The cuts could carve $85 billion out of the nation’s defense budget and with Selfridge International Airbase and hundreds of defense contractors located there the county executive is bracing for the worst possible scenario.

Speaking live Sunday on WWJ Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel said he’s been in touch with both of Michigan’s Senators and 10th district Congresswoman Candice Miller, encouraging them to fight these cuts.

“We’re the defense capital of the Midwest so most of the defense contracts, the awards for contracts in the entire country and a lot of that comes through Michigan, in particular in the Michigan defense corridor, in Macomb county has a huge impact on us,” Hackel said.

Hackel says it’s not clear how many jobs could be lost in Macomb County, but the Army estimates sequestration will affect about 7,800 jobs.

If Congress doesn’t act, the spending cuts are set to take effect on March 1.

Yes, waterboarding worked.

Today on Meet the Press Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admitted that information gleaned from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him.

“The real story was that in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to Bin Laden, there were a lot of pieces out there that were a part of that puzzle. Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used. But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that.”

This was not the first time Panetta admitted that enhanced interrogation techniques led the US to Bin Laden. He made similar comments back in May 2011.

Video:

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/02/
defense-secretary-panetta-admits-waterboarding-wo
rked-video-2571662.html

Meet the Press

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/vp/50684189#VpFlash

******************************

Republicans grilling U.S. Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel last week focused too much on the past instead of addressing more pressing military issues, departing defense chief Leon Panetta said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“It’s pretty obvious the political knives were out for Chuck Hagel,” Panetta said, according to a transcript provided by NBC.

Hagel, a 66-year-old former Nebraska senator selected for the job by Democratic President Barack Obama, faced an onslaught of criticism from fellow Republicans during a Jan. 31 confirmation hearing. He answered questions about why he opposed the 2007 U.S. troop surge in Iraq and about his stances on nuclear arms reduction and Israel policy.

“What disappointed me is that they talked a lot about past quotes, but what about what a secretary of defense is confronting today?” Panetta said, pointing to current issues such as Afghanistan, terrorism, defense spending cuts, cyber attacks and turmoil in the Middle East. “All of the issues that confront a secretary of defense, frankly, we just did not see enough time spent on discussing those issues.”

Panetta, 74, said he is “absolutely” confident Hagel is prepared to take on the job.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined to discuss whether he has confidence in a man“who could be my boss.” Hagel has “great credentials,”Dempsey said on the same NBC program. In a separate interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Dempsey said Hagel is “very thoughtful and very well prepared and very interested.”

Close Relationship

“If he’s confirmed, I’m sure that we’ll establish a very close working relationship,” Dempsey said, according to a transcript provided by CNN.

Panetta, asked about military spending on NBC, said, “If Congress stands back and allows sequester to take place, I think it would really be a shameful and irresponsible act.”

“In a world of responsible politics, it should not happen,” he said.

Reduced funding for the military received renewed attention last week after a 22.2 percent drop in defense spending helped bring the growth of the nation’s gross domestic product to a minus 0.1 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, the first contraction since the recession ended in 2009. The decline in defense purchases was the biggest since 1972, when military spending slumped in the closing years of the Vietnam War.

Civilian Employees

Automatic spending cuts that would reduce the defense budget by $45 billion this fiscal year will kick in on March 1 unless the Obama administration and Congress work to stop them. The Defense Department has said 800,000 civilian employees may have to be furloughed, losing two days per pay period.

“There’s this notion that that’s probably OK, because they’re just a bunch of white-collar bureaucrats,” yet 86 percent of those affected will be outside Washington, Dempsey said on NBC. “This will affect the entire country, and it will undermine our readiness for the next several years.”

Panetta said he couldn’t verify whether Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons.

“Every indication is they want to continue to increase their nuclear capability,” he said. “And that’s a concern. And that’s what we’re asking them to stop doing.”

Were Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon, Dempsey said on NBC, the U.S. military could “destroy their capability.”

Vice President Joe Biden said yesterday the U.S. is ready for direct talks about the contested nuclear program as soon as the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei makes a commitment to negotiate. U.S. and Iranian diplomats haven’t acknowledged bilateral meetings since October 2009, when they came together at a nuclear gathering in Geneva.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alexander Kowalski in New York at akowalski13@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Ann Hughey at ahughey@bloomberg.net

I took a much needed break from blogging this past couple of months and needed a spur to get me back into the saddle. The lighter paycheck this week provided some incentive.

This particular article/comment struck me as a winning message for conservatives when talking to young people. Why don’t we focus on this, instead of every other thing that diminishes our argument?  [emphasis mine]

Gabriella Hoffman’s paycheck is a little lighter today, thanks to a payroll tax increase that is forcing millions of Americans to make the kind of tough budget cuts their representatives in Washington lawmakers seem unwilling to tackle.

Hoffman, a 21-year-old Virginian who works at a nonprofit, estimates her paycheck will be roughly $30 less this biweekly pay period, or about $780 annually, thanks to the end of a two-year cut on payroll taxes, which fund Social Security. The tax has risen back up to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent, costing someone making $50,000 annually about $1,000 per year and a household with two high-paid workers up to $4,500.

“As a newly-graduated person, someone coming straight out of college, I don’t like the idea of having less money coming to me due to the selfish interests of people in Congress who don’t have any interest in reducing our financial problems,” Hoffman told FoxNews.com. “This is an impediment for future economic growth. It’s going to make it harder for young people like myself to get married, find a better job, you name it.”

“Any tax increase is not good for young people,” she said. “What it does is diminish your hard work and you’re slapped on the wrist. This administration is punishing people who are making money. They don’t like the concept of free enterprise. They think these problems will be solved in Washington by taking away more of people’s incomes.”

Meanwhile at the Pentagon, Leon Panetta is preparing his staff to make drastic cuts in military spending that he says are needed due to the budget crisis. Now why is that we don’t hear similar cries and proposals coming out of all the other government agencies?

Seems like a Progressive’s dream scenario, to me. Cut defense spending, and let the rest of government grow, and grow…..and grow.

“In a second term, Obama is going to show us who he really is”, Krauthammer began ominously. “Remember when he said to  the Soviet president, after the election, I’ll be more flexible?”

Yes, we do, in fact.

Number one on his agenda is cutting defense, said Krauthammer. Panetta gave very strong indications that if the cuts that are now on the table went into effect, he would resign because he believes they would destroy the military.  Hagal on the other hand, is on record saying that the defense department is “bloated”. Not known for being particularly bright, or original, he’ll be Obama’s “yes man” or a “toady” as O’Reilly put it.

Obama, Krauthammer maintained, wants to “cut the US military down to size.”

Charles Krauthammer

Video:

http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2013/01/
krauthammer-hagel-chosen-to-dismantle-the-
military-video-2472440.html

Above: Chuck Hagel leaves a news conference in Omaha, Nebraska March 12, 2007. REUTERS/Dave Kaup

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Pro-Israel groups, neoconservatives and even some former colleagues on Capitol Hill are confronting President Barack Obama with a growing backlash against Chuck Hagel, the ex-Republican senator tipped as his leading candidate for defense secretary.

Obama’s aides have given no sign of dropping Hagel from consideration – even after several American Jewish leaders privately complained about his policy views, most notably on Israel and Iran, at a White House-hosted Hanukkah party last week, according to one attendee.

By Matt Spetalnick | Reuters

But what has become clear in recent days is that the Democratic president will have a Senate confirmation fight on his hands if he decides to nominate the former Nebraska lawmaker, regarded as a moderate Republican, to replace Leon Panetta at the Pentagon.

The White House is preparing for a major realignment of Obama’s national security team, possibly by the end of this week, sources familiar with the process have said. But the announcement could be delayed by the difficult “fiscal cliff” negotiations with congressional Republicans.

That could provide more time for Hagel’s critics to marshal opposition to his nomination, in public and behind the scenes. But even they are skeptical of being able to derail it.

Obama himself has faced questions from American Jewish leaders about his approach to close U.S. ally Israel, especially given his strained relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and may decide to take a risk with Hagel.

“This is a nomination that could be toxic to some degree for the White House,” a Senate Republican foreign policy aide said. “Do they really want this in the first months of a second term?”

Some of Israel’s leading U.S. supporters contend that Hagel, who left the Senate in 2008, at times opposed Israel’s interests, voting several times against U.S. sanctions on Iran, and made disparaging remarks about the influence of what he called a “Jewish lobby” in Washington.

William Kristol of the conservative Weekly Standard wrote in a recent column that Hagel “has anti-Israel, pro-appeasement-of-Iran bona fides.”

While declining to discuss Hagel’s record on Israel, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters last Thursday that “the president thinks very highly of Senator Hagel.”

Hagel’s office has remain tight-lipped and had no immediate comment.

J Street, a liberal American Jewish group, said it was “appalled by efforts surfacing in recent days to question his commitment to the state of Israel and to Middle East peace.”

But The Washington Post weighed in late on Tuesday with an editorial declaring that Hagel was “not the right choice.”

It chided him for advocating deep defense cuts and said he was out-of-step on Iran for voicing skepticism that force might eventually be needed to stop its nuclear program.

REPUBLICAN MISGIVINGS

On Tuesday even some of Hagel’s former Republican colleagues expressed misgivings about him.

Asked about Hagel’s 2006 statement that the “Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people here,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he would “have to answer for that comment” if he is nominated.

“And he’ll have to answer about why he thought it was a good idea to directly negotiate with Hamas and why he objected to the European Union declaring Hezbollah a terrorist organization,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “He’s been a friend, he has a stellar military record, but these comments disturb a lot of people.”

After leaving office, Hagel urged Obama to open talks with Hamas, which is sworn to Israel’s destruction

Senator John McCain of Arizona insisted “we would review his entire record” but declined to “make a judgment until he’s nominated.”

Ironically, a Hagel nomination might be better received by Democrats – though they too might be wary of his contrarian reputation.

Many Republicans consider Hagel suspect. He was an early dissenter on the Iraq war – an issue that helped Obama rise to prominence – and crossed the aisle to endorse the president in his successful re-election bid this year.

On top of that, since leaving the Senate after two terms, he has been a vocal critic of his own party’s fiscal policies.

Obama is said to feel comfortable with Hagel. The two traveled together to the Middle East during the 2008 campaign.

He currently co-chairs Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board, and his confirmation would put the Pentagon under a decorated Vietnam War veteran and give Obama’s Cabinet a bipartisan cast.

Christopher Preble, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote that Hagel would be an excellent choice and would help keep the U.S. military from undertaking further “quixotic nation-building missions.”

But high-profile opposition to Hagel’s possible nomination is growing. Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, told The Washington Post that his record “relating to Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship is, at best, disturbing, and at worst, very troubling.”

Josh Block, president of The Israel Project, a pro-Israel group that describes itself as a nonpartisan educational organization, said Hagel’s positions were “well outside the mainstream Democratic and Republican consensus.”

Some of the negative buzz surrounding Hagel has made its way into Israeli media. “Hagel is a Republican with a problematic voting record on Israel,” The Jerusalem Post said on Monday.

Also in the mix for the Pentagon job are Michele Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy, and Ashton Carter, the current deputy defense secretary.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Xavier Briand)

Going back to the Reagan Administration through today, why is it that the Republicans and Democrats have been able to grow government without an effective electoral challenge from the Libertarian Party?

First, let’s looks at the history of fiscal policy issues.  During the Reagan Administration, we were still in the Cold War so it was not a period of peacetime spending; we would spend what was necessary to win.  With the end of the Cold War, during the first Bush Administration, there was an effort to cut back federal spending and deficits; these were the days of Graham-Rudman-Hollings deficit targets and sequestration, Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney implementing large cuts in defense spending, and President Bush breaking his no new taxes pledge to strike a deficit reduction deal with Rep. Leon Penetta (then Chairman of the House’s budget committee, now Obama’s Sec. of Defense).

There were two relevant tax events that financed the growth of our federal government from the 1980s through the beginning of the 21^st century, and it wasn’t the Bush-Penetta tax increases.

• The first tax event was the payroll tax increases for Social Security that came out of the Greenspan Commission (1983), which resulted in large cash surpluses for Social Security; these surpluses were converted into federal debt so that the cash could be spent on other current programs.  On net and through the paper shell game, the Social Security revenue (including interest income from previously acquired federal bonds) still remains slightly higher than expenses; in 2011, this financed $69 billion in additional federal spending (see recent Trustee’s report).
• The second tax relevant event was the capital gains tax cut in 1997, which was the actual cause of ending federal deficit spending during the Clinton years.  The capital gains rate had been punitively high, instead of being set for the purpose of raising revenue; once the punishment was reduced, then federal revenues increased and deficits were turned into surpluses.  One of the Democratic arguments (as made by Rep. Dick Gephardt, House Minority Leader) against cutting the capital gain tax rate was that revenue increases would be short lived, as occurred.  However, surpluses from higher tax revenue led the Congress to spend more and create new higher spending baselines for future years.  In the early part of the second Bush Administration, we saw the combination of realizing the predicted losses from diminished capital gains tax revenue and higher spending baselines combine to re-establish federal deficit spending.

Second, let’s relate that fiscal history to concurrent political activity occurring historically, especially outside of the Democratic and Republican parties.  Before President Reagan, popular discontent with punitive taxes led to property tax rate caps in California through Prop 13 and the congressional Republican Kemp-Roth legislation, which became the “Reagan” tax cuts after his election.  However, with the prominence of the Cold War as a campaign issue, an effective third party alternative would not gain traction at the national level.

By the 1992 election cycle, the Cold War was over and public frustration with bipartisan failure coalesced into the Ross Perot candidacy.  In June 1992, Perot actually led both the Republican Bush and the Democratic Clinton in polls, and he ended that campaign with the highest support for a third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.  While Perot’s anti-deficit message established the Reform Party and still won signification votes for a third-party in 1996, the Reform party was essentially dead in 2000, after the federal deficit had become surpluses.

Recently, we have seen the Tea Party movement, which seems to me to be a renewal of the Reform movement, but without a Perot-like leader.  However, up to this time, the Tea Party has substantially chosen to act within the two-party system as a primary election opponent of existing party leaders.  In contrast, the Occupy movement is not in this same category as they are simply relabeled protesting extreme leftists who rebrand and tailor their message to the meme of the moment.

After the Cold War, instead of third parties, the American electorate opted to throw the bums out and turn to the other of the two major political parties.

• In 1992, Americans fired the Republican President, thus ending divided government to allow Democrats a freer hand on legislation.
• In 1994, Americans fired the Democratic Congress, and restored divided government as a check on expansive government; this led to so-called welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts, and elimination of the federal deficit.
• In 2006, Americans fired the Republican Congress for excessive spending, and restored divided government; Speaker Pelosi’s subsequent leadership resulted in legislative corruptions that facilitated the economic collapse in 2008.
• In 2008, Americans fired the Republicans from the presidency, thus ending divided government to allow Democrats a freer hand on legislation.
• In 2010, Americans fired Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Congress, thus restoring divided government as a check on an expansive federal government.

Finally, let us look at why the Libertarian Party has not been able to realize these opportunities to establish electoral success.  Figuratively speaking, the Libertarian Party is not a real political party; they are a cargo cult political party; for example, see the anarchy at the 2012 Libertarian Party convention over the election of a new national party chairman .  The 2012 election is the Libertarian Party’s 11th presidential campaign; every party that has won the presidency not only did it in many fewer cycles, but those parties enjoyed electoral success at the state level and in Congress before winning the presidency, which is not remotely true of the Libertarian Party. In the 2000 presidential election, the Libertarian Party had fewer votes then the dying Reform Party led by Pat Buchanan.

While I have substantially said that the Libertarian Party is inept, I think that I am the only one who spells out how the Libertarian Party can gain policy victory in the face of a failure to win the contested office; so in my opinion, everybody else is missing the real potential of the Libertarian Party in this election, which might explain why the Libertarian Party has not gained traction since 1972, before most of its supporters were born.

Extra Point:  If your personal understanding benefited from this Q&A, check out the original post:  Open Letter to Gary Johnson, which directs:

1. focus the message better than your opponents,
2. go after your opponents weaknesses, and
3. set a realistic objective that could influence future policy.

This is what he should be hearing from his campaign staff with Labor Day approaching.

Caveat, to be explicit about the context:  This is simply a nitty gritty review of the contemporary political issues and events without attempting to drill down and examine the underlying philosophic ideas in play.

As data stated in the Paul Ryan Budget Plan, in Table 1 of Appendix II, proves, defense would bear far more than half of the burden of the sequester’s budget cuts. The numbers, as the table states, would be as follows:

Category/FY13–14–15–16–17—18—19–20—21—22–TOTAL CUT OVER THE DECADE

Sequester  -­‐98 -­‐93 -­‐92 -­‐91 -­‐91 -­‐90 -­‐89 -­‐88 -­‐88 -­‐90 -­‐913
Defense —-­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐56 -­‐551
Non-­‐Def. -­‐43 -­‐38 -­‐38 -­‐37 -­‐36 -­‐36 -­‐35 -­‐33 -­‐33 -­‐34 -­‐362

As these numbers prove, defense would bear far more than half of the spending cuts burden. In the first year (FY2013), it would be 56%; in FY2014, 59%; in FY2015, 59.78%; in FY2016, 60.43%; in FY2017, 60.43%; in FY2018, 61.11%; in FY2019, 61.79%; in FY2020, 62.5%; in FY2021, 62.5%; in FY2022, 61.11%.

In total, defense would be whacked by $551 bn over a decade, while nondefense discretionary spending would be cut by only $362 bn. Thus, the total amount of cuts would be $913 bn, and defense would bear 60.35% of that spending cut burden, i.e. the vast majority.

This belies the claims of liberals and libertarians such as Raul Castro Labrador (RINO-ID), Dustin Siggins, and Harry Reid that defense has so far been off the table and that cancelling sequestration would amount to putting it off the table. It also belies and renders completely ridiculous demand that defense “start bearing its fair share of the burden.”

This is of course to say nothing of the massive defense cuts already administered and scheduled by President Obama, including the weapon program closures of 2009 and 2010, the New START treaty, the Gates’ Efficiencies and Savings Initiative, and the First Tier of BCA-mandated defense cuts ($487 bn over a decade), under which the DOD has already contributed $920 bn in deficit reduction to date, since 2009 alone, while other government agencies and programs have contributed virtually nothing. These pre-sequester defense cuts, by themselves, prove that the DOD has NEVER been off the table, that it has ALWAYS been on the table, and that it has already contributed more than its fair share to deficit reduction.

In short, sequestration would not only hit defense deeply and across-the-board, thus gutting it, it would also hit it DISPROPORTIONATELY, forcing it to bear over 60% of the spending cuts burden that the sequester would bring about. That is idiotic, suicidal, unjust, and dare I say, treasonous.

But the opponents of a strong defense, while supporting deep cuts to the defense budget, have no problem voting for bloated domestic spending bills, including and especially those that spend money on issues reserved exclusively to the states and the people, such as transportation, housing, urban development, and agriculture. Take, for example, Congressman John Duncan of Tennessee, who says on his website that he supports massive defense cuts and a policy of isolationism. His pretext is that there is waste in the defense budget. But he has no qualms about supporting unconstitutional bills LOADED with wasteful spending such as the FY2013 Transportation and HUD Appropriations Bill and the waste-laden, pork-laden 2012 Highway Bill. In other words, do as I say, not as I do. According to him, wasteful defense spending, indeed, any defense spending is bad – but wasteful domestic spending is great.

This utterly discredits them.

The United States will likely steer itself away from a fiscal cliff, but it must endure “some pain” to do so, says former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

At the end of this year, the Bush-era tax cuts and other tax holidays expire, while automatic spending cuts are set to kick in, a combination known as a fiscal cliff that could siphon billions out of the economy beginning next year and derail recovery.

The country will feel the pinch, as pain is unavoidable when taxes rise and spending is cut.

“The one thing I think we have to recognize, starting from where we are at the moment, is there is no way to resolve this issue without some pain. There is no set of policies that can prevent the type of consequences of the imbalances we currently have,” Greenspan tells CNBC.

“I think the fiscal cliff will be, essentially, kicked down the road like the can. And the reason basically is nobody wants all of a sudden all of those items to hit the economy at the time.”

Congress must act to prevent it, and despite politically charged bickering and brinkmanship that often results when lawmakers spar over tax and spending issues, in the end, they do act.

Look to late 2008 as an example, when the Bush administration pushed through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which bailed out the country’s banking sector in wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse.

Stocks plunged when Congress originally rejected it, and lawmakers reconvened and passed the bailout.

“Hopefully we won’t have to go through that again, but this will get resolved.”

To steer the country away from the fiscal cliff, Congress is reportedly studying ways to delay the timing of the spending cuts, which will total $1.2 trillion over a decade, a big chunk of which will trim Defense Department spending.

Cuts were due to start in January of 2013 but may be postponed in March.

As part of an agreement to raise the debt ceiling in 2011, the government agreed to enact automatic budget cuts starting in January.

“It is being seriously considered as one of the options and there is no doubt about that,” says Steve Bell, senior director at the Economic Policy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, Bloomberg reports.

Lawmakers have alluded they were considering stopgap measures.

“It’s a matter of triage right now, trying to keep the patient alive,” says Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn, Bloomberg adds.

Cornyn says he would prefer addressing the automatic spending cuts this year.

“Sometimes Congress acts when there are no alternatives,” Cornyn says.

“I would be reluctant to leave aside all the incentives to reach decisions sooner rather than later.”

House Republicans pushed through a bill in May to avert defense spending cuts and want to pass a bill soon to extend the tax cuts, though both measures face uphill battles in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Editor’s Note: Startling Proof of the End of America’s Middle Class. Details in the Video

© 2012 Moneynews. All rights reserved.

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Greenspan-Fiscal-Cliff-us/2012/06/29/id/444050?s=al&promo_code=F5B5-1

Instead of maintaining this great naval fleet at greater cost to the American taxpayer, we need to ask our partners/allies to shoulder the burden. After all, they have an economic interest as well in maintaining open seas.  The Japanese are adequately equipped to patrol the Pacific sea lanes.  The Australians can patrol the South Pacific.  The Indians can patrol the Indian Ocean.  The South Africans can patrol African waters, etc.  This notion that the US has to be the big bully flying its flag in every water is absurd, expensive, and unnecessary.  We need to trim the US military budget, but we need to cut back on some muscle as well.

America is spending $660 billion on defense right now compared to $120 billion by China, you can do the math.  It is an obscene amount when compared to $490 billion for all our discretionary spending, almost as obscene as the TSA budget of $60 billion.  President Obama proposes cuts of about $500 billion over the next 10 years, whupteedoo.  We need some real cuts, Mr. President because you are projecting an ongoing deficit of at least $700 billion for decades to come.

Some will argue that cutting defense spending is bad for the economy.  Here are the facts, according to the PERI Institute, defense spending creates 6,700 jobs for every $1 billion spent and education creates 26,500 jobs for every $1 billion spent.  We could cut defense spending by $1 and transfer $.50 to education and end-up job creation positive by 2 to 1.  Defense spending is a serious drain on our economy and one of the most inefficient ways to create jobs.

The nation’s security depends on a healthy robust economy and right now, our economy while showing signs of life, is neither robust, nor healthy.  Defense spending needs to be cut to a defense only level.  No country is challenging the US militarily despite this confusion about Iran.  There is no immediate or short-term reason to expect the US to need to go to war in Asia or the Pacific region.  One could argue that Iran presents a challenge, and one would be right.  It is a diplomatic challenge, not a military one.  It needs to be treated as such and the saber-rattlers need to be caged.

China presents an economic challenge to the US and it is illusory to think that we can challenge them militarily given the distances between Asia and the US.  Flying the flag only creates hostility and produces bellicose behavior, it does not make the region safer or provide stability.  In fact, it makes the region more unstable because China must engage in an arm’s race to maintain parity. Take away the American challenge and the dragon will go back to sitting on its treasure pile in its lair.

We need to not only rethink the true challenges the US faces militarily but where the new trade and business opportunities will occur.  The US cannot afford to spend more than 2% of its GDP on defense without sacrificing investment opportunities.  We need to create 20 million jobs in the US and by cutting defense spending and redeploying those funds into better job creation opportunities, we will strengthen our national security.  Hence I propose cutting the defense budget by $310 billion and eliminating the TSA for a total cut in spending of $360 billion each year.  I would redeploy $100 billion into education and an average of $70 billion each year into space industries.

If we cut defense spending by $310 billion, we will lose a little over 2 million jobs.  I offset this by spending $70 billion in the space industry which will create about 800,000 permanent jobs employing many of the workers displaced by defense cuts.  Spending in education will create 2.65 million jobs with a total net job creation of 2.45 million jobs all without changing taxes or expanding the deficit.  These are the kind of innovations that President Obama needs to make if he wants to get serious about job creation.  Of course the naysayers scream, but what about our enemies?

The enemies we fight carry AK47′s and ride camels. I think an Army composed of special forces carrying M-16s and riding camels would be more effective than large scale naval fleets, intercontinental bombers, and advanced tanks.  I am being a little snarky but we need to match our force strength to the perceived enemy.  If the Chinese really decide to get pushy, we can always increase spending but spending now is a complete waste.

We need to cut our carrier fleet to a more affordable level.  Each of our Nimitz class carriers requires a full complement of ships.  We currently have 10 on station and we could cut this number to 4.  In addition, we have 9 assault carriers for smaller operations that can be deployed to troubled regions if we truly need to project force.  If one is going to a knife fight, you don’t take a tank.  We can cut our Army from 548,000 personnel to 250,000 personnel and still maintain a strong enough capability in the event there is a small regional flare-up.  We can do this by emptying our bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere without sacrificing operational strength.  We are not going to be fighting any big land wars anytime soon with this Army.  It simply is not big enough to take on Iran so let’s not even go there.

Once we set a budgetary target, then we create a force structure to match it.  The defense hawks will scream bloody murder because we are making ourselves vulnerable to their imaginary enemies and all those cave dwelling Kalashnikov toting radicals, whereas, the chickenhawks will complain about the negative effects on the economy.  It’s all rubbish and we need to rebuild our national economy now, not continue a failed military policy.

Mike Ballantine is a Green Party candidate for President on Americans Elect.

This is not a happy state of affairs. If there is no agreement reached, then automatic cuts in discretionary spending kick-in, in which the defense spending takes the biggest hit. President Obama and the Democrats will, of course, put all the blame on the Republicans and they will probably get some mileage out of that.

Our illustrious President has wasted no time since the Super Committee was established. Every time a microphone is placed at his disposal we hear his clarion class warfare cry of TAX THE RICH.  Even at his  Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit yesterday in Kapolei, Hawaii, he didn’t miss his chance to beat his drum for taxing the rich.  Fromm CNS we have these quotes:

“There’s no magic formula.  There are no magic beans that you can toss on the ground and suddenly a bunch of money grows on trees,” Obama added.  “We got to just go ahead and do the responsible thing.”

And, what is the responsible thing? You guessed it.

“If we’ve got to raise money, it makes sense for us to start by asking the wealthiest among us to pay a little bit more before we start asking seniors, for example, to pay a lot more for their Medicare,” he said.

Obama is getting a lot of support for his tax the rich plan from the various “Occupy” demonstrations around the country and , of course, he is supported by the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, otherwise known as the MSM, and frankly the polls are showing significant support among the public.  so, what are the poor Republicans in congress to do? Time is running out! Not to worry, dear readers. Yours truly, here at Conservatives on fire, has a suggestion. The Republicans should play poker. Not only should they play poker; but I would suggest they go ALL-IN.

You will probably think that the old man on the shore of the Sea of Happiness  (what Castro and Chavez call the Caribbean Sea) has finally lost it. But hear me out first and then let me know what you think.  My suggestion is that John Boehner and Eric Cantor make the following joint announcement:

The Republicans in both the House and the Senate recognize that the Super Committee on deficit reduction is at an impasse. We see no possibility that the Committee can reach a deficit reduction plan that is agreeable to both the Republicans and the Democrats.  We also recognize that failure to reach agreement would mean drastic reduction of defense spending, which would be catastrophic at a time when we have so many military commitments in various parts of the world. Defense cuts of this magnitude at this time would be a dereliction of duty on the part of Congress and the President.

Therefore, although we strongly believe the tax increases proposed by the President and the Democrats will do more harm than good to our delicate economy, we believe that making drastic cuts to the defense budget at this time is a worse alternative. Therefore, the Republicans in Congress have decided  it would be in the best interest of the nation to let the President and the Democrats try to prove to the nation that we Republicans are wrong. Therefore, we will accept the President’s plan in its entirety, including the tax hikes with one small proviso; the tax increases are to take effect January 1, 2012 instead of January 1, 2013 as the President proposes. That minor change would allow the voters to see the true impact of the tax increases prior to the 2012 elections and , there by, decide for themselves the wisdom of the President’s plan.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Senator Jon Kyl starts off the Super Committee talks by underscoring he will put party before country.

On the first day of work on Thursday for a “super committee” charged with finding $1.2 trillion in new government savings, a member of the panel threatened to quit if defense spending cuts are discussed, underscoring the difficulties ahead.

Despite Republican Senator Jon Kyl’s surprise disclosure after the panel’s inaugural meeting that “I’m off of the committee if we’re going to talk about further defense spending,” other Republicans worked to put comprehensive tax reform squarely on the agenda and urged bipartisanship.

Source: sarahlee310

Kyl is out of his mind if he wants to pretend that defense spending cuts shouldn’t be discussed. Here’s some information from Brian Beutler at TPM on the defense budget vs. everything else:

The idea here is that since this money is largely devoted to education, health care, and other services that benefit broad swaths of the population, the amount of it should grow roughly with population size. This stands in contrast to defense spending, which is why the committee did not correct defense spending for population growth. We took the numbers and put them in a slightly different context, so you can see by what percentage spending and revenues have risen and fallen on a population adjusted basis over the last decade. Makes it pretty clear what is and is not the culprit of deficits and our supposedly out-of-control spending.

And, oh yeah, new revenue should also be discussed and enacted — like ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

And not surprisingly, the data bore out the conclusion Gates had given when killing it: the EFV “would essentially swallow the entire Marine vehicle budget and most of its total procurement budget for the foreseeable future.” 

But the SASC report goes further:

“The committee agrees that the Marine Corps faces an immense budget challenge, but the problem is not confined to the EFV or the amphibious assault mission area. The fact is that the data that the Marine Corps presents shows that the Marine Corps’ ground vehicle portfolio is unaffordable by the Corps’ metrics even if a new amphibious tractor is removed altogether. The same is true for the O&S budget.”

Unfortunately, that problem isn’t just confined to the Marine Corps ground vehicle portfolio.  CBO has annually said the same is true for the entire defense program.  A great reminder that this year’s budget projections are often just to get through this year.  And the camel we’re buying is pretty ugly.

Remember, it was only weeks ago that Hunter’s spokesman wrote in an e-mail to The Hill, “It’s hard to make the case for defense cuts during wartime. And it’s a bad idea to start cutting defense for the sake of cutting.”

Yet now Hunter is writing the Navy Secretary that the LCS program should be reviewed formally and likely be killed, citing a history of increasing acquisition costs for the program (combined cost of LCS-1 and LCS-2 had increased from $472 million to $1.075 billion by FY 2008, and up to $1.19 billion in the FY2012 budget request).

So what gives? Well, self-interest. Hunter contradicts his own defense of Pentagon funding during wartime and singles out the LCS program because in the aftermath of the dual-award strategy, General Dynamics’ shipyard (NASSCO), placed in Hunter’s San Diego district, “would be excluded from bidding to become the second shipyard.”

While Mabus has promoted the effectiveness of the current shipbuilder in Mobile, Alabama, Hunter wants the project to be reconsidered, with the clear end goal of bringing more jobs to his home district.

Hunter’s polar opposite positions illustrate that defense budgeting is rarely a finely tuned exercise in strategy, and often includes the promotion of varying and conflicting interests. While Hunter brings up legitimate concerns that BFAD has outlined before, his motivations are much murkier.

Good  Morning

You probably think you’re at the wrong blog!!  I’ve had a few folks say the gray print and the gray background were hard to read and dreary.  So, I spiffed up the front page a bit.

So, is this easier to read?

Welcome to the Carnival Season!

New Orleans has said so long to the holidays and used the Twelfth Night observance to kick off the Carnival season, which will be extra long this year.

Mayor Mitch Landrieu, accompanied by New Orleans clarinetist Pete Fountain, on Thursday served up slices of king cake at historic Gallier Hall, where the mayor greets parading royalty on Mardi Gras Day.Between Thursday and when Carnival celebrations wrap up March 8, about 100 parades will roll through area streets or float down waterways.

The Phunny Phorty Phellows rolled Thursday Night.  They’re the first official parade of Mardi Gras.  They  rent one of the St. Charles Avenue street cars then ride and drink their way up and down St Charles Avenue to usher in the season!  They’re a really old krewe that was resurrected in the 1980s.  It’s one of the most fun and least commercial of the krewes and parades.  You can see some pictures of them from last year if you follow the link.

Well, they’re off and dragging their knuckles through the Halls of Congress!  Yes, Republicans are bringing greedy back.  It’s so bad that the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce are  joining up to fight them off. Yes, you read that right.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO — two powerful players that are often at each other’s throats — are considering teaming up for a campaign against the House GOP’s planned cuts to infrastructure spending, spokespeople for both groups tell me.

The two groups rarely agree on anything, and frequently target each other in the harshest of terms, but one thing they agree on is that they don’t want the House GOP to make good on its threat to subject highway and mass-transit programs to budget cuts. GOP leaders announced earlier this week that such cuts could not be taken off the table in the quest to slice up to $100 billion in spending.

The prospect of deep infrastructure cuts may now lead to the unlikely sight of the Chamber and the huge labor federation, both of which boast powerful and well-funded political operations, teaming up to campaign against the House GOP’s plans. The Chamber — a staunch ally of House Republicans that spent millions in the 2010 elections — has already been pushing back against cuts to highway spending because it could lead to more job losses in the construction industry.

MSNBC reports that protests are growing over the treatment of whistle blower Bradley Manning.

Rights advocates, government watchdogs and supporters of alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning say they’re becoming increasingly alarmed that the conditions under which the 22-year-old Army private is being held could amount to torture.

In the latest public pronouncements calling attention to Manning’s plight, the Psychologists for Social Responsibility this week sent an open letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying it is “deeply concerned” about Manning’s confinement conditions at a military prison at Quantico, Va.

“As an organization of psychologists and other mental health professionals, PsySR is aware that solitary confinement can have severely deleterious effects on the psychological well-being of those subjected to it,” the group said. “We therefore call for a revision in the conditions of PFC Manning’s incarceration while he awaits trial, based on the exhaustive documentation and research that have determined that solitary confinement is, at the very least, a form of cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment in violation of U.S. law.”

The letter deplores the “needless brutality” of Manning’s conditions and says they undermine his right to a fair trial.

Vanity Fare is providing a forum for all the good writers and topics these days.  Julian Assange is profiled in the current issue as “The Man Who Spilled the Secrets”. It’s a devastatingly good read about Sarah Ellison on behind-the-scenes deals between Julian Assange and the five publications that got the rights to the WikiLeaks’ State Department cables.  It also provides some background the arrangements for the War Crimes evidence leaked by Bradley Manning.  The story between Wikileaks and The Guardian, a paper I’ve read since the 11th grade, is just fascinating.

The partnership between The Guardian and WikiLeaks brought together two desperately ambitious organizations that happen to be diametric opposites in their approach to reporting the news. One of the oldest newspapers in the world, with strict and established journalistic standards, joined up with one of the newest in a breed of online muckrakers, with no standards at all except fealty to an ideal of “transparency”—that is, dumping raw material into the public square for people to pick over as they will. It is very likely that neither Alan Rusbridger nor Julian Assange fully understood the nature of the other’s organization when they joined forces. The Guardian, like other media outlets, would come to see Assange as someone to be handled with kid gloves, or perhaps latex ones—too alluring to ignore, too tainted to unequivocally embrace. Assange would come to see the mainstream media as a tool to be used and discarded, and at all times treated with suspicion. Whatever the differences, the results have been extraordinary. Given the range, depth, and accuracy of the leaks, the collaboration has produced by any standard one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years. While the leaks haven’t produced a single standout headline that rises above the rest—perhaps because the avalanche of headlines has simply been overwhelming—the texture, context, and detail of the WikiLeaks stories have changed the way people think about how the world is run. Many comparisons have been made between the leak of these documents and Daniel Ellsberg’s 1971 leak of the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. By today’s standards, Ellsberg’s actions look quaint: one man handed files to one news organization. The WikiLeaks documents are as revealing as the Pentagon Papers, but their quantity and range are incomparably greater. And they speak even more powerfully to the issue of secrecy itself. The collaboration of newspaper and Web site was never a marriage—more an arrangement driven by expedience, and a rocky one at that—but it will forever change the relationship between whistle-blowers and the media on which they rely.

Assange is an interesting man who has undoubtedly made his mark on the world stage.  The United States here and now appears to have learned no lessons from the Nixon Years and the Pentagon Papers.  The one happy conclusion in the article is that with or without Assange, Wikileaks functions and will function.  I can sleep easier knowing that at least some of the madness of our foreign affairs has been brought to the light of day.  I doubt we’ve stopped the drumbeat towards a corporate fascist state, however, the moments when Democracy gleams through the cracks can still be quite blinding. I can only say that it would be just absolutely the icing on the cake if Bradley Manning and Julian Assange shared a Nobel Peace Prize.  Then, we can officially join the ranks of China and Myanmar with high profile dissidents in jail.

Charles Homans at FP has an interesting take on the situation after reading the vanity fare article.  It is also worth a read. We fully see and appreciate the egoist Assange through his analysis. Homans gives the profile a literary reference that is most interesting.

The person I thought of immediately was Larry Schiller, one of the central characters in Norman Mailer’s The Executioner’s Song. Mailer’s nonfiction epic is ostensibly about the murderer Gary Gilmore and his quest to get himself executed. But it is equally about Schiller, a sort of freelance media ambulance chaser who wedged himself between Gilmore and the media, securing the rights to his story and selling the exclusive to the highest bidder — what Gilmore called his “wheeler dealer.” Journalists officially frown upon these fixers, in part because they make their jobs more expensive and unpredictable, but also because they are unapologetic about the basic moral ambiguity of the information business — something that journalists, particularly American ones, have spent decades trying to fence off with j-school ethics classes and high-minded talk of civic responsibility.

Assange is, in a sense, an inverse of Schiller — he’s less mercantile, but far more interested in becoming a public figure in his own right. Technology cuts both ways in his relationship with the media: It gives him the ability to work around them, but it also gives his coveted role as information broker a built-in obsolescence. One of the most interesting scenes in Ellison’s story (which, it must be said, seems to be informed almost entirely by sources who have fallen out with Assange) occurs when the Guardian, its relationship with Assange strained, threatens to go ahead and publish the State Department cables without his go-ahead. Assange flips his lid.

Both WAPO and the NYT have stories about cuts in Pentagon spending and troop levels.  This quote is from the WAPO article.

The Pentagon will have to cut spending by $78 billion over the next five years, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday, forcing the Army and Marine Corps to shrink the number of troops on active duty and eventually imposing the first freeze on military spending since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The surprise announcement from Gates was a reminder for the military establishment – which has benefited from a gusher of new money over the past decade – that it will not remain exempt from painful austerity measures that federal lawmakers say will be necessary to control the soaring national debt.

In a news conference to announce what he described as efficiency measures, Gates said he hopes that “what had been a culture of endless money . . . will become a culture of savings and restraint” at the Defense Department.

Well, that’s an interesting development!

So, another Mardi Gras Season, another reason to eat King Cake.  That hot link links to a recipe that looks pretty time consuming.  You can mail order them from here if you want to try one.  I’ve always been fond of the European style with almond paste and a flakier crust.  The thick layer of powder sugar icing and sprinkles on the cakess they make down here just is way over the top for me.  Still, it’s got cinnamon.  I especially like the cream-filled cakes.  I usually wind up with the baby too.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

How about killing the F-35 Fighter Program?

How about decommissioning 100 Ships?

How about getting rid of 1,000 more nukes?

How about cutting the countries expensive missile defense system back?

Damn…..

Maybe the can even take the Marine One helicopter they ALREADY have and not get new ones?

Reality Check….

Come back in 5 years…

I’ll wager you none…none of things they mention cutting ….

Are cut…..

(Gates is right on the basic premise…But Congress simply isn’t gonna do this even  if the suggestions here ARE from Congress  )

I liked Gates….

But It’s time for him to go….

He and Congress are on different wave lengths…and he’s not gonna win the battle….

He is lost……

The Sustainable Defense Task Force unveiled its plan to cut $1.1 trillion in military spending over the next decade. Defense spending, which will reach $567 billion in 2011, is expected to top $7.4 trillion during the decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That does not include spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will boost 2011 defense spending to $726 billion.

Defense spending cuts will be essential as the United States struggles to bring its $13 trillion debt and $1.4 trillion annual deficit under control, members of the task force said June 11.

But reducing the Navy to 230 ships – 100 fewer than it wants – or reversing recent increases in ground troops, or eliminating air wings would represent a major – and many would say unlikely about-face for the U.S. military.

The task force, which includes representatives from a dozen think tanks and government watchdog organizations, was organized by liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and other members of Congress – a handful in all.

“We’re not talking about undercutting the troops in the field” or reducing the United States’ ability to fight terrorism, Frank said. “No one favors cutting back on national security.”

But national security requires a healthy U.S. economy, he said, and the economy is in trouble, in part because of excessive military spending.

Frank, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called for cutting by one-third the number of U.S. troops in Europe and Asia. That would reduce the number stationed in those regions to 35,000 in Europe and 65,000 in Asia and save $80 billion over 10 years.

“I do not know what we are protecting Europe from – or why they can’t defend themselves,” Frank said.

The task force recommends reducing the U.S. nuclear triad to a land-based and submarine-based nuclear dyad with 1,000 nuclear weapons. The newly signed START treaty would reduce the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to 1,550 weapons each.

The U.S. should also cut spending on missile defense – now a $10 billion annual expense – to about $3.3 billion until development work is done and missile interceptors are proven to work, the task force said.

Eliminating five Army brigade combat teams and four Marine Corps infantry battalions – about 30,000 troops in all – would save $147 billion over the decade, the task force calculates.

More….

Note….If you don’t think this report was a shot at Gates …and the White House…… you need to excuse yourself……

Let me make this point….Cuts…senseable ones could, and should be made….

My belief is that Congress will not make them and is slowly losing faith with Gates…..

How about killing the F-35 Fighter Program?

How about decommissioning 100 Ships?

How about getting rid of 1,000 more nukes?

How about cutting the countries expensive missile defense system back?

Damn…..

Maybe the can even take the Marine One helicopter they ALREADY have and not get new ones?

Reality Check….

Come back in 5 years…

I’ll wager you none…none of things they mention cutting ….

Are cut…..

(Gates is right on the basic premise…But Congress simply isn’t gonna do this even  if the suggestions here ARE from Congress  )

I liked Gates….

But It’s time for him to go….

He and Congress are on different wave lengths…and he’s not gonna win the battle….

He is lost……

The Sustainable Defense Task Force unveiled its plan to cut $1.1 trillion in military spending over the next decade. Defense spending, which will reach $567 billion in 2011, is expected to top $7.4 trillion during the decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That does not include spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will boost 2011 defense spending to $726 billion.

Defense spending cuts will be essential as the United States struggles to bring its $13 trillion debt and $1.4 trillion annual deficit under control, members of the task force said June 11.

But reducing the Navy to 230 ships – 100 fewer than it wants – or reversing recent increases in ground troops, or eliminating air wings would represent a major – and many would say unlikely about-face for the U.S. military.

The task force, which includes representatives from a dozen think tanks and government watchdog organizations, was organized by liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and other members of Congress – a handful in all.

“We’re not talking about undercutting the troops in the field” or reducing the United States’ ability to fight terrorism, Frank said. “No one favors cutting back on national security.”

But national security requires a healthy U.S. economy, he said, and the economy is in trouble, in part because of excessive military spending.

Frank, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called for cutting by one-third the number of U.S. troops in Europe and Asia. That would reduce the number stationed in those regions to 35,000 in Europe and 65,000 in Asia and save $80 billion over 10 years.

“I do not know what we are protecting Europe from – or why they can’t defend themselves,” Frank said.

The task force recommends reducing the U.S. nuclear triad to a land-based and submarine-based nuclear dyad with 1,000 nuclear weapons. The newly signed START treaty would reduce the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to 1,550 weapons each.

The U.S. should also cut spending on missile defense – now a $10 billion annual expense – to about $3.3 billion until development work is done and missile interceptors are proven to work, the task force said.

Eliminating five Army brigade combat teams and four Marine Corps infantry battalions – about 30,000 troops in all – would save $147 billion over the decade, the task force calculates.

More….

Note….If you don’t think this report was a shot at Gates …and the White House…… you need to excuse yourself……

Let me make this point….Cuts…senseable ones could, and should be made….

My belief is that Congress will not make them and is slowly losing faith with Gates…..