- Thread starter
- #41
i'd start with 5-10% cuts across the board, but after that i would have to go case by case.
Although that's a STEP, I question if it makes sense overall.
I mean, isn't it possible that our national security interests MIGHT actually make any cuts in defense appropriations a risk not worth taking? (I mean, not just the threat of international terrorism, but the ever growing risks of the newly emboldened Communist Chinese and the dangerously provocative behavior of nations like North Korea, not to mention the growing likelihood of a re-emerging Russian SOVIET "Union" taking place.)
Maybe we could MODIFY that 5 or 10% ACROSS the BOARD thing to something else, like: Subject to the review process, all departments, programs, agencies, etc., will face the prospect of a 10% cut. The review process MIGHT lead to DEEPER cuts, but in some cases it could lead to lighter cuts or no cuts at all.
Couldn't we succeed by taking THAT approach and then legitimately debating the merits on a case by case basis?