You are here:
Home 
Opinion Open Letters Weakened by waste
Opinion Open Letters Weakened by waste
| Open Letters is a place where the letters to the editor published by the Post-Gazette are offered up for broader comment and discussion. |
Links: More opinion |
| Letters published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are offered here for broader comment and discussion. |
Archives
- December, 2010 (125)
- November, 2010 (112)
- October, 2010 (122)
- September, 2010 (103)
- August, 2010 (51)
- July, 2010 (156)
- June, 2010 (379)
- May, 2010 (363)
- April, 2010 (606)
- March, 2010 (737)
- February, 2010 (721)
- January, 2010 (740)
- December, 2009 (762)
- November, 2009 (739)
- October, 2009 (760)
- September, 2009 (731)
- August, 2009 (537)
- July, 2009 (563)
- June, 2009 (517)
- May, 2009 (622)
- April, 2009 (606)
- March, 2009 (658)
- February, 2009 (604)
- January, 2009 (489)
- December, 2008 (293)
- November, 2008 (239)
- October, 2008 (264)
- September, 2008 (204)
- August, 2008 (162)
- July, 2008 (230)
- June, 2008 (92)
- May, 2008 (93)
- April, 2008 (5)
- January, 2008 (3)
- September, 2007 (1)
Source: All categories and sections
Wednesday, 08 December 2010 06:00
Congress could save an estimated $1 trillion in the next 10 years by cutting the Pentagon budget using the recommendations of the Sustainable Defense Task Force. Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Ron Paul, R-Texas -- who are about as far apart on the political spectrum as one can imagine -- and other concerned members of Congress established this task force to examine how the military spends money and whether it meets our current needs. It has found ways to cut that $1 trillion without jeopardizing national security: by eliminating waste and mismanagement and irrelevant Cold War programs. If Congress were to implement its recommendations and nothing else, the federal budget would be balanced by 2020.
It's long past time for our elected officials to take seriously the idea of cutting military spending. National security means more than bombs, drones and tanks. It means an educated, healthy population, modern infrastructure and energy independence. Congress -- including our local representatives Mike Doyle, Jason Altmire, Tim Murphy and others -- needs to scrutinize military spending. War is making us poor.
KATHY STACKHOUSE
Squirrel Hill
Comments (22)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Doggydaddy, December 08, 2010 - 10:03 AM
O.K., Kathy, let's say, for the sake of argument, that your numbers are correct. How much of the budget covers "discretionary" spending any more? The simplest answer is "not much".
By restricting the debate to discretionary spending, you remove most of the spending. You also remove all the programs that drive, and will continue to drive, increasing debt no matter what course is taken in Iraq & Afghanistan.
You are, frankly, a fool who pays no attention to history. We've gone down your preferred path more than once over the last century, then had to invest massive sums to undo the damage.
If you aren't going to consider the entire scope of the problem, you aren't going to solve it. More to the point, you won't solve anything unless you're serious. You with your prattle abour defense including an "educated, healthy population", and "modern infrastructure" quite clearly shows you are anything but serious. National defense is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal government; modernizing infrastructure and educating children are not......................
By restricting the debate to discretionary spending, you remove most of the spending. You also remove all the programs that drive, and will continue to drive, increasing debt no matter what course is taken in Iraq & Afghanistan.
You are, frankly, a fool who pays no attention to history. We've gone down your preferred path more than once over the last century, then had to invest massive sums to undo the damage.
If you aren't going to consider the entire scope of the problem, you aren't going to solve it. More to the point, you won't solve anything unless you're serious. You with your prattle abour defense including an "educated, healthy population", and "modern infrastructure" quite clearly shows you are anything but serious. National defense is a Constitutional responsibility of the Federal government; modernizing infrastructure and educating children are not......................
-
- +1
-
-
written by boldart, December 08, 2010 - 10:11 AM
Conservative pro-war republicans will fight any decrease in defense spending.
Continuing wars give conservatives a weapon in denying tax dollars for those hated liberal social programs.
-
- -2
-
-
written by regis, December 08, 2010 - 11:51 AM
Anyone who's ever been in the military will have noticed how much money is wasted, even in peacetime. Every attempt to audit the Pentagon has ended in frustration, as the record-keeping is so bad. It's been like this for over 65 years.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joe Bunda, December 08, 2010 - 11:55 AM
written by boldart, December 08, 2010 - 10:11 AM Conservative pro-war republicans will fight any decrease in defense spending.
Conservative pro-national defense Republicans will fight any decrease in defense spending.
Continuing wars give conservatives a weapon in denying tax dollars for those hated liberal social programs.
Until the First Gulf War, every war during the 20th century was initiated by a Democratic administration.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Deke, December 08, 2010 - 12:15 PM
written by Joe Bunda, December 08, 2010 - 11:55 AM
written by boldart, December 08, 2010 - 10:11 AM Conservative pro-war republicans will fight any decrease in defense spending.
Conservative pro-national defense Republicans will fight any decrease in defense spending.
Continuing wars give conservatives a weapon in denying tax dollars for those hated liberal social programs.
Until the First Gulf War, every war during the 20th century was initiated by a Democratic administration.
+1
What planet do you live on Bunda?
-
- -2
-
-
written by Joe Bunda, December 08, 2010 - 12:40 PM
written by regis, December 08, 2010 - 12:11 PM So what?
The issue is wasteful spending.
Oh. You mean wasteful spending programs like Social Security, foodstamps, Section 8 housing, housing projects, Medicare, Medicaid, government union employee wage/benefits and pension plans?
-
- +1
-
-
written by regis, December 08, 2010 - 01:15 PM
The issue was wasteful spending by the Pentagon. Are you denying that it exists? Or you just don't want to talk about it.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Centinel, December 08, 2010 - 01:20 PM
Perhaps if our allies started contributing more to their own defense, the American taxpayer would get to pay less to subsidize it.
-
- +4
-
-
written by regis, December 08, 2010 - 01:34 PM
That's been true since 1945, Centinal, and I certainly won't argue with that aspect.
But there is plenty of missing equipment, sloppy book-keeping, and general "Who cares? we can just requisition another one!" in the military's day-to-day operation. They get a bigger pass on this than any other branch of government. That's why several attempts to actually audit Pentagon spending have ended in frustration. It would not weaken our military to stop the waste, any more than it would in any other government agencies.
But there is plenty of missing equipment, sloppy book-keeping, and general "Who cares? we can just requisition another one!" in the military's day-to-day operation. They get a bigger pass on this than any other branch of government. That's why several attempts to actually audit Pentagon spending have ended in frustration. It would not weaken our military to stop the waste, any more than it would in any other government agencies.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Centinel, December 08, 2010 - 01:35 PM
We can audit the Federal Reserve while we're at it as well.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Ironman, December 08, 2010 - 01:48 PM
We can audit the Department of Education. I would start with them.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Centinel, December 08, 2010 - 02:12 PM
I don't like the DoE, but it is small potatoes in comparison to other government spending.
Hows about we just follow Article 1 Sec. 9 across the board:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Hows about we just follow Article 1 Sec. 9 across the board:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Ironman, December 08, 2010 - 02:29 PM
The DoE has been a thorn in my side with the current state of education here in this country.
-
- +2
-
-
written by regis, December 08, 2010 - 02:39 PM
Even if I agreed with you folks, you're continuing to avoid the subject of Pentagon waste.
-
- -2
-
-
written by Centinel, December 08, 2010 - 02:48 PM
What do you want, regis? Of course there's waste - it's an agency of the government. It isn't special or exceptional in that regard.
-
- +4
-
-
written by Ironman, December 08, 2010 - 04:00 PM
There is no doubt waste in the DOD, which is the crux of this blog. Then, there is fraud. I've always wondered whatever happened to those people who sold the $50 hammers and $600 toilets to the DOD.
-
- +0
-
-
written by regis, December 08, 2010 - 06:38 PM
What I'm driving at is this: everyone (rightfully) wants waste in government to stop. Conversely, the most egregious waster of tax money, so much so that there can't even be a real audit because nobody knows where the money is, is the DOD. But it's the one least likely to be complained about. Some misguided concern that that would be undercutting the troops? Hell, if they spent their money more wisely, there'd have been uparmored humvees and adequate body armor when we got into our latest round of wars. Real accountability would help them, too.
But, as we see above, when you mention it, everyone wants to take off in another direction and gripe about their own pet peeves. It's as if we can't focus when we need to.
"Yeah, but what about the department of Fill in the Blank!" looks like a way of avoiding the problem.
No offense is intended, and I hope none is given.
The other agencies deserve scrutiny, too. I just have a bad habit of trying to deal in one topic at a time.
But, as we see above, when you mention it, everyone wants to take off in another direction and gripe about their own pet peeves. It's as if we can't focus when we need to.
"Yeah, but what about the department of Fill in the Blank!" looks like a way of avoiding the problem.
No offense is intended, and I hope none is given.
The other agencies deserve scrutiny, too. I just have a bad habit of trying to deal in one topic at a time.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Night Shift, December 08, 2010 - 10:24 PM
Regis:
Yes, the frame flipping approach to argument makes it tough to stay on point.
Let's pick one US military base and see if we here agree that we can live without it. Lets pick the base in Djibuti.. Do we need a base there? Can the 'Djibutians' defend their own turf on their own. Or should we have France take back the base and do the work of tending to Somalia?
There is likley 15% waste in the DOD that could be cut with no ill effects. Its tough though. Generals are like lots of folks with power. Cut their budgets, troop resposibility, etc. and they end up with less power. They hate that....
Yes, the frame flipping approach to argument makes it tough to stay on point.
Let's pick one US military base and see if we here agree that we can live without it. Lets pick the base in Djibuti.. Do we need a base there? Can the 'Djibutians' defend their own turf on their own. Or should we have France take back the base and do the work of tending to Somalia?
There is likley 15% waste in the DOD that could be cut with no ill effects. Its tough though. Generals are like lots of folks with power. Cut their budgets, troop resposibility, etc. and they end up with less power. They hate that....
-
- +0
-
-
written by KStackhouse, December 09, 2010 - 07:07 PM
Mr. Doggydaddy, I am not the one "prattling" about defense including "educated, healthy population", and "modern infrastructure". Please see:
http://cdn.missionreadiness.or...2010.pdf;
http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/NATPR1109.pdf;
http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/crumbling-infrastructure-a-national-security-concern-experts-say-006649;
http://www.progressivefix.com/when-national-security-means-energy-independence
http://cdn.missionreadiness.or...2010.pdf;
http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/NATPR1109.pdf;
http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/crumbling-infrastructure-a-national-security-concern-experts-say-006649;
http://www.progressivefix.com/when-national-security-means-energy-independence
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
the EPA, Departments of (Re)Education/Energy/Interior, the FCC, the IRS(!), 30% across the board wage cut for every government employee (except, of course, the military), food stamps, welfare, Section 8 housing and, last but not least, a curtailment of unemployment insurance which has transmogrified into welfare payments.