G.O.P. Splits Over Plans to Cut Defense Budget


#1


[INDENT] To hear the Republican leadership tell it, the once-sacred Pentagon budget, protected by the party for generations, is suddenly on the table. . .

Representative Chris Gibson, a Tea Party-endorsed freshman Republican and a retired Army colonel from New York’s Hudson River Valley, made it clear that no part of the Pentagon’s $550 billion budget — some $700 billion including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — was immune.

“This deficit that we have threatens our very way of life, and everything needs to be on the table,” Mr. Gibson told William J. Lynn III, the deputy defense secretary, who testified at the hearing along with Gen. Peter J. Chiarelli, the vice chief of staff of the Army, and other service vice chiefs.

[/INDENT]


#2

“Sacred”?

I remember a GOP controlled Congress sending legislation to the Demoncrat Presidents desk in the 1990’s that closed a large number of military bases at home and abroad as well as discontinuing several expensive weapons and equipment projects as part of the “peace dividend”.

The GOP opposition to this is rooted in the fact that we are AT WAR right now, it has nothing to do with “sacred budget items”.

You remember the war right?

It might be hard to remember because all the screaming Liberals who never let a day pass without expressing how unjust and wrong it is have not mentioned it much since November of 2008.

In fact, they have not talked much about the “atrocity of the Guantanamo Bay prison” that they said made America just like the “Nazi’s and the Communist Gulag’s” or even “Pol Pot’s army” since November of 2008 either.

Seems like one candidate for the Presidential election of November 2008 even promised to close this “unconstitutional outrage” and “end all the wars” if he got elected because his Party was so passionate about these things.

I wonder what changed in November of 2008? :eusa_think: [/sarcasm]


#3

GoP opposition to the cuts is split; hence the article. Many of the new Tea Party representatives are open to cuts now, despite the war. Moreover, it’s almost surely false to suggest that it’s impossible to cut the defense budget without also increasing the danger to American troops. Or as Dick Armey put it (from the article): “A lot of people say if you cut defense, you’re demonstrating less than a full commitment to our nation’s security, and that’s baloney”.

As for Obama’s hypocrisy; a politician made a disingenuous promise—what else is new? In Bush’s first run for president, he promised a “humble” foreign policy free of “nation-building,” and then presided over the most arrogant administration in history towards the UN and our allies (read some John Bolton quotes), and embarked upon the most expensive and ambitious nation-building scheme we’ve ever seen.

Guess what? Politicians lie. Sometimes they even promise the opposite of what they actually do once in office.


#4

Even as much of a Defense hawk as I am, I can easily find areas to cut.

I could easily find some foreign bases to close also, and I’m not a “bring all of our troops home” person at all. I fully believe in protecting our strategic assetts abroad.


#5

I think most of the budget increase is not because of weapons, or R&D, but because of pensions, wages, waste, abuse, and paying for contractors.


#6

Hiring contractors is cheaper than having the military do some jobs.

IT and other maintenance fields especially.


#7

[quote=“JStang, post:6, topic:28993”]
Hiring contractors is cheaper than having the military do some jobs.

IT and other maintenance fields especially.
[/quote]Funny how that works, Obama complained about contractors when Bush was in office and now he has more than Bush and not a peep out of the media.


#8

The MSM have been pushing the, “______ is splitting the GOP,” narrative for several years. And November, 2010 gave the lie to that narrative. And “sacred”? Did some R really say that? Or is it an NYT editorial-disguised-as-news straw man?


#9

I remember a liberal once who claimed information from conservative sources and although he tried to disguise it I did a little research and found out that both of his conservative sources were very liberal. One was the Huffington Post and the other was a liberal newspaper opinion piece