What does “agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threat” mean? What does “We need to be smart, strategic and set priorities.” mean? What does “‘evolve’ to find new ways to meet its existing commitments” mean?
Those are some of the things President Barack Hussein Obama said on Thursday, January 5, 2012, as he announced cuts of some $500 billion to the military budget. Weasel words with no precise meaning? Sure, but what else have we ever gotten from Obama? As usual, he had many euphemisms, but few specifics. In fact, the ONLY specific he offered was the amount of the budget reduction: almost $500 billion over 12 years. Further, Obama’s announcement is completely separate from the “super-committee,” which announced in November, 2011, that it had failed. The super-committee was tasked with reducing at least $1.2 trillion from the next ten years’ spending. Failure meant the difference is to be made up in massive across-the-board cuts. Certain budget areas, including entitlements, was exempt from the cuts, but defense was not.
In 1967, Defense spending was 9.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while Entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) spending was 3.5%. In 2011, Defense spending had fallen to 5% of GDP, while Entitlement spending rose to 10%. Further, Defense spending is projected in 2021 to be 4% of GDP while Entitlement spending is projected in 2021 to be 13.3% of GDP.
BTW, here is a breakdown of the FY2011 budget: (note: these are amounts, not GDP)
- Medicare and Medicaid – mandatory – $1,370.8 trillion – 36.9%
- Social Security – mandatory – $760.7 trillion – 20.5%
- National Debt Interest – mandatory – $241.6 trillion – 6.5%
- Defense – not mandatory – $729.9 trillion – 19.7%
- Nondefense – not mandatory – $610.5 trillion – 16.4%
What good will “mandatory” spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security do if we don’t have a country? Does Obama and his followers really think that if this country is taken over by force that the new rulers will continue mandatory spending on US citizens? Are they really that näive? If so, then I have a bridge in NYC in which they may be interested. Why is it permissible to cut the military, to downsize, to reduce the number of soldiers, but not to reduce the number of policemen and firemen? Don’t they ALL do the same thing – protect us? Why can the military’s equipment be allowed to age without a word from liberals? But let police or firefighters’ equipment age and liberals get quite vocal. And why must the military’s strategy, which has been planned for years, be changed at the expense of entitlements? Why were entitlement budget reductions verboten when the super-committee was negotiating, but not defense budget reductions?
Buying votes at the expense of the defense of this country is bad enough, and not being able protect ourselves or project power where and when we need to is shameful. But we should not be surprised – Obama knows no shame.
Strength creates options. Weakness limits them. But that’s just my opinion.
Access to other articles like this one can be found at RWNO, my personal web site.