D-Day for the Pentagon?

  • Article by: EDITORIAL , Washington Post
  • Updated: February 1, 2013 - 12:04 PM

Republicans who fought against massive cuts now appear to have changed their mind. Obama is hardly blameless.

  • 22
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
middleman711Jan. 31, 13 8:37 PM

Let the cuts come. But don't stop with so-called discretionary spending, which is the relatively small component of the national budget that incudes defense spending. Let's also address runaway entitlement spending (social security, medicare, medicaid, and whatever budgetory category that the ill-concieved Obamacare will fall in to), which constitutes the bulk of Federal spending and is the main cause of our huge budget deficits and monstrous national debt. Let's do it for the children, who will be saddled with this obscene debtload that they had no say in creating but will be left to pay for.

8
19
barefootpaulFeb. 1, 1312:20 AM

Defense is by far the largest budget item we have that doesn't have an independent funding source. It's also the one with the most pork. We're paying for weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't even want. It's also a non sustaining expense since none of it goes back into the economy as does spending on infrastructure and even the so-called entitlements which mostly go to those who spend nearly all their income. We no longer need the vast military spending because traditional armies are not nearly as crucial for defense in the modern world as are intelligence and policing (which isn't even in the defense budget). There's no good reason for us to spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on defense - especially when many of the others are considered allies.

21
1
erikj3Feb. 1, 1312:29 AM

Cut the Pentagon's budget in half. The only reason we spend so much is so we can police the whole world. Time for the freeloaders (Germany and Japan, especially) to start chipping in a bit more for THEIR security.

18
1
ti1310Feb. 1, 13 7:41 AM

---- It's also a non sustaining expense since none of it goes back into the economy as does spending on infrastructure and even the so-called entitlements which mostly go to those who spend nearly all their income.--- While I agree that there are substantial cuts needed for the military your contention that none of that spending goes back into the economy is ludicrous. General Dynamics. Lockheed, Boeing and several other companies are all American based... The dollars that are spent on them stay here.

6
4
firefight41Feb. 1, 13 8:54 AM

Let's also address runaway entitlement spending (social security, medicare, medicaid, and whatever budgetory category that the ill-concieved Obamacare will fall in to), which constitutes the bulk of Federal spending and is the main cause of our huge budget deficits and monstrous national debt. Let's do it for the children, who will be saddled with this obscene debtload that they had no say in creating but will be left to pay for. ********** if what you say is true, than why did the huge budget deficits start in 2009? Prior to that year we had deficits of up to 400 billion dollars. Since that year we have had deficits of over a trillion dollars.

3
14
tomheuFeb. 1, 1312:43 PM

And what is it that is bad about these cuts? Since 9/11 the defense budget has grown and is bloated. Perhaps the cuts will lead us to stop the perpetual state of war.

11
0
gandalf48Feb. 1, 13 1:49 PM

Sort of a biased article, why would the author suggest there have been no revenue increases after we just had about 3 or 4 different tax increases as of the beginning of this year. I'm fine with these cuts going through, our deficits are massive and I am open to cuts in every single federal program. I would also like to see tax reform to eliminate most credits and deductions along with lower tax rates in order to increase revenue.

6
6
smdentFeb. 1, 13 1:55 PM

The military is a bloated force with hundreds of admirals and generals on the payroll. War has changed. Battles are fought not between nations but with terrorist. A few drones can take care of a large portion of them. Let's re-invest in our infrastructure and people...not bombs and missiles. Besides, why can Lockheed or Grumman manufacture high speed trains, instead?

10
0
teeeepeeeeFeb. 1, 13 1:59 PM

If Obama is "winding down the wars" then I see no problem with cutting 7.3% of a very bloated military budget. I am pretty sure that we have stock piled enough fighters, bombers, ships, trucks, tanks, hummers, bombs, missles and other materiel to last us for at least five years.

9
0
wetbuckzFeb. 1, 13 2:12 PM

We have plenty of military materiel stock piled. Cut the bloat now!

9
0

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT