Jim Kouri
Obama plans may gut U.S. national security
By Jim Kouri
With the media frenzy over the "big showdown" Sunday night between President Obama — with Democrat lawmakers — and Republican lawmakers to hash out a proposed budget agreement, few reporters are covering the deep, deep budget cuts for agencies that protect the United States, its citizens and its interests.
In an effort to tell voters during the 2012 election cycle that he significantly reduced government spending, President Barack Obama is said to be considering national security budget cuts totaling upwards of $700 billion in a deal to raise the debt limit.
That's about twice the amount President Obama originally quoted during meetings with lawmakers, defense and homeland security officials. These severe cuts will also have an impact on local police departments who can expect to see federal money disappear from counterterrorist programs, organized crime task forces, and other programs geared to helping local cops in the 21st Century.
Because of the ignorance of political leaders regarding their constitutional duties — or because they find it expedient to ignore those duties — they fail to protect the integrity of the U.S. Armed Forces. As documented in The Heritage Foundation's 2011 Budget Chart Book, even eliminating all defense spending would not solve the federal spending crisis. Since 1976, annual entitlement spending has exceeded defense spending, even with the cost of wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Because entitlement spending has tripled while defense spending declined as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) is now 10 percent of GDP, whereas defense spending is only 5 percent.
Defense spending is now 20.1 percent of federal outlays. Yet some, such as President Obama, want the brunt of spending cutbacks to come from the military.
"If lawmakers and the President would actually read the Constitution, rather than just pay it lip service, they'd see that protection of this nation and its citizens is their primary function. Providing bank loans to people who can't pay them back or giving illegal aliens in-state tuition or any other social programs that political leaders hold dear to their hearts isn't even mentioned in our founding documents. That's why there's such an intense battle to change the meaning and significance of the U.S. Constitution," said former police detective, now attorney, Edward Suarez.
Originally, the President ordered the Pentagon and national-security and intelligence agencies to slash $400 billion by 2023. However, after Thursday's secret, closed-door talks to discuss raising the debt ceiling, larger Pentagon funding cuts had been discussed putting the number between $600 billion and $700 billion over a decade, a source told the Law Enforcement Examiner.
A final decision is still pending and there are Democrat lawmakers who wish to make even deeper cuts that Obama. The Senate Armed Services Committee recently passed a 2012 Pentagon authorization measure that was $6.4 billion smaller than the administration's request.
Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI), no fan of the military or law enforcement, told reporters his panel's several requests to the White House for guidance on how large the 2012 portion of the $400 billion cut have gone unanswered.
Obama and the Democrats are taking a page right out the former President Bill Clinton's playbook.
When the Clinton faced tough Republican opposition to his tax increases, in order to keep his balanced budget promise and win re-election, he reduced the U.S. military to pre-Reagan levels. For example, the U.S. Army went from 18 Divisions to 10 Divisions, a reduction of about 45%.
There also were reductions in the number of warships, fighter jets, bombers, tanks, and other military expenses by the Clinton Administration.
With the U.S. currently involved in three ongoing military operations — Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya — critics of the Obama budget cuts believe the President is playing games with the safety and security of Americans.
"While Obama continues to favor his friends with bailouts, handouts and largess, he is gutting our national security to the point where America will soon become a second-rate power," said former intelligence officer and police commander Thomas Knudsen.
"Is anyone shocked? This has been Obama's plan all along: Weaken our defense resources while increasing our handouts to illegal aliens and foreign governments. While discussing cuts to America's armed forces, Obama recently promised billions of dollars to Latin American countries and even gave China — who holds almost a trillion dollars of our debt — millions of taxpayer dollars to increase their 'green' projects," said Knudsen.
© Jim Kouri
July 12, 2011
With the media frenzy over the "big showdown" Sunday night between President Obama — with Democrat lawmakers — and Republican lawmakers to hash out a proposed budget agreement, few reporters are covering the deep, deep budget cuts for agencies that protect the United States, its citizens and its interests.
In an effort to tell voters during the 2012 election cycle that he significantly reduced government spending, President Barack Obama is said to be considering national security budget cuts totaling upwards of $700 billion in a deal to raise the debt limit.
That's about twice the amount President Obama originally quoted during meetings with lawmakers, defense and homeland security officials. These severe cuts will also have an impact on local police departments who can expect to see federal money disappear from counterterrorist programs, organized crime task forces, and other programs geared to helping local cops in the 21st Century.
Because of the ignorance of political leaders regarding their constitutional duties — or because they find it expedient to ignore those duties — they fail to protect the integrity of the U.S. Armed Forces. As documented in The Heritage Foundation's 2011 Budget Chart Book, even eliminating all defense spending would not solve the federal spending crisis. Since 1976, annual entitlement spending has exceeded defense spending, even with the cost of wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Because entitlement spending has tripled while defense spending declined as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) is now 10 percent of GDP, whereas defense spending is only 5 percent.
Defense spending is now 20.1 percent of federal outlays. Yet some, such as President Obama, want the brunt of spending cutbacks to come from the military.
"If lawmakers and the President would actually read the Constitution, rather than just pay it lip service, they'd see that protection of this nation and its citizens is their primary function. Providing bank loans to people who can't pay them back or giving illegal aliens in-state tuition or any other social programs that political leaders hold dear to their hearts isn't even mentioned in our founding documents. That's why there's such an intense battle to change the meaning and significance of the U.S. Constitution," said former police detective, now attorney, Edward Suarez.
Originally, the President ordered the Pentagon and national-security and intelligence agencies to slash $400 billion by 2023. However, after Thursday's secret, closed-door talks to discuss raising the debt ceiling, larger Pentagon funding cuts had been discussed putting the number between $600 billion and $700 billion over a decade, a source told the Law Enforcement Examiner.
A final decision is still pending and there are Democrat lawmakers who wish to make even deeper cuts that Obama. The Senate Armed Services Committee recently passed a 2012 Pentagon authorization measure that was $6.4 billion smaller than the administration's request.
Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI), no fan of the military or law enforcement, told reporters his panel's several requests to the White House for guidance on how large the 2012 portion of the $400 billion cut have gone unanswered.
Obama and the Democrats are taking a page right out the former President Bill Clinton's playbook.
When the Clinton faced tough Republican opposition to his tax increases, in order to keep his balanced budget promise and win re-election, he reduced the U.S. military to pre-Reagan levels. For example, the U.S. Army went from 18 Divisions to 10 Divisions, a reduction of about 45%.
There also were reductions in the number of warships, fighter jets, bombers, tanks, and other military expenses by the Clinton Administration.
With the U.S. currently involved in three ongoing military operations — Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya — critics of the Obama budget cuts believe the President is playing games with the safety and security of Americans.
"While Obama continues to favor his friends with bailouts, handouts and largess, he is gutting our national security to the point where America will soon become a second-rate power," said former intelligence officer and police commander Thomas Knudsen.
"Is anyone shocked? This has been Obama's plan all along: Weaken our defense resources while increasing our handouts to illegal aliens and foreign governments. While discussing cuts to America's armed forces, Obama recently promised billions of dollars to Latin American countries and even gave China — who holds almost a trillion dollars of our debt — millions of taxpayer dollars to increase their 'green' projects," said Knudsen.
© Jim Kouri
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
