CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 08, 2013 08:57 AM UTC

The Defense Budget

  • 3 Comments
  • by: Sir Robin

Historically, both in terms of the geopolitical status in the world, and from the perspective of the global economic frailty, we find ourselves in a window of opportunity to shrink the bloated, wasteful and unnecessary defense budget.

The 2012 defense budget of $646 billion has declined from the war-spending peak of $691 in 2010. But the 2012 budget, which is still in effect because Congress hasn’t passed the 2013 spending bill, is more than double the pre-war $316 billion budget of 2001.

Chuck Hagel could be a Secretary of Defense that could get this done. He has the bona fides, and the first hand experience in war, to legitimize his arguements.

How much can the defense budget be cut and not threaten our national security? My take on this issue is that the military has to find and even create justifications for it’s existence. This is clear in so many instances, where “causus belli” have been manufactured to convince an easily scared public of the need to tragically go to war.

This statement by one of the leadiing Senate hawks I find fascinating. “I’m one of the strongest defense hawks in the Congress,” Graham said. But “if we could come up with an entitlement reform deal that saves Social Security and Medicare and deals with Medicaid and sets spending limits that are sustainable, I would entertain going past $487 billion” in defense cuts over the next decade.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/…

As a country, we’re trying to craft a “Grand Bargain”, more out of necessity than ideology, but ideology and inflexibility seem to keep getting in the way.

It’s encouraging that even Senate hawks now couple defense spending reductions with other contentious issues. Perhaps defense cuts can pay for social programs. One can dream, right?

Comments

3 thoughts on “The Defense Budget

  1. Our total defense spending needs to be cut substantially.  The levels of fraud, waste, and abuse dwarf levels in any other program – including Medicare and Medicaid.  Just as a small example, while in Afghanistan I inventoried a container that no one had opened in years – and no one knew what was in it.  The contents included about 40,000 Ty Beanie Babies along with children’s rubber boots – which couldn’t be given out because they were made in Pakistan.  

    Four ways to cut:

    First, kill the F-35 program immediately.  We don’t need it, and can’t afford it – the most expensive weapons program in history.  

    Second, cut by one-third the number of officers in grades O-4 and above, and senior enlisteds in grades E-7 and above.  While we’re at it, cut the number of generals and admirals – of which we have almost 1,000 – by half.  

    Third, cut programs like the so-called XM-25 “Punisher.”  The only people that want it are the ones either building and selling it or the ones program managing it.  Updating M-1 tanks and C-130 planes should also stop – the Pentagon itself has said they’re wasteful programs.

    Finally, close many of the bases we have overseas, and think more strategically about where we need to be, and in what strength.  

    We are in the rare position of being able to substantially reduce our total spending on defense while making us more secure – and we need to take advantage of the opportunity.

  2. That is $48.7 billion per year, which would bring us to a point still far above 2001 levels.

    We were stronger than the top 20 nations in the world – combined – in defense spending back then; now we’re stronger than pretty much everyone else in the world combined. Quite simply we don’t need that.

    Pentagon spending is still horribly wasteful. A sensible Pentagon budget would remove earmarked programs and allow the Pentagon – with open bidding processes attracting multiple bidders – to determine which programs it still needs. We also need something to reign in cost overruns on bids.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

44 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!