It does not surprise me that politicians play on words, statistics, and time lines in order to sell a theme that is not intellectually true. It has long been true that politicians confuse the facts with complex language, legislation, and legalese. Recently, the Secretary of Defense has launched his 3rd proposal for cuts in the DoD Budget and the POTUS has claimed to be cutting Trillions (in a decade) while increasing spending on many programs, "freezing" bloated programs he quadrupled in size previously, and cutting twice as much from the Department of Defense as his annual "deficit cuts" imply.
SecDef Gates is literally calling for old airplanes to be repaired with figurative baling wire while cutting the number of planes of the current generation of fighters. Instead of comparing DoD budgets to 2009 when the current administration took over, he compares it to 2001, before we were fighting not one war, much less two, much less worldwide operations. Not only does the SecDef propose cutting the overall budget, but he also proposes shifting remaining funds from war-fighting capabilities and the actual battlefield to education programs and green energy initiatives.
My "I told you so" Moment Forgiveness: Not for Shinseki
To understand the magnitude of the lies perpetuated by politicians in the 2012 Budget Debate, one must look to the facts. The 2008 Budget Deficit ($460 Billion) was the largest in history. The 2009 Budget Deficit ($1.41 Trillion) more than tripled the 2008 Deficit. The National Debt has increased by 50% in those two short years and we are now ($9.6 Trillion 8/2008 vs. $14 Trillion plus today) borrowing more than 4x($900 Billion proposed in 2010) as much money than we are paying in interest ($197 Billion 2010). The POTUS is now claiming he'll cut the current deficit by x% within 10 years, but has proposed very little deficit cutting in the current year, which is really the only year that is being proposed, aside from the still open debate about the 2011 budget that the last Congress never approved. The other 9 years of the proposal is just smoke and mirrors that mean nothing.
Cutting 50% of an increase of 300% is still an increase. (If it were originally $100, a 300% increase would be $400, which if cut by 50% would be $200, or an increase of 100%.)
And that 2011 budget is equally full of political double-speak. The SecDef claims that if his proposed cuts aren't passed for 2011, then he'll be short the necessary financing to run DoD with the continuing resolutions that keep the pre-cut budgets in place. The SecDef previously complained that a proposal by an errant Representative to cut $23 Billion in the DoD budget would hamstring him, despite his calls for cutting $100 Billion. This kind of political hypocrisy is bold but often overlooked due to the distance in time between the obvious.
We are at war, whether the politicians admit it or not. I don't care if they want to call it "Moonwalk Activities at the Park" or "Overseas Contingency Operations," when the military is patrolling foreign countries, getting shot at and shooting at the enemy, that is war. That they refuse to label the enemy Islamist Terrorists, or call it war, does not change the facts. It simply makes them hypocritical politicians, with a propensity to lose the battle and the war. Before we can defeat the enemy, we must understand the enemy, and before we can understand the enemy, we must identify the enemy. Part of identifying the enemy is giving them a name, a label. That label is Islamists and their methods are called Terrorism and Political Activism.
And it doesn't matter if the media or citizenry understands that we are at war, that the enemy is attacking us in our homeland, or that Our Troops are defeating the enemy in their own homeland, the Military is still at war. It doesn't matter what name communism claims or who decries the use of that word, the policies and ideals of communism are still alive. The proponents of the policies of communism, with whatever banner they claim, are allied with Islamists, despite the clash of basic ideologies involved. Yes, it is an unholy alliance, but noting that communist ideologues are still alive and active should not undermine the message that it is an un-American ideology, no matter the current label they claim.
The world is becoming a more dangerous, more unstable place with enemies and potential enemies becoming better armed. The protests in Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Yemen, Tunisia, Italy, Greece, and England may be cheered internationally as a popular uprising of the people against tyrants, but the results are not always what even those protesters hope and dream. The two "successful" protests so far have diminished freedom and peace, not increased it. The long term results are mere conjecture and anyone that claims to know whether it will increase freedom or increase islamism is either a fool or a liar. Both are possibilities and it is far too soon to know which will occur.
How do the vocal voices of a few protesters overrule the electoral rights of all voters that chose a government?
In Tunisia, which is what sparked protests across the Middle East, including Egypt, the 30 year President resigned and fled, which was a goal of the protests, but thousands of refugees are fleeing the violence, the Islamist Opposition has returned to fill the void, and women fear for their futures.
In Egypt, which followed, the 30 year President, resigned amidst US pressure and the urging of the Administration for the Military to take control (often called a coup). They near immediately suspended the Egyptian Constitution and dismissed the Parliament that the citizenry had just elected in 2010. Yes, they've promised to lift the "state of emergency," but who needs a declared provision of a Constitution which no longer limits the government's actions.
The Chinese claimed ignorance when they embarrassed the SecDef, by unveiling their Stealth Fighter, during his visit there. The Chinese are too organized, too subtle, and too smart for me to believe it was an ill-conceived and mis-timed "error" that they chose to do so. Meanwhile, the SecDef has not changed his position that this potential enemy does not have the technology, even if stolen, to go head to head in aerial combat against the fighters the SecDef cut from the budget.
The "budget hawks" have claimed that everything must be on the table, but the political double-speak of Washington demonstrates that "budget cuts" are not what they are claimed to be. The proposed cuts of the POTUS are instead cuts in Constitutionally required responsibilities (Defense) of the Federal Government to increase the budgets of items not Constitutionally allowed, or in very gray areas of Constitutional Authority.
It is not surprising that politicians want to call spending "an investment," though such a term should not fool anyone. It does sound better. It is not surprising that politicians will call something a "fee" to the electorate, but a "tax" in court (The CBO estimates Obamacare will increase taxes by $264 Billion). It is not surprising that politicians will attempt to confuse the electorate with legalese and budgetary shell games, but the people have a right to speak out against it.
This is not to say that there isn't waste in the DoD budget, or things we can delay in purchasing. There are, but the DoD budget proposed increases things we can afford to delay and delays the things we must improve in an increasingly dangerous world. We're at war and decreasing the budget for Afghanistan Operations while increasing the DoD budget for solar panels is NOT the answer. Deterring a conventional war is not accomplished by decreasing our edge over those enemies. It is not accomplished by scrapping the same generation of planes that our potential enemies have developed in favor of repairing older planes the enemy can defeat.
In terms of GDP, inflation, and as a percentage of the Federal Budget, we are spending less today, while fighting two wars, than we did during the period of peace that was called the Cold War. Though the cost of the equipment needed and the wages of Our Troops have increased, we are still spending less than even the period of the Carter years, when the military was paid little more than that of slave labor and used the same equipment that was issued in the Korean War. And many things have decreased in real value, like combat pay, which was once 50% of the base pay and today is less than 10% of base pay. I know of one REMF that got more money in TDY pay in Germany than the unit he was assigned to got paid in combat pay in Afghanistan.
That chart was put out by the Obama Administration, on the eve of when they started the cuts and shell games of funding non-defense issues with the DoD budget. And don't think these new calls for cuts in DoD are new. Barney Frank and Jack Murtha have been calling for cuts since before their parties took over control of the government. And it is not the beginning of specious claims by the SecDef, nor my calling him out on it.
The shell game of budgetary malfeasance continues as do the calls by politicians and their appointees to cut Defense, while claiming it is the "Pentagon" calling for cuts instead of the appointees and politicians themselves.
Stumble It!
