In which the DoD is the sole focus of budget cuts from the Democrats…. Again.

Every time a Democrat can even bring himself to consider cutting federal expenditures, somehow, there is a laser like focus on the DoD.

It was 1989 — and everyone knew that defense budgets were going to go down.

At the time, spending less on defense made sense. Almost overnight, with the Soviet Union disintegrating from within, the world had become dramatically safer. The U.S. would need a smaller conventional force, a reduced nuclear arsenal and a shift in focus of its national security missions.

via Seeds of Obama’s coming defense disaster | The Examiner | Columnists | Washington Examiner.

Not surprisingly, Obama has decided how much to cut, and then figure out a justification for it.  That’s a poor way to plan.

Look, I get it that there is an extremely austere fiscal environment coming. But it is damn hard to defend cutting the budget of a department that is constitutionally authorized, when we can’t even bring ourselves to cut loose NPR, and Planned Parenthood. Don’t even get me started on all the other frippery that the government wastes money on, let alone the unsustainable redistribution programs that are bankrupting our nation.

5 thoughts on “In which the DoD is the sole focus of budget cuts from the Democrats…. Again.”

  1. No matter how you look at this, it sucks. Option “A”, sucks, option “B”, sucks, now, choose between “A” or “B”, absolutely no other options. To be honest, I don’t like the liberal agenda with “Planned Parenthood” and the like. But I should challenge your view on this subject. I agree we will be facing a very long term problem with an austere budget. The idea of a Constitutionally Authorized Department of Defense also carries many limitations that many tend to overlook. Yes, the Constitution authorizes our Military, but it also requires Congress to raise taxes to fund this Military. About the use of the Military, the Constitution requires a Declaration of War, first. If we are attacked, the President of the United States is authorized to defend the Nation, until we get a formal War Declaration. His Commander in Chief status comes after the War Declaration. If the President of the United States wants to deploy troops, they must first get his War Declaration. This way, the Nation goes to war and not just the Military.

    I believe this is the most accurate approach to the whole problem. I believe if we did an “After Action Report on 9/11/2001”, without the politics, it would have been much more helpful towards solving this Nation’s ongoing problem.

    In a strange way, this takes us back to our own Pre-Revolutionary War. During that time, many times there were secret meetings held by the revolutionaries and they had a password system. It went like this, there was a riddle, which said, “Can you tell me me, which is it? Is it, ‘ The King is Law or is it, The Law is King?’ The answer is always, “The Law is King.” If you answered it that way, then you got into the meeting. The reason I know is this, my family had been here, where I live right now, since before The Revolutionary War.” H

    1. His Commander in Chief status comes after the War Declaration.

      Your reading of the Constitution is seriously flawed. It say in plain language that he IS the Commander in Chief, and does not limit that status to periods of declared war.

      You also ascribe certainty to areas of the constitution that the text itself is quite vague on. The minimalist language of the actual text leaves quite a bit of grey area, giving room for argument and disagreement, but also flexibility.
      As to taxes, nowhere does the Constitution mandate that the Army be raised, or the Navy maintained by taxes. Indeed, most of the early revenue stream of the country was from import duties, which, while arguably a form of taxation, are not taxes per se.

  2. “…let alone the unsustainable redistribution programs that are bankrupting our nation.”

    You mean like Military retirement?

    (Just so you know for certain, I am pulling your leg to see if it comes off)

  3. Brad, the Constitutional view of warmaking powers is a complex issue.

    Article 1, Section 8, reads the “Congress SHALL have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
    As we continue to read through this section, we see the following powers given ONLY and cannot be delegated to the Congress.
    “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
    “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”
    “To declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning captures on Land and Waters;”
    “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than 2 years;”
    “To provide and maintain a Navy;”

    Brad, I’m sure you can read the rest of that section, where the US Constitution COMMANDS the actual authority. But don’t get upset, the Founding Fathers had a real “Method to Their Madness”.

  4. Those powers in the preceding comment are delegated ONLY TO CONGRESS, MY ERROR! This occurs part way down through the post.

    Brad, going back to the U.S. Constitution, article 2, section 2, please understand, when this document uses the word “SHALL”, it is absolute. The authority cannot be delegated. Article 2, section 2, the first line, “The President of the United States SHALL be COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the Army and Navy”. It would be very easy to ask, “Founding Fathers, what are you up to? When you step back you begin to realize, The War Making Powers are split for a reason, neither branch can start a war unilaterally. This Country was born out of a British Monarchy and the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure we never went back to that system of government. This is the reason we have 3 co-equal branches of government. This is the US Constitution that we swore to uphold.

Comments are closed.