« Morning Smoke: Banks Paying Back Treasury Loans with Treasury Loans | Main | New Justice Department Case Shows How Foreign Funding Makes Its Way Into U.S. Political Process »

Jul 21, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c68bf53ef014e8a06b197970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How To Trim the Deficit by Nearly $600 Billion: A Blueprint for Spending Less and Spending Smarter on National Security:

Comments

Edwina White

Reducing wasteful spending is good, and may be all we can accomplish at this time. The reality is that if this country is going to retain a strong economy, it must change its priorities. Using high-tech weaponry to try to control other countries is not working, and it's leaving us with mountains of debt. China has said its priority will be to develop internal markets. (Whether is does this is another matter.) The U.S. has many needs that are not being met. We cannot "grow" our way out of a crisis of over-production in the advanced capitalist countries. Especially since we are now competing with developing countries like China, India, Brazil, and others. It is time to address un-met needs like housing, healthcare, and environmental degredation.

Steve Morse

I support these cuts in military spending and wish that ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were also included in the plan above, which would save huge amounts of money including that spent on "contractors" (mercenaries) there.
I request that we use the terms "military spending" and "war spending" to describe these expenses. We should stop using the terms "defense spending" and "national security spending" which are inaccurate since the expenses have little to do with defending the country or enhancing our national security. The use of these terms tends to support the exorbitant expenses.

Emile Zola

I don't know the author's background, nor political affiliation, but he sounds like a republican disguised as fiscal conservatist. There is an adage that says: Extreme situations cal for extreme measures, ergo, I' not even an "expert on the economy but I do believe that yo first have to look at what works best. You can't use a band aid in an open heart surgery. You have to use a bypass.
According to an article about the same subject, it is, was reported that just allowing Bush's tax cuts for th very rich would cut 700 billions for the deficit and let's not forget that during Bill Clinton's tenure, we hade the best of times, at least in recent memory and that from there on, when Bush allowed Wall Street play with taxpayer's money like it was monopoly, is the true reason we are in this spending hole that threatens in becoming a black hole, where nobody can escape. And that is for starters.
Now, if the situation is so dire, how come the author goes on a killing rampage of ants,but allows the elephants roam free. That doesn't make sense. I don't se him including the wars, and according to experts, keeping one soldier at war amounts to one million and if you multiply that figure times the number of troops at war, and I'm talking the overt ones and it comes to 904 billions, give or take a billion. Add to that the criminal, secret operations conducted by this "Christian and democratic" nation and the amount will be enough, I'm sure, to pay all our debts and be able to keep the 850 billions that we pay in interest alone.
When people, supposedly experts, come up with esoteric solutions to extreme situations, it becomes just another band aid used in an open heart surgery. The author's solution is a sophism to the nth degree. It appears that something is being done to solve the second great depression, but this is an effort in futility; like trying to put the ocean into a swimming pool and that is impossible.

infocyde

I think we could save even more money by replacing the two F-35 variants with less expensive bi-planes. Or how about 3.95 kites? F-18 can't compete with emerging threats. Great plane in its time, very cost efficient and easy to maintain now, a bean counter's dream. One problem, it has to survive and protect the fleet, that is it's primary purpose, not to look good on a spread sheet.

F-35 might very well be the over priced dog people say it is, that would not surprise me. But we better come up with a plan C and quick, the F-18 is nothing more than a 5 year a best answer.

David Bell

This is what we need. Our competitiveness is harmed by having such a great percentage of our GMP used to buy weapons compared to competing countries.

The comments to this entry are closed.