Thoughts on the difficulty of cutting the military budget

[Pointedstick]

During the Bush era, the wars were paid for "off the books" so to speak, using emergency resolutions to appropriate another 50 or 100 billion whenever they were needed. Back then, I was a liberal and I hated this because I saw it as a sneaky way to fund the war without having to officially put it on the books. Fast forward to Obama's election. Obama pledges to put all that spending on the books, and has it officially added to the DoD budget. Obama is cheered on as promoting transparency.

But something just hit me recently: by integrating this spending into the official budget, Obama made it very difficult to cut the war funding once the wars are over. Any kind of cut to the DoD budget elicits screams of bloody murder from congressmen in both parties.

When the wars were paid for in individual spending bills, cutting off funding would be easy: inaction would result in that money spigot being closed off. No congressman would have to bear the stigma of "voting to cut the defense budget." The senate majority leader or house speaker could even fail to bring it up for a vote, ensuring that the individual members didn't even have to vote at all.

Now, they'll actually have to vote in favor of cutting the budget--a move that's political kryptonite for whatever reason. What originally looked like transparency now seems much more like political tone-deafness.

[WiseOne]

Very astute observation, PS.  Given this Congress it seems unlikely they'll muster the political will to cut the defense budget, which is already beyond out of control.

I blame Bush more than Obama for the debt situation, though.  To run a huge deficit during a period of prosperity is sheer stupidity.  We should have gone into the recession with something close to a balanced budget.  All those guys who are squawking about the deficit now...where were they in 2003?  2004?  2005?  and 2006?  I don't remember hearing anyone complain until the moment a Democrat was elected President.  That took about as long as the guy behind you takes to honk his horn when the light turns green.

[Pointedstick]

i would say given any congress or any president the defense budget wont be cut. seems to me it doesn't matter if you run as a war hawk or a anti war candidate the military and military industry gets theirs,
it is very sneaky to let the president "formerly known as anti war" make budget increases permanent in a back handed political way.

To be fair to Obama, he always ran as a warhawk. I remember watching a debate with McCain in 2008 in which he was saying that he supported the illegal use of drone strikes into Pakistan, visibly shocking McCain who vehemently opposed it. Of course Obama won and instituted illegal drone strikes into Pakistan, just like he said he would. A lot of the people who voted for him--myself included--willingly ignored his belligerent foreign policy because we were just so sick of Bush, and we ran straight into the hands of someone who not only continued Bush's policies, but even expanded some of them. Quite a shame, really.

to be fair he always ran as a politician, and ran on saying what he needed to say to whoever he needed to say it to, that's in no way shape or form, an Obama slam they ALL do it. but i do remember plenty of anti war talk and disagreement with opponents war policy's from Obama and lots of support from the anti war protester crowd,

its pretty rare to find a major politician that hasn't been on both sides of most issues..

[notsheigetz]

I believe that it should be written into law that wars have to be paid for out of the social security trust fund and social security benefits should be adjusted accordingly.

I say this as both a Vietnam War Veteran and someone who is eligible for SS benefits as we speak.

[brick-house]

Want to cut down on military adventures?  Re-establish the draft. 

[notsheigetz]

Want to cut down on military adventures?  Re-establish the draft.

Your idea along with mine above about financing wars out of the social security trust fund would go a long way to ending war once and for all unless we encounter the extremely unlikely possibility of encountering a REAL enemy.

[D1984]

Want to cut down on military adventures?  Re-establish the draft.

Better idea: Before you start drafting innocent citizens, institute a "draft" whereby, say:

1. Congress votes on whether to go to war or not (that old "Declaration of War" requirement that was somewhere or other...oh yeah, in the Consitution, wasn't it) and the President signs or vetoes the bill.

2. It there are enough votes to pass the bill and the POTUS signs (i.e. if we do actually end up fighting the war) it is recorded in the Congressional Record who voted yea or nay for the war (and no one should be allowed to vote "present" in this case ...that's cowardly).

3. One out of every ten Congresscritters (and we can include the POTUS and VP too since the President has to sign a declaration of war and the VP could at least theoretically have to break a tie in the Senate voting) who voted "yea" are sent to the most dangerous part of the front lines or to some other suicidally hazardous mission....oh yeah, and they get to give up their Congressional salaries and perks and get an E-1's pay while doing this. Those Congressmen/women who voted "no" would be exempt from serving since they voted against the war in the first place.

4. Rinse and repeat every six months or every year until the war ends.

Congresspersons, Senators, the VP, and Prez are (at most points in time, anyway) basically power-hungry, selfish, sociopathic types (government at these levels tends to attract that kind of people.....scum floats to the top) so they won't care if someone ELSE gets drafted--which is why a draft is no reeal deterrent to their voting for war--but make it so they (by voting for a war to begin with) are the ones who risk getting killed or maimed and I'll bet we'd have a lot fewer wars.

[MachineGhost]

But something just hit me recently: by integrating this spending into the official budget, Obama made it very difficult to cut the war funding once the wars are over. Any kind of cut to the DoD budget elicits screams of bloody murder from congressmen in both parties.

No one is more of a hypocrite on this issue than: http://mckeon.house.gov/

However did we manage to draw down the military after the Wall fell?  It seems like a miracle in hindsight.

[brick-house]

Yup that is a better idea.  D1984 for President!

d1984 wrote:

Better idea: Before you start drafting innocent citizens, institute a "draft" whereby, say:

1. Congress votes on whether to go to war or not (that old "Declaration of War" requirement that was somewhere or other...oh yeah, in the Consitution, wasn't it) and the President signs or vetoes the bill.

2. It there are enough votes to pass the bill and the POTUS signs (i.e. if we do actually end up fighting the war) it is recorded in the Congressional Record who voted yea or nay for the war (and no one should be allowed to vote "present" in this case ...that's cowardly).

3. One out of every ten Congresscritters (and we can include the POTUS and VP too since the President has to sign a declaration of war and the VP could at least theoretically have to break a tie in the Senate voting) who voted "yea" are sent to the most dangerous part of the front lines or to some other suicidally hazardous mission....oh yeah, and they get to give up their Congressional salaries and perks and get an E-1's pay while doing this. Those Congressmen/women who voted "no" would be exempt from serving since they voted against the war in the first place.

4. Rinse and repeat every six months or every year until the war ends.

Congresspersons, Senators, the VP, and Prez are (at most points in time, anyway) basically power-hungry, selfish, sociopathic types (government at these levels tends to attract that kind of people.....scum floats to the top) so they won't care if someone ELSE gets drafted--which is why a draft is no reeal deterrent to their voting for war--but make it so they (by voting for a war to begin with) are the ones who risk getting killed or maimed and I'll bet we'd have a lot fewer wars.

[lazyboy]

From an article:http://www.nationofchange.org/john-bren ... 1357827819

In October 2011, 16-year-old Tariq Aziz attended a gathering in Islamabad where he was taught how to use a video camera so he could document the drones that were constantly circling over his Pakistani village, terrorizing and killing his family and neighbors. Two days later, when Aziz was driving with his 12-year-old cousin to a village near his home in Waziristan to pick up his aunt, his car was struck by a Hellfire missile. With the push of a button by a pilot at a US base thousands of miles away, both boys were instantly vaporized—only a few chunks of flesh remained.
Afterwards, the US government refused to acknowledge the boys’ deaths or explain why they were targeted. Why should they? This is a covert program where no one is held accountable for their actions.

The main architect of this drone policy that has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents, including 176 children in Pakistan alone, is President Obama’s counterterrorism chief and his pick for the next director of the CIA: John Brennan.

[RuralEngineer]

D1984's idea is only good if you're a complete pacifist. I want an end to all of these unnecessary wars, but I also want a strong defense. Some wars are justified and the cowards in Washington need to be able to pull the trigger if necessary.

I don't think we'd have entered WWII until too late if it was essentially a death sentence for those who supported a declaration of war.