Stop the insanity!

Daily Kos diary


:rofl:

This did not happen under Bush, and never would have. If you read the whole article, you will see that Gates saw the need for overhaul while serving under Bush. In reading this, I can readily see why President Obama asked Gates to stay on.

This article is from April of last year, so if someone has more current information that's fine. But it was certainly a very early indicator of Obama's ability to choose the right person for the job that needed doing.

Hekate


http://www.slate.com/id/2215491/
Gates Follows Through
The Pentagon is finally cutting expensive weapons programs it doesn't need.
Posted Monday, April 6, 2009

This is remarkable: In his budget address today, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates actually did what he has said he'd do for some time now—killed or slashed a bunch of weapons programs that don't fill the needs of modern warfare, vastly boosted spending for weapons that do, and took the first steps toward truly reforming the way the Pentagon does business.
For instance:
• He really did recommend halting production of the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter aircraft at its current level of 187 planes—against the wishes of the Air Force brass, most of whom are former fighter pilots who cherish this Cold War relic above all other programs, even though it has never been used in any of the wars we've been fighting the past few years.
• He eased out the Navy's DDG-1000 stealth destroyer, ending the program with its third ship, to be funded next year, and instead restarted the older but still quite capable DDG-51.
• He canceled the most baroque and expensive components of the Army's Future Combat Systems program and called for a re-evaluation of what kinds of weapons the Army needs in general.
• He also killed two of the most troubled programs in the Missile Defense Agency, the Airborne Laser aircraft and the Multiple Kill Vehicle, cutting the overall agency budget by $1.4 billion, about 15 percent of its total budget (a pittance, but a deeper cut than any other secretary or Congress has ordered since the program began).
At the same time:
>snip<
To protect the all-volunteer armed forces, he added $11 billion to fund the expansion of the Army and Marines, $400 million for additional medical research, $300 million for care of the war-wounded, $200 million more for child care and spousal support—and, moreover, he put these sorts of programs in the baseline defense budget. (Before, they were part of ad hoc programs in the war-emergency supplementals and therefore without institutional protection—or, as Gates put it, they were bureaucratically "homeless"—in the political competition for scarce dollars.)
>snip<
Thus he slashed a number of naval programs because, as he put it, the "healthy margin of dominance at sea provided by America's existing battle fleet makes it possible and prudent to slow production." He stopped production of the C-17 cargo-transport plane because the department's "analysis concludes that we have enough C-17s with the 205 already in the force and currently in production." He wants to overhaul the Future Combat Systems program because its underlying premise—that lightweight vehicles equipped with computer technology can compensate for heavier armor—was invalidated by the lessons of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>snip<
Contracting is another area that Gates is seeking to reform. He wants to slash the corps of service contractors, who come from the defense industry, and to replace them with civil-service professionals, 13,000 of whom he wants to hire next year, expanding to 30,000 new officials over the next five years.
>snip<


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

cuts to individual weapon systems notwithstanding. :hi:

or did the rate of growth decrease?

I don't even get it!

:rofl:

agenda? Is this going to win over moderates and independents?

In a recent Gallup Poll regarding "big issues" with the voters -- this was taken in late in early January -- the first issue was the Economy and Jobs, the second issue was National Security and Terrorism and the third issue was Government Spending and the Deficit. So this issue is right below the surface for a significant number of voters. It actually beat out the issue of Health Care (#4) and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (#5). It's a significant issue - particularly with moderate and independent voters.

What's more, much of Obama stimulus and recovery plans call for spending money. Lots of it. And with the deficits already at eye-popping levels, a lot of people are going to get nervous if spending seems out of control. And the Republicans, always the Party Of Fear, will most certainly exploit those concerns in 2010 and 2012. So sending a clear message that we're not going to be engaged in a spending free-for-all is an important part of getting our agenda through Congress and preserving those congressional seats in the coming election cycle.

For all the heart palpitations going on around here, this freeze is really not a very big deal and it's more symbolic than practical. After all the exceptions are taken into account, it freezes a pretty small portion of the federal budget, and most of the budgets that ARE frozen got hefty bumps last year after eight years of no increases at all. So they can survive three years relatively unscathed.

Did you change it in the amnesty?

off of that figurative political cliff? :(

Or do you honestly think that the democratic corporatists and independents is all you need to keep the PARTY STRONG? :shrug:

I see how you belittle LIBERALS, especially those of us who are anti-war and pro civil rights ...

President Obama? Yes, if he stays on this destructive course will assuredly be a One Term President.

You will blame the Liberals but it's YOUR FAULT for dismissing "the base."

:rofl:

because you dear are pissing off many more here!

Fla polls show

Obama Approval: 45

Obama disapproval: 49

Upside down..

The dem running for the Senate seat K. Meeks loses by a landslide! Against either repub running...Landslide..

Oh and darlin..the seniors in Fla vote..yes indeed they vote..

So save your bullshit..it is workingagainst whatever your agenda is and for whomever you work for!

And perhaps you need to read the Moveon Ads in papers in the Northeast..

People out of work and under-employed really don't want to listen to your bullshit or your bush tactics of smearing those who have taken a serious hit in this economy!

You are doing a disservice to those you are working for!

The significance of a spending freeze isn't just the money frozen.

It is the political promise included in the freeze concept that spending is at the very least CAPPED

A freeze is a cut of a few billion PLUS a pre-emptive cut of the additional spending we need.

If this Kos-posting clown thinks that a fucking PROMISE to NOT do ANYTHING additional to benefit the fucking economy is a non-story he/she really is a fool.

proposed spending. None.

:rofl:

I know he'll insist that it doesn't affect anything AND there's a good, non-gimmick reason for doing it, but you and I and everyone who didn't tumble off a turnip truck yesterday know it can't be both.

in fact they are backfiring..its like a huge Pile of horse dung ..the stink from his kind is rising ..and they prove themselves daily how out of touch with "we the people"..they are!..

Polls dropping..like flies..

and November will be a blood bath!

The freeze effects current operating budgets of federal agencies. There's NOTHING in this freeze that would prevent Congress from passing a multi-billion dollar job creation bill. NOTHING stops them from cutting payroll taxes on new employees. NOTHING stops them from providing block grants to the states for infrastructure projects. NOTHING stops them from extending unemployment benefits.

Do I read this correctly or not?

he is going to give up to 2 billion for a High Speed rail from Tampa to Orlando..

Disney will sure love that!!..You know Disney that was in Bed with Bush?? That Disney..

The Disney that owns ABC ..

lets see..Obama's polls in Fla..

Approval 45

disapproval 49

Unemployment in Fla 11.8..much higher in many counties..

We're also planning a high speed rail system in the Milwaukee area - part of linking Chicago to Milwaukee to Minneapolis.

Jobs, my friend. Lost of construction jobs.

but many really don't know.

That's telling.

However, it seems like many of President Obama's decisions *TO DATE* are doing ANYTHING but endear us to him.

On the above FACT you can't deny?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That was some angry, and frankly nonsensical (Kucinich Vader? WTF?) ranting against liberals there, bud. Sure you punched in the right url?

:wtf:

How about we just stop the killing and dying overseas?

We would have MUCH LESS of a budget problem if we didn't need to spread our American Empire throughout the world. :shrug:

Attacking the left under the guise of a party liner. Get bent.

grytpype (1000+ posts) Tue Jan-26-10 12:06 AM


18. Obama did not get elected to make all your liberal wet dreams come true.
You libs cry and scream like Dennis Kucinich got elected and ripped off his mask and it was Darth Vader underneath.

That's not what happened, right? Your beloved Dennis got about 0% of the primary vote.

America elected a pragmatist to get things done and make things better, not a crying lib to check off all the items on your Liberal Purity Test.

And get deleted too. Are you also a non-liberal? When did it get decided that the Democratic party should be supported by liberals?

AGAIN.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

creeping up.

But Daddy's gonna get some new chrome for his shiny motorcycles, Iraq and Afghanistan. Varoom! Varoom!

Defense Spending as well. I know Gates has and I also know that Obama has increased defense spending in some areas that Bush could have cared less about. I am looking at this page and there are some things we can reasonably cut from it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

:eyes:

Yeesh. Are people just stuck on Hyperbole Mode, or what?

She couldn't seem to grasp that this freeze would not affect stimulus spending. They are basically cutting the fat/pork/unneccessary spending and keeping the stimulating spending.

It's really not that hard to grap, but Rachel, in typical progressive fashion, had a kneejerk reaction.

If you pass a $100 billion stimulus package and cut $100 billion of "wasteful" government spending the net result is close to zero.

There is not a special economic category of stimulus spending... it's all stimulus.

I don't mind ignorance. We are all born ignorant and nobody knows everything.

But why get in people's faces with ignorance?

Rachel knew what she was talking about. You do not. That doesn't make her a wacko.

There's not a dollar-for-dollar offset in Stimulus Dollars vs. Waste & Fraud Dollars.

Obama is freezing the department budgets of agencies in the Executive Branch (think "Washington Bureaucrats") while providing stimulus funding to the states -- typically this occurs via block grants. Nothing about the freeze prevents Congress from appropriating funds to the states or from creating tax breaks to promote job creation. The budget freeze is confined almost exclusively to the 202 Area Code (that's a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much).

The Waste Dollars are out there. Al Gore found billions in dopey spending in his "Reinventing Government" program in the 1990's. Remember the famous glass ashtray that had to be made to military specifications (when shattered, the ashtray must break into no more than 35 pieces) at huge expense to the taxpayer? That stuff is still going on. There are still wasteful and redundant programs that do aren't effective and never will be. Why SHOULDN'T those Washington Bureaucrats be tasked with ferreting out wasteful spending. If they do, then they can effecitvely increase their funding by putting those wasted dollars to better use.

then they need to be re-purposed into the economy via other programs that have more impact.

Surely, you don't pretend that we have spending that comes anywhere close to the need for demand or that there is any lack of infrastructure that desperately requires investment?

We need every cent to drown less quickly and more than is being considered to even tread water, and only God knows how many trillions to make up for the past decade of wealth transferance to the top, so any net cuts are by definition asinine.

Where did the Friedman/Hoover/Reagan economics become so popular on DU? Oh yeah, when a certain politician picked them up in direct opposition to what he campaigned on.

We can always count on you and your catapult.

A first.