Saturday, June 25, 2011

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.


  1. Research Dr. Doug Rokke and the Depleted Uranium issue. War Crimes! The spending you account for is not the entirety of the war spending this does not include a whole variety of No-bid contracts and other spending allocations on the mid east region. The real spending is now over a trillion dollars per year. Put them all on trial, presidents, vice presidents, military leadership, intelligence leadership and the troops who committed murder. We need to set a precedent that the law is higher than any man. It always seems that the very nature military peronnel is one of notaccepting responsibility for one own actions. That is why you people need leadership in the first place. You are so overwhelmed by the amount self organization it takes one to be truly responsible for their own sustenance that you simply give up and put the responsibility onto someone else. This position is the enemy of freedom and represents the path of a tyrant. Real men support themselves, respect the rights of others and give what they can to assist those deserving of the help. Real tyrants bomb children from 40,000 feet invade homes of innocent people and destroy this happiness of another all while saying I was told to do it. This is WRONG! Those who took an oath have contractual obligations and each individual is responsible for the contracts they signed. Put them in front of a jury expose the facts and give them the death penalty. Set the precedent that each and every man or woman who signs the oath is responsible for that oath. As a business owner and executive I am required to fulfill all contracts to the letter of the contract otherwise I can have consequences for my actions or lack thereof. Government employees seem to think they are untouchable and no one is responsible. To others out there start arresting the bureaucrats. Do not stop until they are in jail or given the death penalty by a jury. If you are on a jury then make a commitment to lead the jury to justice of every bureaucrat. Voting will not help usat this point we must utilize our courts and not stop until the bureaucrats realize they are obligated and fully liable foir their actions.

  2. One other response about the lawyers present in the decision making process. Every lawyer I have come in contact I have schooled on the complete failure of their logic. They are not that knowledgable because they really don't even comprehend our form of law. When one closely examines the history of the US they is a really important clue about the role the BAR association has played in the long train of abuses and usurpations. The founders and early tried to stop the usurpations through our court with the original 13th amendment that was deleted from history with the civil war. The international BAR, a british crown founded organization, was trying to use their word magic in our courts by applying corporate status to men and women and congress and the states ratified the original 13th amendment began in 1811 and ratified in 1819 to stop the "esquires" of the international BAR by removing citizenship status from them and prohibiting their participation in government. The Brits learned of the amendment and started the war of 1812 and burned down DC to stop the US from doing this but to no avail. When congress reconviened in 1819 they ratified the amendment. During the civil war most cities were burned down and the amednment was replaced with the new 13th amednment we see today. These lawyers takethe limited liability position of the International bar thus usurping our law.