2012 Defense Budget

[Care4all]

The only people that really suffer when the defense budget is cut are the poor enlisted folks with a family and an E2 paycheck. And they enlisted to serve their country. They should be given a raise - not a cut.

I thought govt spending did not create jobs?

Not a job but a constitutional requirement.

but according to the constitution, only the Navy is required to be perpetually funded.

and according to the constitution, a standing army can NOT BE FUNDED more than 2 years at a time?? and the State Militia is to be controlled by each state....meeting the requirements that congress sets.....they are to be ''called up'' by congress when needed?

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[daveman]

Well, we certainty aren’t getting our money’s worth.

You're not free?

I'm not free. at least by the dictionary definition. I am not experiencing liberty, which is total freedom from outside control against my consent.

Free - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Liberty - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Oh, poor fellah. Has to obey laws and shit. Life's not fair.

 

[old navy]

and according to the constitution, a standing army can NOT BE FUNDED more than 2 years at a time?? and the State Militia is to be controlled by each state....meeting the requirements that congress sets.....they are to be ''called up'' by congress when needed?

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Good point about the two year funding. A lot of governments have a two year budget cycle. Earlier this year, the president submitted a budget that the Senate voted 97-0 AGAINST. A federal budget has not been passed in over 800 days. Very unconstitutional.

 

[The_GiantNoodle]

It seems 9/11 + Iraq has damaged this Country so greatly, we are more wounded than healed.
I was sooooooooooo for invading Iraq because of what was told to us at the time. I wanted to smack ANYONE that said it was a bad idea. I hate being a fool. And I am a fool. Invading Iraq was the one the of the dumbest things this Country has done. I feel like President Bush.... the man I put into office twice (and campaigned for) just was hell bent to finish what his dad didnt. Never though I would say that.

If someone has another perspective I would love to hear it.

 

[auditor0007]

I am a huge defense hawk and subscribe to the fact that the number one mandate of the US Constitution is national defense. I also agree that there is plenty of room for cuts in the DOD budget.

When I first started running my own shop in the Navy, my budget prep instruction was to just add 10 percent to last year's budget. This was to allow for cost increases I guess. Another element of the budget game was that all the money had to be spent or it was lost. Very wasteful. Sometimes I did not need to spend the entire quarterly allotment but had to spend it or give it back. I have managed very large budgets and really small ones. Now for example in my high school teaching job, I am given a few hundred dollars a year to buy what I need. I rarely need all my allotment so I let it sit on the books and the finance officer gives it to someone else I guess. One year I was called in and told to spend all my money to show that I was doing something. I just walked out shaking my head.

One way to decrease spending is to go to zero-based budgeting (ZBB). It would have to be modified of course in an agency as large as DOD but could be done. Maybe they would have to justify anything over 90 percent of last year's budget, variances, and increased or new services, for example. One problem with ZBB is that it is time consuming and it would probably not get done or get done correctly.

I wonder what would happen if every department, agency, bureau, or whatever in the government offered their top people a percentage bonus based on how much they came in under budget. Say you save your department $1 million, you get 10% of that as bonus. But your department has to get the work done too.

 

[old navy]

I wonder what would happen if every department, agency, bureau, or whatever in the government offered their top people a percentage bonus based on how much they came in under budget. Say you save your department $1 million, you get 10% of that as bonus. But your department has to get the work done too.

Not a bad idea. There are laws on the books to search out Medicare fraud for example but you always hear people say that something has to be done about Medicare fraud. I agree. Let's enforce the laws, find the fraud, and save money. One problem with new laws, programs, and regulations is that soon business as usual sets in and people are up in arms about how something has to be done.