The Spending Problem, Defense Budget and Anonymous Commenting

Noted commenter Anonymous posted a lengthy diatribe asserting that military spending is the primary source of our budget woes. If that were only the truth. From my previous post on the complexities of this subject:

Here is a chart from 2010.

Further analysis of the President's Budget submission for 2012 contains the following projections, total mandatory Social Security spending for fiscal year 2012 is $764 billion where as total defense spending is $696 billion, which includes some spending by the FBI and DOE not part of the Defense Department budget. However, since the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the tune of $118 billion, are considered outside of the defense budget, one might argue that total defense spending is the single largest item in the budget. However, the sum total of entitlements and mandatory spending is still the largest issue with the budget.

However, this does highlight the significant impact of the cost of military operations on the overall federal budget. Even though I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have to concede that they are expensive. This is just one more reason why the founders reserved the power to commit the nation to war to the Congress, which is also the branch charged with passing the budget. Open ended commitments need to be considered in light of fiscal realities. The President has announced a draw down in Afghanistan, that is probably needed. However, I am concerned that in the long run we will just end up with another surge, because we didn't fully defeat the Taliban. In the long run, committing resources to a complete victory followed by swift withdrawal is the way to keep the cost of war low. Unfortunately, we have allowed ourselves to be drawn into nation building with its attendant cost.

Anonymous also calls for some harsh penalties for members of the military who have ". . . carried out war without a Congressional Delcaration [sic] on trial war crimes give them the death penalty and fire all the troops who carried out war crimes and give them the death penalty too." However, it is the Commander-in-Chief who has committed U.S. Forces. The constitution gives the Congress the power to remedy this situation. Why isn't the commenter calling for the President to be hanged? Because there is a constitutional process to deal with all of this. The Congress has the power to impeach the President for failing to follow the constitution. Due process is at the heart of our Republic. Calling for the willy-nilly hanging of members of the military is certainly contrary to law and would be a revolting sight to the vast majority of Americans. As to war crimes? That is an offensive statement. Today's military is the most professional and ethical in the history of the world. When the law is violated, members of the military are prosecuted. I know from personal experience that military mission planning is performed with lawyers involved to ensure the reduction of damage to civilian populations. Impugning the military because one doesn't agree with the policies of the commander in chief is a coward's game; place blame where it belongs.

My policy of allowing anonymous commenting on this blog is sorely tested by the defamatory postings of anonymous commenters. Their anger and vitriol is indicative of a sense of powerlessness that is truly a personal, not a political problem.

Whether you like or not.