our percentage of GDP. That's the real measure.Not how big the slice of pie is but how much of the pie it represents.
There's also no guarantee that 'if we fight China, we fight Russia'. For one thing, if you know your history the two countries are not exactly on the best terms.Anywho, War against either one is not exactly a certainty. China's economy is dependent on US markets for its exports, and we owe them a lot of money. You think they're gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs and starve to death?
Russia has no advantage over us in nukes at this time. If it came down to war between Russia and the US, they'd be history and they know it. The majority of Russia's nukes are years behind ours.The only real weapon they have is scaring idiots like OBummer.
You also didn't address the fact that in one post you were saying Russia and China were militarily superior to the US and then in the next one changing your story qualitatively superior' to them, but China's numerical advantage outweighs that.
I proved to you that quality beats quantity every time, unless the quality is crap led or badly deployed.You haven't proved the opposite to me. I'll ask again: how many PLA divisions do you think it would take to win out in a head to head against an ICBM launched from one of our submarines? Ten? Twenty? Fifty?
As far as Fortress America goes, let's not forget YOU were the one talking about pulling all our troops and forces back to our borders, not me. I'm glad to see you now realize that would be a dumb idea, unlike that fuckin' idiot Ron Paul.
TL,
I think I see what you mean about percentage of GDP spending on the military. It is true that the US does spend less as a percentage of GDP than some of these other countries but you still should be able to buy much more with 600 billion than the 60 billion or so that Russia and China each are said to spend.
The US is a big export market for China and the US depends upon China for alot of the things it needs to make its society function. I've discussed this elsewhere before. For China to lose the US export market would be analogous to a broken arm for them. For America to lose access to Chinese manufactured goods would be analogous to a broken neck for America. As such, this hurts us much more than it would China. China would also love to have America's natural resources. As such, they'd love to see us break our necks.
I'm not sure how many PLA divisions it would take for China to win out against a nuclear submarine. Chinese anti-ship and anti-submarine "sunburn" weapons wil likely neutralize these American assets very quickly. In fact, the Russians, Chinese, or both would probably take them out preemptively. In other words they'd be eliminated before they had a chance to fire their weapons.
You addressed the deployment of forces. American forces are very poorly deployed right now. For example, we have troops misdeployed in South Korea, in Afghanistan we have troops and equipment deployed in a landlocked country surrounded by hostile forces. In addition, we are now talking about sending permanent forces to Austrailia. I'm not sure how you proved that quality beats quantity every time. In truth it would likely depend on the situation but I will do the search you suggested.
Russia has upgraded their nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it. The US has not. Russia has a huge edge over us in this area. Given our national debt and the fact that we lag behind in technology, we are not going to be able to compete with these countries in conventional or nuclear capabilities for the foreseeable future. We can, however, make our country secure enough that it would be very difficutl and not worth the cost or risk to invade us or otherwise threaten us. Part of the way to do this is to upgrade our nuclear arsenal, the menas to deliver it, and secure our borders.
We can lessen our dependence on Chinese imports by streamling government regulations. This would enable us be more competitive with manufactured goods.
With fortress America the idea is not a dumb one. Before a government does any thing else it must secure its country. For example it makes little sense to have forces deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere while our borders are wide open. What I meant is the implementation of this may have to be altered from the way it is traditionally thought of to fit with early 21st century realities.
Part of adjusting to these realities is to recognize that the world's dominant powers are Russia and China and they will likely to be so for the foreseeable future. Once this is recognized and acted upon accordingly, good outcomes for America are possible within this framework. Failture to acknowledge this will only lead to more problems for us.
Redeployment to defensible postions has an added benefit. It should increase the morale and retention of our armed forces as our warriors will actually be defending America as they signed up to do.
As far as foreign policy, most Americans agree with Ron Paul. Apparently you are suggesting they are idiots as well.
I see you're back to talking about Russia and China being 'the world's dominant powers'. Not only are you not conssitent, you have no clue what you're talking about.
That's also evident by your comments on anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons. Where's you get that, Wikipedia? China's stuff is better than it was,but no match for an American attack, which would come from multiple sources.
You also failed to give me any logical reason as to why Russia and China would attack America jointly, or why the Chinese would kiss off $800 billion and their biggest market to do so.
If the US had to do without Chinese goods, there'd be some financial discomfort and price increases in some areas. But th eslcak would be picked up elsewhere. If China wasn't able to export to us,they'd be looking at famine and a virtual shut down of key sectors of their economy. We have the capacity to be energy self-sufficient and food self-sufficient. They don't. And have you taken a look at China's demographics lately, genius?
You like a defensive strategy? The Byzantines and believe it or not China tried that, and it worked for awhile...but guess how it turned out eventually? Heck, we even tried it during the Clinton years. Worked out well,didn't it?
You say most Americans agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy? No way you can prove that,because it's simply BS. That's how liberals argue 'everybody knows'. What you really mean is that YOU agree with him.
The guy who writes this blog seems to have a decent amount of common sense. I'm surprised he lets you post this crap here.
TL,
I see you like insulting people who disagree with you. Simply becuase you disagree does not make it "crap." Wijipedia is part of the main stream. You don't get to be part of the main stream unless you stick to the same line of reasoning you stick to. I suppose that some people deisre to be part of the main stream. Best not to challenge the status quo. In the mean time, the American people are not being given all of the facts. They are being given a false sense of security.
Why would Russia and China attack us? In the case of China they need the natural resources. As it is now, the American economy is doomed any way and there is no real possibility China will get paid back what we owe them any way. In the case of Russia, they lost the Cold War. In spite of overwhelming advantages over us in almost every area, they still lost. They are still angry over this. Unfortunately we failed to finish the job. Now they're back. There is still an element of bitterness about this and they want the old Soviet Union back.
There is also the ideological component that they both hate us. To have the two most powerful counttries on earth hostile to us is an untenable position to say the least. A serious effort to address this should be among our top priorities.
"You like a defensive strategy?" You are darn right I do!! I prefer to have our forces defending America and its interests rather than off on some frutiless effort in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere and yes most Americans do agree with Dr. Paul and me on national defense.
While it is true we cannot be every where, we or allies will need to be active in certain areas. I;d like to see Western European and other nations who are allied with us invest more in their militaries. This would provide us some much needed relief.
"The guy who writes this blog seems to have a decent amount of common sense. I'm surprised he lets you post this crap here." He is the best blogger on the internet, I think. Just because you disagree does not make it crap. While I can't speak for Rob, I suspect he allows me to post because he desires that multiple view points be expressed lest we end up in an echo chamber of sorts. Also, taking publicly taking any sort of pro-Israel stance generally requires a great deal of courage. For this, I have tremendous admiration for him.
China has lots of options for food imports and even if they lost our export market it would hardly be a disaster for them. If it happened suddenly, it might be a litte rougher than they might like but hardly a disaster for them. Whereas if we were to suddenly lose access to these imports it would be an unmitigated disaster for us.
The goal for us should be to wean ourselves off of Chinese imports. In time, we can do this. At the very least, we could give ourselves some leverage in negotiations with them. As for food, if they need it from us they can always extort it from us through use of economic warfare, sanctions, or other reprisals from the WTO or elsewhere.
We can be energy self sufficient as well but right now we are not. It will take time to achieve. In the mean time, we are not in a very good spot. Not sure what China's demographics has to do with it other than they are gearing up for war with us.
As for the "genius" remark, many geniuses do not understand the first thing about the real world. They allow ideology to guide them or the desire to fit in with the crowd or whatever.
Finally, I wasn't aware we tried a defensive strategy during the Clinton years. As I recall, we spent alot of that time bombing Serbia and angering Russia. Smart move!! If we were serious about national defense we would have done the following: 1.)develop all of our oil and gas reserves, 2.)build more refineries, 3.)secure our borders, and 4.)years before the 911 attacks we should have had reason to believe that Islamic terrorists pose a problem for us. We could have and should have closely monitored the mosques and placed a moratorium on immigration from that part of the world.
Do those 4 things and we greater utility for our national security and economic well being than any thing we are currently doing. As George Washington put things to roughly paraphrase, "why quit our own to stand on foreign lands." We need a return to our nation's founding principles.
as
Post a Comment