| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Barney Frank envisions 25% defense cut |
| 2008-10-26 |
| After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday. In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay. The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said. "The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long." "I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review." Rep. Frank called on President Bush to appoint a senior official to guide the economic stimulus packages through the transition to the Barack Obama or John McCain administration when it takes office in January. And he said that if the Democrats can't find an adequate agreement on a stimulus package in the lame-duck Congress, they would rather wait until the new Congress takes over -- likely with many more Democrats, if polling results bear fruit in the November voting. The new package, he said, will be aimed at easing fears about lending and investing. "The psychological problem is even worse than the real problem," he said. "There is money to lend and projects worth borrowing money to do. But people are afraid to lend. That's what we're trying to unfreeze." States have many infrastructure projects -- bridges, highways, etc. -- that have been shut down because of a cash-flow problems, he said. So it is not the case that a stimulus will take months or years to wait for design and approval, since projects are already in progress or ready to go. Also, he said, "we'll increase the federal share of medical care so states won't have to lay off people." Unemployment insurance benefits won't increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed. And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #28 I don't want to shock anyone but the base housing I saw looked substandard. We spend a lot on the military and the housing should be better than I saw. I don't see why the Army Corp of Engineers or Habitat for Humanity should be building some nice, new, base housing. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-10-26 22:41 |
| #27 OK Frozen Al, I was going to just sit here and let JFM speak out about the one size fits all Lawn Dart, but yes the Hornet did replace the Tomcat. It was not originally intended to do so, but, the Light Fighter Mafia held the purse strings and saw to it that all Non Mickey D, now Boeing, tacair assets got shitcanned. The Hornet was originally to be the A-7 replacement, not the Intruder's. Now comes word that the A thru D models are suffering wing cracks at the aileron hinge, and are being inspected. Plastic wings take longer to fix than metal; remember the Intruder wing fatigue problem?? I do, I worked thru it for the last 7 years that bird was in service. it was a nightmare but metallic damage is easier to find and repair than composites. Read the Pentagon Paradox for an interesting history of the Lawn Dart. (out of print but should be available at the local library) |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2008-10-26 19:51 |
| #26 "Why not have a Fixed that for ya', BP. No extra charge. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-10-26 18:31 |
| #25 Why not have a 25% cut in the U.N. bill too? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-10-26 18:04 |
| #24 I just hope that enough of us are left alive after four years to vote BO and BF out of office. Remeber that "militia" Obalma want to create? Rememebers you nothing? Hint: Chavez own storm troopers. Iran revolutionary guards. Structures separated from the military. And the oath for members of Obama's jugends will not mention: "defending the Cponstitution and the laws of the United Sates". |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-10-26 17:28 |
| #23 "Less denarii for the legions. We need the coin for bread and circuses"__ Senator Coprophagia (circa 30 AD) |
| Posted by: Pliny the Pissed 2008-10-26 15:57 |
| #22 Great another reason to not vote for the illuminati liberal party. Let make ourselves weak before sit across our enemies and negiotiate our retreat. |
| Posted by: Enver Slereper8604 2008-10-26 15:12 |
| #21 JFM, The Super Hornet is not a successor to the F-14. It is a bomber disguised as an F-18, and as such is more a successor to the A-6 Intruder. It is a good enough attack aircraft (just don't let it get in a dogfight). The F-15s have a design weakness that causes the fuselage to crack, so we DESPERATELY need a successor. As far as Barney Fwank is concerned, if you believe that the US is the font of all evil, then weakening the US is weakening evil and should be done as much as possible. I just hope that enough of us are left alive after four years to vote BO and BF out of office. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2008-10-26 13:29 |
| #20 Anonymous5089 You should take a look at how much the British pay because they are ordered to buy European so they end paying two or three times more for a weapon who is inferior to its US equivalent. And how much you and I pay for the rafale and the Leclerc offspring of De Gaulle's ravings. However, what is disturbing had been US weapons stagnation during Clinton and, to a lesser degree Bush watch. The Reagan aera F14s, F1s, F16s and F18s were absolute masters of the air. The M1 was nearly unvulnerable to anything the soviets could throw at it. But the F14 has not had a successor who can take over its missions (please don't get me started about teh so-called Super Hornet). The F8 has only been marginally improved. And the F15s and F16s are only in the beginng of being replaced while in the meantime newer planes have emerged who are simply superior to them. And the M1 is no longer invulnerable and probably no longer the number 1. Compound this with the pitiful state of the bomber fleet whose core is formed by less than 100 B52s, and 67 B1Bs with no successor planned. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-10-26 13:11 |
| #19 Well, it is going to be interesting because many of the big defense contractors are in Deeep Blue states like California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Michigan. The defense budget comes in three flavors, O&M (which includes salaries and things like bullets, beans, and JP8), Production (which is where you buy all the shiny toys) and R&D (research and development). The big dollars are in O&M and Production. Unless there is going to be a major reduction in the size of the force, the cuts have to come from production and R&D. A 25% cut there means massive unemployment in the defense industry. |
| Posted by: RWV 2008-10-26 12:17 |
| #18 The Pentagon budget is full of weapons that are great on Powerpoint but don't get built in sufficient numbers to be useful in actual combat. Because they aren't weapons systems, they're Congressional pork fests. Reading only casually about it, I can see why a cut in US spending may be just what the doctor ordered - that is, if it's to benchmark spendings, reduce the pork, and get better bang for the buck. For example, while I have no real judgement to pass on the whole Stryker issue, past say Mike Sparks' somewhat insane rantings, one thing that still strikes me is how much the US Army pays, without getting an end-product significantly better than other armies. What use in having a fighting vehicle that is on par to the ones of other countries? And may have to be face them in greater numbers because they're significantly cheaper to acquire and operate? This puts the pressure on the human element, which has to be way better the ennemy's, even while the USA enjoy a solid wealth & technology advance, which should empower them to overshadow rivals in the sheer quality of its equipments. So, yes, NS makes good sense in that regards. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-10-26 12:16 |
| #17 Remember 1941 when Americans were beiong killed because they were amed with crap In 1941 Americans were being dilled because they didn't have any weapons at all, a situation we are approaching now. How do the F-22, DDG-1000, et. al. help us in the next war if we don't have enough? Or even the war we're in, where they aren't used at all? The Pentagon budget is full of weapons that are great on Powerpoint but don't get built in sufficient numbers to be useful in actual combat. Because they aren't weapons systems, they're Congressional pork fests. I'd bet McCain would be an even bigger butcher on Blue service pork than The Messiah because he knows stupid spending kills servicemen in combat. But he'd cut it properly, not stupidly. And he might even introduce a new weapon for the lowly grunt who is working with a 50 year old design. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-10-26 11:19 |
| #16 "it's not a tax increase, it's a |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-10-26 11:00 |
| #15 Don't you just love it when they describe a tax increase as 'asked to pay'? They've got nothin' on Orwell. |
| Posted by: Raj 2008-10-26 10:50 |
| #14 JFM, in the old Roman Republic, when the Legions went to the field so too did a number of the Senators. When a Legion got destroyed, the Senators usually didn't return. It was an early version of quality control that promoted effectiveness over short term political gains. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-10-26 10:22 |
| #13 Under the Carter Admin, most US Service members (familys) were on food stamps. Welcome to the Carter Administration again... |
| Posted by: Lftbhndagn 2008-10-26 10:22 |
| #12 A pox on the voters for installing this bum-buggering old fool. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-10-26 10:10 |
| #11 I suggest that any congressman telling thet "we"don't need such fancy new weapons gets to serve for a whole year in first line. Have a few congressmen returning in body bags and the others will no longer tell that "we" don't need such fancy weapons. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-10-26 09:44 |
| #10 We don't need all these fancy new weapons Remember 1941 when Americans were beiong killed because they were amed with crap like Brewster Buffalos planes, Stuart and Lee/Grant tanks or teh marginally better P40s, Wildcat planes or Sharman tanks? I suggest that any |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-10-26 09:43 |
| #9 Yep, we'll need that money to pay for the Super Flu Vaccine and stave off Peeeeeek Oil. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-10-26 09:39 |
| #8 I truly hate to say it, but B. Frank might be righter than he knows. That is, with the current economic situation, Defense might *have* to be cut 25%. And Social Security might *have* to be cut 25%. And Medicare might *have* to be cut 25%. And Medicaid might *have* to be cut 25%. And finally, discretionary spending, that is, everything else, which when lumped together is the 6th largest item, after interest on the national debt, which *cannot* be cut, will also *have* to be cut 25%. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-10-26 09:35 |
| #7 I was a military wife during those times P2k. And I know that nothing would please the Rieds, Pelosis and Obamas of the world more than if our military were hollowed out but a sham shell remained for appearances. This is what is in store if McCain/Palin lose, folks. And it will have consequences that may never be repaired because, in addition to the hollowing, this time there will be a push to subordinate US military actions to the UN, build a variety of compliant NGOs and 'civil forces' and make sure we never can respond unilaterally again no matter what the attack or provocation. Which leaves us neutered and yet carrying major global burdens. And that's the desired end state. The main feature, not a bug. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-10-26 09:29 |
| #6 Wouldn't be more sensible to cut on money given to Acorn and NPR? |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-10-26 09:30 |
| #5 I served through the last 'whipping boy' period the military went through just after Vietnam. Ghetto housing, substandard pay [most married enlisted stateside were qualified for food stamps - at the time those stuck overseas didn't even have access to them], no money for training and spare parts, only one battalion in the entire Army prepared to deployed within 24 hours, scraping the bottom of the employment pool for bodies resulting in high levels of disciplinary actions [art. 15s, courts martial], desertions and AWOL, and drug abuse. Congress never really getting around to approving a budget [two months with paydays delayed as they fumbled to get even continuing resolutions past which finally ended with a year's continuing resolution]. Consequently military families were authorized to use the mess halls so that they could get feed when the pay didn't show up. In the last 70s I watched good officers and NCO leave in painful numbers because they just wanted a future for their children and families. Too many careerists remained around. Just enough of us to hold it together with the proverbial 'bailing wire and chewing gum' till we got the leadership and the means to rebuild it all from the nadir we reached. Good luck people. You can only play these games so many times before History catches up with you. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-10-26 08:50 |
| #4 Fat Ted's on his way out. When is this homo whoremonger going to get AIDS and die? It can't come soon enough. Assachusetts and its pols are a cancer on the national body politic. I'd be in favor of expelling them from the Union. |
| Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-10-26 08:12 |
| #3 It is all about their programs. He is stoked. He has visions of male whores coming to his house. bwarny fwank, sugar daddy of them all. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-10-26 06:28 |
| #2 At least he's saying this sort of thing before the election to let America know what the Dems intend even if it's not being covered properly. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-10-26 00:21 |
| #1 What a nightmare... |
| Posted by: badanov 2008-10-26 00:11 |