The House today overwhelmingly (336-87) passed a new defense spending bill, actually increasing military spending by $17 billion to $649 billion.
Remember that we already spend more on our military than most of the rest of the world put together, and I sure as hell don’t feel like it is making us safer than those countries who spend a teeny fraction of what we do.
Any Congressman who voted for this and then complains about the deficit is a total hypocrite and does not deserve to be reelected.
5 Comments
My Congressman sent a lengthy email explaining why he voted against it. His main reason was that it increased spending.
In these emails, he always includes a chart of the vote broken down by the major parties (although I have no idea where he puts the independents, if there are any in the House). What was interesting is that 66% of Democrats who were present voted against this bill while only 5% of Republicans voted no. More evidence to contradict the claim that the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Always the contrarian, how exactly can defense spending be cut, while we are in 31/2 wars simoultaneously. Don’t we need to first end those wars? So I say those that voted against it are not supporting the troops, who need that money, until some body with a spine can call for and end to all the wars.
End the war, bring the troops home, then reduce defense spending. By the way, that 649 billion is down from the 800+ billion we used to spend just a few years ago.
Voting no on defense is just as bad as voting no on raising the deficit, neither can be considered until other changes are made first.
Patriotsgt – unfortunately, much of the increase was not to fund the existing wars. Voting for a defense budget that holds the line on (or reduces) the baseline Defense budget and fully funds the wars is fiscally responsible and supports the troops.
This bill includes billions for the second engine for the JSF even though the military has stated repeatedly they don’t need it or want it. That is not supporting the troops. It is just inane.
I agree that we need to fully support the troops today and that future defense reduction need to be carefully thought through and appropriate (do we REALLY need 50,000 troops in Germany?) but the Republicans are absolutely being hypocritical to spend money that doesn’t accomplish any needed mission while fighting to cut social services to people that need them.
Arthanyel – I agree on the JSF engine, but thats both parties who want it, because all the reserch and manufacturing companies who want it in their states also make political contributions. If you recall, DOD said they didn’t need or want it so congress including it can’t be blamed on DOD this time.
I agree 100% on troop reductions. We don’t need to occupy Germany 50k, Korea 35k, Kososvo, 5-10k, Egypt, Kuwait and dozens of other smaller bases outside the USA, thats why we have a Navy. Incidently, our Navy is the largest in the world, but it is also larger then the next biggest 17 Navies in the world combined.
I understand on the “war funding” which gets billed separately, but a good part of the regular defense bill covers pre combat build-up (training, equipment, reshuffling of personnel, stateside trainers and facilities) that are covered under the regular defense bill. While they’re over in theater, yes the euipment, combat pay, supporting contractors, etc. come out of the war appropriations bill.
I guess my point about people slamming DOD is, those same people wouldn’t call for cuts to FEMA in the middle of hurricane Katrina, or call for health spending to be reduced during a H1N1 flu outbreak. Yes end the wars, then reduce the spending. It’s also political, just like when O’bama voted no on raising the debt limit in 2006 and boycotted the vote 2 other times, all political calling it irresponsible government. Now he understands the importance when he’s on the other side of the street. Hypocrisy? Yes, but it still doesn’t make a difference the debt need to be raised and DOD needs to be funded. The repubs are just doing with this what the dems did with healthcare, which is use their sizeable political leverage to get what they believe in.
The funny thing I see is that both sides are trying to do what they believe is in the best interest of the nation. They just have different ideas of what that is. I believe the solution is not all one way or the other, but a combination of the 2. Thats ultimately what we’ll see whether it’s more one way now and then more the other way later. I think most people would just like it to be shared cooperation now. It’s sort of like a divorce settlement, both parents want whats best for the kids, just can’t agree on what that looks like and not willing to discuss it because each side thinks the other are idiots. 🙂
PatriotSGT, I would agree with your premise that both sides are trying to do what they believe is in the best interest of the nation, except the Republicans have demonstrated over and over again that they are the party of NO. Repeatedly Obama has given in to their demands, just to have them move the goalposts. At this point, I believe that the Republicans want the economy to stay bad so they can blame it on Obama. They claim they are worried about the deficit, but they clearly aren’t (cough, Medicare Part D, cough, military spending). Right now, the Republicans have one goal, which they have freely admitted to, and that is to make Obama a one-term president. Everything else is secondary. In a way it almost isn’t their fault, since their base has been stirred up so much to hate Obama, but that doesn’t make me sympathetic to their goals.