Every year or so I write a piece that offends many of my friends. This is the one for 2013. We do not need to spend nearly as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, and sequestration seems to be the only way to tame the beast.
Before talking about how much we need, lets put aside the question of what we do with the military and state department that we have. If this were thrust of the discussion, I wouldn't be offending my friends:
- Obama withdrew from Iraq and did not make an effort to leave a small peace keeping force behind. He will also abandon whatever progress has been made in his greatly expanded war in Afghanistan. They will have to fend for themselves.
- Obama has chosen to not get involved in the messy side of the Arab Spring - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria. They will have to fend for themselves.
- Obama is doing little to reassure our friends in Japan and South Korea about North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. They will have to fend for themselves.
- Obama is doing little to reassure our friends in Israel and Saudi Arabia about Iran's nuclear program. They will eventually have to fend for themselves.
- Obama is doing little to reassure our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic about our missile defense program for them, now that Obama has been reelected and has "more flexibility". They will have to fend for themselves.
- Obama is committing to a significant reduction in our nuclear arsenal on the hope that our adversaries will follow suit. Fend they will.
- Obama has chosen a Secretary of Defense who shares his vision for a reduced military which will be less involved in the world. Senators fend for Senators.
Lets also stipulate that Obama proposed the sequestration concept and, as Commander in Chief, has structured the implementation to inflict maximum pain and damage on the military with the expectation that conservatives would again cave in to give him tax increases without meaningful budget reductions. It would appear as if the House Republicans are finally saying "no mas", regardless of how many firemen, teachers, and soldiers Obama can line up behind him for his histrionic speeches. Good for them. The union will survive, and we may have finally turned the corner on our debt, which Chief of Staff Mullen famously called the greatest threat to our national security.
Now the hard stuff. We have the same military structure that was created in 1947. Ike warned about the "military-industrial complex" in 1952, and it is still out if full force in opposition to the sequester. Donald Rumsfeld tried to shift from aircraft carriers and new generations of Air Force fighters and Army tanks - getting more unconventional forces after 9/11, but not getting rid of the old stuff. Now the Pentagon has taken on a cyber-defense mission, but again hangs on to the past. We have a military that is a jobs plan (for the bloated corps of admirals and generals as well as the folks at Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and L3 Communications), not a defense plan.
For the optimists, maybe, just maybe, the House Republicans will have passed the tipping point, and - thinking of the warnings of Admiral Mullen, Ike, and Rummie - they will ask the staffers down in the bowels of the Pentagon and over at the think tanks to envision a military which lets us do what Obama chooses not to do, but doesn't cover simultaneous wars on three oceans and the plains of Poland, while obliterating Russia 10 times over.
That's a hope, but if the House has come far enough to accept military sequestration, maybe real change is possible.
-----
This week's video extends the White House's battle with Bob Woodward, in which he was threatened for detailing the facts of Obama's original proposal of the sequestration.
bill bowen - 3/1/13
BELIZE; So the Ex-Pat rents are how much ? One statement by our former Sec of the Treasury ('06-'08)stays with me. "We knew two years ahead of time; had the 'best & brightest' (from Goldman no less)on board, and still we PANICKED." Which translated to going right into the CASH DRAWER.
Posted by: DickG | March 06, 2013 at 02:05 PM
DON'T DISCOUNT THE IMPACT OF THE 2014 Election: in the Fed Strategy. For the past 2 years since the return of the house to Republicans Obama's strategy has been to hold what he has by tying up the Senate and using Executive orders to make his moves in energy, immigration, EPA, social programs, etc. Meanwhile the FED feeds the markets and the deficits to keep the poor happy enough to vote Democratic again in 2014. If he gets lucky he breaks the Repub hold on the house. If not, then more of the same through 2016. By that time he will have implemented his healthcare, imported another 10-11 Million Democratic voters from Mexico and set the Republicans up for a big eceonomic fall should they win in 2016. If this wasn't for political gain then he would compromise and lead the nation.
Posted by: Bill McCormick | March 06, 2013 at 12:12 PM
THE 'TARP' FIELD DAY/ Some day when an actual Atty Gen takes over;we may see TARP for what it actually was. Seems most banks didn't require it but were forced to accept it as 'Cover' for a few FED and political chronies. TARP funds (except for a couple) were returned as soon as The Government allowed them to.
As additional 'COVER', all of the guilty ,both Public and private sector, remained in place. Do we wonder why 'printing' is so popular ? Don't you cover mistakes with 'wallpaper' ? For all of Bernanke's accepted roll as financial genius; don't forget, the real proven financial genius,Romney, proposed his 'Firing'. Now why would that be; and why would Bernanke announce unlimited funding for a fraudulent Administration just prior to the election ?AMAZING
Posted by: DickG | March 06, 2013 at 07:25 AM
RECORD DOW? So there we are. Printing money--nearly 4 trillion dollars now in 4 years has succeeded in what? Inflating stock prices back to where they were when the housing bubble hit.
TARP saved the banks. It was $500B almost all of which was paid back in two years. $40B saved GM's union jobs. It was back on it's feet in 2 years. AIG and Fannie and Freddie took another $100B perhaps. AIG is the number one favorite stock of hedge funds having replaced APPLE. We have most of that money back as well.
SO WHY? have we printed the other $3 Trillion or so? And, why are we continuing to print? Can anyone explain the "Love affair" of the left with printing money? All I can see they have done is create more Wall Street Billionaires and feed the liberals with food stamps. While the rest of us work to pay the taxes. And, struggle at that.
Posted by: Bill McCormick | March 05, 2013 at 10:58 AM
THE FED HAS SAID IT WILL BE COUNTERING OR OFF-SETTING "THE CUTS"(just a little brazen). In my thinking the $85 billion per month is raising the nominal inflation rate by whatever percentage of GDP is 'printed' (approx +6% above nominal). For an Agency who's primary mission is to protect the currency;is this LEGAL ? Or does the ACRU (American Civil Rights Union)have a case ? They have beaten this Admnistration in court before.
Should we be wrting to Atty Gen. Cucinelli ? Or maybe Romney and his 1/4 Billion will take a run at them. He was no fan of Uncle Ben.
Posted by: DickG | March 04, 2013 at 07:39 PM
THANK YOU; I started listening to him but 'tune him out' now.
Posted by: DickG | March 04, 2013 at 05:00 PM
WHY CAN"T WE LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT? I listened with great interest to 3 hours of Warren Buffet this morning. A great mind. He made the point that the FED cannot really directly influence the economy but they can influence the markets directly with all their stimulus that drives investors away from low risk bonds and into higher risk equities. By doing this he points out they make money available for public companies to use to grow by selling or leveraging their shares. Unfortunately, CEOs are smarter than that. When they are in an economic environment of low growth they are very inefficient in trying to create profits (EPS) by investing in risky growth and hiring. Instead they have squeezed the enterprise by cutting costs and laying off people. (JPM just announced another 18,000 layoffs last week just as they reported higher profits and some people called for the firing of Mr. Diamond.)At the same time they use there excess cash to buy back their stock creating increased EPS without higher revenues or profits. Even as their largest shareholders scream and sue for dividends instead. Dividends it can be argued would at least release some of that cash back into the economy and perhaps stimulate some hiring. Since small businesses are the key to lowering the unemployment rate this process of lowering costs by not purchasing as many services and products from small businesses actuall inhibits small businesses from hiring as well. Meanwhile the remaining cash is hoarded much of it overseas (to avoid the highest corporate tax rate in the world). It will take Congress to unfreeze this economy if they want the unemployment to be reduced. They can only do it by encouraging US corporations to expand to increase EPS and revenues in the USA. This means lower tax breaks and a deal to repatriate overseas profits. This is the easiest way to understand the linkage between small business and Fortune 1000 companies when it comes to create employment as well as the role government taxes play in discouraging investment in business expansion.
Posted by: Bill McCormick | March 04, 2013 at 01:46 PM
WHY OUR 'RINO' FED. CHAIR. SUPPORTS THE ECONOMY TO NOWHERE. The 'END GAME' of the 'LEFT' is so simple; we must certainly be the Party of STUPID. In a statement to a well known finance blog; they claim it is inevitable that much of the DEBT will eventually have to be forgiven. Otherwise, countries could have their TRADE priveledges with the US restricted; and private citizens could be audited. No different than any S.American countries , Mexico, or Post War Europe.
Want to see what a terminal point looks like in an overly taxed, overly indebted economy. 1920's Germany.
Posted by: DickG | March 02, 2013 at 10:48 AM
NEW SEC DEF GRABBING THE 'HORNS' . Sunday's 'Thunderbird Flyby'at NASCAR EVENT Cancelled. Has to be a JPJ inspired;"Ive only begun to fight".
Posted by: DickG | March 01, 2013 at 12:27 PM
You certainly did not offend me, but I agree with Bill M. that we haven't come close to the corner, let alone turning it.
One thing that really bothers me about these cuts being implemented, however, is that Obamasama's clowns will be the ones deciding what is cut. If his idiotic rhetoric the last couple weeks is any indication, they will be made for left wing political gain, regardless of what is best for the country.
On the budget, this latest fiasco has not even touched the areas where we really HAVE TO MAKE CUTS ... entitlements. The rest of this is just an exercise in political hay making. The current crew in both congressional groups have no intention of making the cuts that really must be made.
Posted by: Neil Crist | March 01, 2013 at 12:07 PM