Military Budget

Steve Buff's letter in Monday's Sunpaper ("Military spending is bankrupting the country," Jan. 20) was interesting. Finally I see a letter from someone in agreement with my own views. A couple of points: The U.S. military budget is actually over $700 billion which does not include war costs, as these are separate. Also the U.S. military budget is a lot more than the next 20 countries combined, most of which are our allies! Reducing the military budget would of course cost many, many jobs, but I think that they could be replaced with jobs which would invest more in the rejuvenation of America rather than investing in and duplicating waste and destruction that are simply copying what many of our allies are already doing.

Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator from Nebraska who survived a stormy confirmation hearing to become the new secretary of defense, had a coming-out party of sorts last week before the National Defense University, the government's graduate school for American and foreign military officers. Mr. Hagel, who had been reminded in that hearing that he once described the Pentagon and U.S. military he would be taking over as "bloated," elaborated on the notion in gentler but nevertheless specific terms.

WASHINGTON -- The prestigious Brookings Institution jumped into the ever-widening defense debate yesterday with a study claiming that the nation was running out of "demons and villains" to arm against and should chop its military budget by one-third to one-half over the coming decade.Authors of the study -- to be presented today to the House Budget Committee -- said their proposed slashes would save from $316 billion to $424 billion by 2001. Even with those cuts, they said, the United States still would spend more than $2 trillion on defense in the decade.

Steve Buff's letter in Monday's Sunpaper ("Military spending is bankrupting the country," Jan. 20) was interesting. Finally I see a letter from someone in agreement with my own views. A couple of points: The U.S. military budget is actually over $700 billion which does not include war costs, as these are separate. Also the U.S. military budget is a lot more than the next 20 countries combined, most of which are our allies! Reducing the military budget would of course cost many, many jobs, but I think that they could be replaced with jobs which would invest more in the rejuvenation of America rather than investing in and duplicating waste and destruction that are simply copying what many of our allies are already doing.

WASHINGTON -- Defense contractors have been granted a one-year reprieve from cuts by the Clinton administration's military budget, which would shrink by $10 billion largely through a reduction in the number of personnel.The $263 billion request to Congress, released yesterday, would preserve what Defense Secretary Les Aspin called "controversial weapon systems," pending a yearlong Pentagon review of strategic and tactical changes dictated by the collapse of the Soviet Union."They [Soviets]

While I disagree with most of the proposals from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, I like the idea of cutting $100 billion from the Pentagon budget ("Deficit plan spreads the pain," Nov. 11). Actually, this is chump change for the generals and the admirals who are used to lavish spending of tax dollars, but we need any cut we can get from an out-of-control military budget. Imagine how many lives would be saved if the budget cutbacks meant there were no more drones.

Pundits can argue about the political fallout of the supercommittee failure, but the damage to our national security is indisputable and severe. According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the resulting defense cuts will hollow out America's military, slashing fighters, bombers, helicopters, submarines and coastal ships; devastating training and readiness; and cutting the satellites and drones that deliver our surveillance/reconnaissance advantage. After years of cuts, our military already runs lean - down to just 16 percent of federal spending (it was over 40 percent in the 1970s)

Back in 2008, George Bush was painted by all Democrats the worst president because of the wars and financial mess we were in. You voted in President Obama, and he can't even rein in his own party to fix the debt ceiling. Americans were fooled thinking this man was going to change things around. Well he's done that! The country is about to get huge tax increases and job losses, and the only ways Democrats can remedy that is to cut seniors' Medicare, cut the military budget and hurt poor, working families.

WASHINGTON -- Congress no doubt will encounter a political minefield as it tries to find money to delete from the budget in response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, which is estimated to exceed $200 billion to repair. Surprisingly, for politicians on both sides of the aisle, the most promising source of hurricane relief funds, within the federal budget itself, is the Pentagon's regular budget. It might seem paradoxical or even unpatriotic to call for reducing defense spending in the middle of a war. But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not being paid for with money from the annual defense budget.

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a $650 billion Pentagon budget ("House targets 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal," July 9). Am I in a time warp? I thought that it was necessary to cut back on spending in order to cut the deficit. Then I read this: "The Defense Department is the only government agency that will receive a double-digit increase in its budget for fiscal year 2012. " What gives? Why is the War Department funding being increased when social services are being slashed?

It was refreshing to read Thomas F. Schaller's commentary about the burden of America's superpower status ("America should give up its role as lone superpower," July 25). Mr. Schaller was a bit too reserved in his criticism, however. While he points out that our military budget dwarfs all others, he falls into that trap of attributing it to "defense spending. " The Defense Department, which used to be called the Department of War, is actually involved in offensive operations. The invasions of Grenada, Panama and Iraq were classic examples of warmongering that had nothing to do with defending the country.

Pundits can argue about the political fallout of the supercommittee failure, but the damage to our national security is indisputable and severe. According to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the resulting defense cuts will hollow out America's military, slashing fighters, bombers, helicopters, submarines and coastal ships; devastating training and readiness; and cutting the satellites and drones that deliver our surveillance/reconnaissance advantage. After years of cuts, our military already runs lean - down to just 16 percent of federal spending (it was over 40 percent in the 1970s)

Back in 2008, George Bush was painted by all Democrats the worst president because of the wars and financial mess we were in. You voted in President Obama, and he can't even rein in his own party to fix the debt ceiling. Americans were fooled thinking this man was going to change things around. Well he's done that! The country is about to get huge tax increases and job losses, and the only ways Democrats can remedy that is to cut seniors' Medicare, cut the military budget and hurt poor, working families.

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a $650 billion Pentagon budget ("House targets 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal," July 9). Am I in a time warp? I thought that it was necessary to cut back on spending in order to cut the deficit. Then I read this: "The Defense Department is the only government agency that will receive a double-digit increase in its budget for fiscal year 2012. " What gives? Why is the War Department funding being increased when social services are being slashed?

Northrop Grumman Corp.'s plan to cut 500 jobs in the Baltimore region — largely through buyouts but also with 70 layoffs — underscores the uncomfortable shift defense contractors are feeling as the era of big spending growth ends. The Baltimore-area reductions account for most of the nationwide cuts Northrop Grumman is making to its electronic systems sector, which produces airborne radar, navigation systems and other military equipment. The defense-contracting giant notified affected employees at the sector's Linthicum headquarters and several other locations Tuesday that their last day of work would be May 31. Northrop Grumman blamed a reduction in business "that is directly related to the current slow-down in defense spending as well as increasing international economic pressures" — a problem facing not only the industry but the state.

Fifty years ago today, on Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued his prophetic warning about the military-industrial complex, anticipating the increased political, economic, military and even cultural influence of the Pentagon and its allies. Several weeks earlier, he had privately told his senior advisers in the Oval Office of the White House, "God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn't know the military as well as I do. " Several months after his inauguration in 1953, he warned against warfare that had "humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

It was refreshing to read Thomas F. Schaller's commentary about the burden of America's superpower status ("America should give up its role as lone superpower," July 25). Mr. Schaller was a bit too reserved in his criticism, however. While he points out that our military budget dwarfs all others, he falls into that trap of attributing it to "defense spending. " The Defense Department, which used to be called the Department of War, is actually involved in offensive operations. The invasions of Grenada, Panama and Iraq were classic examples of warmongering that had nothing to do with defending the country.

Paris.-- Washington has just backed off again from cuts in the Defense budget, which in the United States has become a system of industrial and employment welfare payments. National defense now seems an afterthought.The impregnability of the military budget to any serious reduction is also a cause of Washington's present tendency to make military power the primary measure of national influence and leadership. Those who say the United States should become the armed keeper of a ''new world order'' are tacitly acknowledging the country's loss of the political leadership that in the past came from American economic and industrial strength.

While I disagree with most of the proposals from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, I like the idea of cutting $100 billion from the Pentagon budget ("Deficit plan spreads the pain," Nov. 11). Actually, this is chump change for the generals and the admirals who are used to lavish spending of tax dollars, but we need any cut we can get from an out-of-control military budget. Imagine how many lives would be saved if the budget cutbacks meant there were no more drones.