MSNBC's Brewer on Facebook Post: Defense a 'Sacred Cow' That's 'Overfunded'
Update (12:08 p.m. EST): Brewer just made this her question of the day on her MSNBC Live program.
MSNBC's Contessa Brewer injected a bit of liberal commentary to a link she posted Monday morning on her Facebook page.
"You know it's overfunded when even the Pentagon pushes for spending cuts. Why is defense such a sacred cow?" lamented Brewer in a comment posted above a link to a Wall Street Journal article on Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget blueprint.
I don't know, Contessa, maybe because the primary mission of the federal government is defending the nation from foreign enemies?
To be fair, there are probably plenty of congressmen from both sides of the aisle who lard up the Pentagon budget for absolutely needless spending projects, and there are programs and civilian personnel who can be cut to make the Pentagon meaner and leaner while saving the taxpayer and better securing the country. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Defense Department as a whole is "overfunded."
It remains to be seen if Brewer will ever snark about liberal spending priorities such as entitlement spending, public broadcasting, and foreign aid as "sacred cows."
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I worked in the defense industry
Submitted by another_old_veteran on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:10pm.
That 'industry' accounts for a pot load of very good paying jobs all across the country.“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton C. Arp
another_old_veteran: True, but
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:52pm.
Exactly, but that doesn't mean they all are necessary jobs. Their very existence is a big part of the problem.
Ken alluded to this in the article when he mentioned politicians from both sides lard up the defense budget, usually to "protect" these good paying jobs. But they're not as stupid as we like to believe. They know a lot of the money they allocate is unnecessary and they know there are plenty of "safe" cuts to defense that are available. They just don't want to bring the bad news back to their districts that, hey, some of these jobs are just going to have to go away to get the country back on track to fiscal health.
So while Brewer did her best as a journOlist to demagogue the issue, she ain't altogether wrong. Most politicians DO treat the defense budget as sacrosanct and untouchable. That kind of thinking needs to change.
The biggest problem
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 5:07pm.
I saw when I was active duty was the way we HAD to spend all the money for a fiscal year. Every August we'd be tasked to fill out requests for a wish list. If there was any budget left over on Sep 30, those forms would be submitted to ensure we had zero left. And by "we" I mean every department on every ship or squadron.
I've got to believe that this is the norm in all other gubmint bureaucracies too. We were always told that if we didn't spend it, we'd get less the following year. There was NO benefit to finding ways of doing things cheaper. Yes, there was a Beneficial Suggestion program, but if it really worked, it was rarely publicized.
Oh, a note to the mentally challenged Contessa, the defense of the country is kinda, one of those thingys that the Constitution calls for.
How's about
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:11pm.
ACLU, SEIU, CAIR, endowment for the arts, etc...
There are plenty of cuts to be made without cutting back the Defense of the country you hack. The influx of illegals across the boarder should tell you enough about what spending should be taken and what should be put more towards.
You left out NPR
Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:25pm.
You left out NPR
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Please.
Submitted by Morganfrost on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:24pm.
Contessa Brewer is an overfunded cow.
Is that
Submitted by nonncom on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 5:27pm.
Cuntessa with a U?....
Brewer happens to be right
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:44pm.
There are $ billions in the DoD budget that can be cut. SECDEF Gates has already begun to identify some of it.
We must begin to phase out sunset systems.
Defense Budget
Submitted by BeanMan on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 1:48pm.
I would agree that there are many projects in the Defense Budget that could be cut. Before you crucify me allow me to explain:
Every single dollar in every budget in every agency of every department belongs to somebody and they will fight for their turf.
Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell
100% Agreed!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 2:32pm.
This is not a complaint, but as accurate rendering of some of my experiences in my military career as I can make: I was stationed on war fighting ships where we had to beg, borrow, and steal just to be able to conduct routine maintenance… Not a “sea-story” but I once had to ‘justify’ why I needed 2 reams of printer paper for a six month deployment (I got only 1). I was stationed at shore commands where the enlisted troops were forced to live in sub-standard quarters where the plumbing was constantly breaking down and the buildings literally falling apart… but there was enough money to fix-up the entrance to the command building so the ‘Admiral’ had a nice entrance… and even nicer office (Again, no complaint! I don’t begrudge the Adm. his perks, and the entryway did cost a lot less than fixing the barracks, but the money boy’s in D.C. just didn’t see the necessity for spending the money on the troops). And finally, I was stationed at a few “Joint Commands” that were the equivalent of a “Toy’s for Us” for staffers, whose greatest risk was getting a paper-cut.
Yeah, I’m all for establishing a new procurement system… and stopping most of the ‘Special funds’ for non-war fighting expenses!
Oh yeah, almost forgot, do a "float test" on all the lawyers.
So long as we continue to
Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 2:41pm.
So long as we continue to fund the Skunk Works, weapons development and the future warrior system. I dont know if you have seen this or not, but it goes beyond the land warrior system in use now. These uniforms are literaly back grould blending materials. This is star wars stuff guys, with sensors that will apply direct pressure to injuries and moniter your heart beat and blood pressure and notify medics if your hit...Great stuff. Still needs work, but it is worth the cost if they can get the bugs worked out of it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
BnD,
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 2:51pm.
Agreed. I probably should have spelled-out that I consider "R&D" a legitimate 'War fighting expense.'
You can nuke it. You can bomb
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 4:10pm.
You can nuke it. You can bomb it into a parking lot. But you don't own it until a 19 year old private is standing on it holding his rifle. The money needs to go into the 19 year old private.
I am an old infantry man. We didn't have all these fancy weapons systems back then. So that is why I am for the men and women on the front lines more than the leaders in the rear.
I'll get even more specific
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 4:11pm.
1. Terminate the B-1 bomber program today. Cancel plans for the 'stealth' B-2 follow-on.
2. Terminate current and future aircraft carrier builds. Cancel Service Life Extensions Program (SLEP) work for the latest 3 CVNs.
3. Eliminate Army division HQs. Mix-and-match brigade combat teams (BCTs) as necessary.
4. More BRAC closures.
Details Please
Submitted by BuffNBone on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 5:49pm.
I'd like to hear the rationale behind your first point. Because of its support for troops in the field in Afghanistan the Bone is the weapon system of choice. Their preference stems from factors like loiter time, dash capability, and lethality from the array of precision-delivered ordnance.
It's too expensive and . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:04pm.
. . . it is no longer a front line aircraft against an enemy with a state of the art air defense system. It's 1970's technology. The main reason it is use as a tactical aircraft in Afghanistan is to justify the investment. F-15s and F/A-18s do the same job.
While the B-1 was delayed arriving in the Air Force bomber fleet, the USAF flew B-52 to ALCMs (Tomahawks) loaded on the wings and in the bomb bay -- 16 total, as I recall. The B-52 -- of for that matter, and cargo aircraft with weapons stations mounted -- could stand-off outside the range of enemy air defenses, launch its precision-munitions payload, and return to base for reload. No fighter escort, no ECM/ECCM, no CSAR.
The era of manned bombers, like manned TACAIR, is coming to a close. Emerging technologies like Passive Coherent Location (GOOGLE 'PCL') make them -- including all stealth aircraft like the B-2 -- obsolete, and the Chinese have invested heavily in it.
Hey, while we are at it...
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 9:12pm.
So let's just throw in the towel and stop having an Air Force while we are at it...
A better way to save money: consolidate supply chains. Burn the money now to phase out the KC-135 fleet and replace them with KC-67s that will burn less fuel and cost less to maintain. For starters.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Galvanic's missing #5
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 7:53pm.
5. Make America as weak, whiny and as pathetic as possible.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You got it, Unsane
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 11:54am.
"Make America as weak, whiny and as pathetic as possible."
Yeah. That's the goal, dude. Let's all get 'whiny.'
That is indeed your goal
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 9:14pm.
Well, it must be your goal. Your only solution to anything in the defense world is to make the military smaller, deny the United States various options for weaponry, and abandon our allies. What else am I to conclude?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Not smaller . . . smarter
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 10:38pm.
Here's a headline: THE COLD WAR IS OVER
The rising military competitor is China.
The Chinese are developing weapons that make our legacy weapon systems obsolete.
The era of manned combat aircraft -- conventional and stealth -- is coming to a close.
Deterring and defeating Chinese military power will take smarter thinking and innovation. Most generals, admirals, and elected politicians don't grasp that. They each have their own reasons for holding on to sunset systems, promising that the next upgrades will keep them viable.
Cruise missiles are far more efficient and cheaper than manned bombers. Building a B-3 would be a waste of resources. Buy more tanker aircraft with weapons stations on wing pylons; they can be used in either combat or logistic role. IN combat, they stand off outside the enemy's air defense, much like the Navy's SSGNs (converted Ohio-class SSBNs).
Aircraft carriers are increasingly vulnerable to ballistic missile attack against which they have no defense. Naval officers are waking up to that reality, but the old gray beards will buy more if they can get away with it.
The Army is already shifting to a command and control doctrine whereby corps HQs command BCTs mixed and matched for the mission. No need for division HQs, for either the Army or the Marine Corps. Under MAGTF, the USMC mixes and matches ground and air assets to form MEUs, MEBs, and MEFs. A single MEF HQs is sufficient.
The 82nd Airborne Division doesn't jump into combat anymore. Reduce it to a brigade, and transfer the personnel billets to Special Forces.
Pull our forces out of Germany. If we need to continue support to NATO (which is itself obsolete), put them in Poland -- it's cheaper. Reduce the Army presence to two BCTs without dependents present (Keep them at large CONUS-bases). With two BCT sets of equipment remining in Poland (similar to POMCUS concept), rotate the personnel: 6 months in Poland; 12 months in CONUS.
These are just a handful of ideas.
Can you be slightly more condescending?
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:24pm.
Hey, you condescending jerk, just because the Cold War is over doesn't mean "weaken America".
Everytime you talk about the military, you show that you are embarassed and ashamed at America's ability to project power. Your use of the term "legacy weapon systems" tells me everything - that you are someone who, somehow, thinks that just because the Cold War has ended. we need to throw away everything that works and start from scratch. Problem is, though this will cause you endless temper tantrums - there is simply no substitute for power projection.
You talk about how wonderful cruise missiles are, but do you have any clue as to how they are launched? Either from subs, other vessels, or, wait for it! - BOMBERS! Do we need as many as we did during the Cold War? Maybe not, but they are a viable option. For one thing, last time I checked, bombers move a whole hell of a lot faster than ships do.
Your argument against aircraft carriers is "well, the enemy has countermeasures against them. They don't work anymore, let's get rid of them." Why the hell do we still have them in this age of torpedo and cruise missile threats against them? And ballistic missiles have been around for about 50 years or so, yet we still have aircraft carriers. Amazing, huh? I would suggest the shocking idea that we find countermeasures against them, just as we have for, say, criuse missile threats against carriers. But I would suggest the REAL thing that upsets you is America's ability to project power. The only thing I see you attacking is America's ability to project power, and your only solutions involve neutering America's ability to project power.
I realize you think we simply need a much smaller, much weaker military, but as to the Army, I like their new deployment concept that allows them to deploy units smaller than division strength to various places. The problem is that while this will certainly work with some adversaries, if we were to fight, say, the PLA, we aren't going to be able to hold them off with brigades as you insist. So we actually need to retain both capabilities.
For once, you have actually said something I agree with: I wouldn't lose any sleep over pulling our forces out of Germany and moving them into Poland. But of course how deeply embarrassed you are and how deeply ashamed you are at America's ability to project power by whining that NATO is obsolete. It's mission has changed to one of power projection. I'd keep a division and an old-school AF composite wing in Poland or Romania simply to quickly project power on a moment's notice. Contrary to your belief, this cuts down on fuel, and most importantly, TIME. Oh, and I'd keep some Naval equipment and supplies in Europe as well. That's all you would need in order to use Europe as a springboard if the need were to arise.
Yeah, I guess you could keep all of our units CONUS bound and simply wait until our citizens get slaughtered before doing anything. (Which also shows me you are about as poor a student of history as any Leftist on NB.) But unless the folks at Skunk Works have come up with some pee-in-your-pants technology that stops time while our troops deploy, or otherwise perfect teleportation of military units, or come up with SSTs that have the capacity of C-5s, we are going to have to retain ways to deal with the concept of time. Leave the personnel/equipment in Europs as I described, and let's admit that the military needs to be something like a toolbox - a full up division for big jobs that can be broken down into smaller components like self-supporting brigades for smaller jobs.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
THE UNKINDEST CUTS OF ALL.......
Submitted by Herbster on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 3:16pm.
I'm sure that Contessa (No, I'm not gay) Brewer wouldn't mind if all the $$$ spent on "Training" for the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" were cut. NO, I think she'd run screaming to the next GLADD conventoin.
The woman is a total twit!
There's one thing about it.
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 4:02pm.
There's one thing about it. Defense spending is constitutional. What about education, housing, health care? Don't think those things are mentioned.
When I say defense that means securing our borders too.
rikl
Submitted by BeanMan on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 4:43pm.
You said it right there too. Defense is one of the few expenditures that is actually legitimate constitutionally.
Remember the old leftest weeney bumper sticker:
"Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all of the money they needed and the Air Force had to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber?"
Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell
BeanMan, That reminded me
Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 6:26pm.
BeanMan,
That reminded me of a T-shrit I had once. Said
Visit fascinating Vietnam, meet new people...
And kill them...
I wore that shirt on leave here in CONUS in the late '60's. Should a seen the looks I got. Wore it to Oakland to go back on my last 6 month extension. You had to be there...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
The reality.
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 4:16pm.
Defense isn't a sacred cow, it is an enumerated responsibility. What can, and should, be cut out of it is the back door "education" funding for this grant, that grant and the other grant for this study , that study and the other study.
Has anyone ever seen Contessa
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 5:43pm.
Has anyone ever seen Contessa and Mika in the same place at the same time???
cut the waste
Submitted by ripper58 on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 6:02pm.
not the budget
Cut the waste, AND the wasters---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 7:00pm.
In 2000, our office was getting complaint calls about people parking their vehicles in a "No Parking - Fire Lane" in front of the main Post Office. I talked with the postmistress and asked her to have the signs repainted as they were faded and not that readable. She asked for a time extension because "all our discretionary maintenance fund monies were given to a sector in San Diego because the Vice President was going to be in town, and they want to repaint all the mailboxes that line the route his motorcade will take". True story. Priorities, dontcha know.The government's role
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 7:59pm.
The biggest and best way you can save Defense spending money: consolidate supply chains. Then you can save the cash to buy, say, KC-67s that can allow us to retire the aging KC-135 fleet, which will further cut maintenance costs and fuel costs over time.
But Miss Brewer has revealed herself to be a Leftist (again) who desperately wants the United States turned from a superpower into a whiny, babying Nanny State, that only focuses on coddling and babying people.
People like Miss Brewer refuse to accept the basic truth: government ONLY exists to kill people.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Cutting spending? You're being whiny, Unsane
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 5:53pm.
You want us to be as weak as possible, Unsane? Shame on you. ;-)
Logistics
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 9:15pm.
We in the logistics world have seen some things in supply chains that make some of us shake our heads and think that there could be a better way.
Galvanic, logistics is...forget it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)