There is an article in the Christian Science Monitor (see the link at the bottom of the post) about how the Republicans want to cut spending on the federal budget. When Mr. Bush was in office and borrowing hundreds of billions of off budget dollars to fund his wars there was not a squeak from any of them. They suddenly got religion after the fact I guess. I wonder if it has anything to do with a Democrat now holding the White House??? Anyway, here is an excerpt from the article.
One of the plans is the measure passed by House Republicans, which cuts nearly $62 billion from fiscal 2010 levels. It’s also $100 billion less than President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget proposal. The GOP measure makes cuts in virtually all elements of nondefense, discretionary spending.
I applaud budgetary constraints, but how they get there is very troubling! The Republicans are proposing taking it all out of “nondefense”. There is something terribly wrong with this. The military budget currently makes up 60% of the discretionary spending and is not taking any of the hit in budget tightening? Military spending has doubled in less than eight years where the rest of discretionary spending has only gone up a fraction of that. But their view is that all of the savings must come from the other 40%. In other words we should eliminate policemen on our streets so that we can maintain “peacekeeping” forces in Iraq, Japan, England, South Korea, Germany and dozens of other places. As if none of those countries can afford to do that themselves? Instead, we should lose 200,000 jobs in the U.S. so that we can keep the Afghan tribal leaders appeased. I might agree with the $62 billion if it were to be apportioned consistently; that is taking $38 billion of it out of our war machine and then the remainder from maintaining stability and safety in our own country. Taking the military spending off the table is insane to me. But who said the current crop of Republicans are sane!
But what do I know…