California Nightmare

So if we have the highest tax rates in the country and cannot make do, the question should be asked why.  What is it about the spending that is a problem?  What is it about the tax rates that contribute to lower revenues?  What is it about the non-taxpayers in the state that contribute to the calamity?

When those questions are answered honestly, the problem will be clear and the answers self-evident, even to Moonbeam.

California Deficit Swells to $16 Billion, Governor Says

               

By Michael B. Marois - May 12, 2012 12:49 PM PT

California’s budget deficit has swelled to $16 billion after tax collections trailed projections amid the tepid economic recovery, Governor Jerry Brown said in a comment on his Twitter post.

The shortfall has widened from the $9.2 billion Brown estimated in January, after lawmakers resisted the Democrat’s call for cost cuts, the federal government blocked other reductions and April income-tax revenue missed budget forecasts by $2 billion. On May 14, he’s set to unveil a revised spending plan and to say how he would erase the gap.

Brown, 74, set out an initial budget in January with $92.6 billion in spending for fiscal 2013, which begins in July. That plan stripped more than $4 billion from health and welfare programs while relying on higher income and sales taxes. The levy increases will go before voters in November. If rejected, schools will lose $4.8 billion midway through the year.

“We are still recovering from the worst recession since the 1930s,” Brown said in a YouTube video cited on his Twitter post. “Tax receipts are coming lower than expected and the federal government and the courts have blocked us from making billions of necessary budget reductions. The result is that we are now facing a $16 billion deficit.”

Brown this week submitted more than 1.5 million signatures to place the tax measure on the ballot. It would temporarily raise the state sales tax, already the highest in the U.S., to 7.5 percent from 7.25 percent. It would also boost rates on income starting at $250,000. The 10.3 percent levy on those making $1 million or more would rise to 13.3 percent, the most of any state.

taxes

Obama Mission Continues

Two years ago, maybe less, I indicated in my ramblings that at some point, not too far off, Obama would slash the military budget to virtually nothing.  To be fair, 'virtually nothing' is subjective and for Obama $100 dollars is a lot for the military, but given the threats on this planet today, it would weaken and destroy our strength at home and around the world.  It would turn us into another Britain or worse, into a France - those two nations who whine a great deal yet can accomplish nothing without the United States support.

This idea is not new.  It is an idea situated in Marxist ideology.  It is an idea leftist Democrats not only support but drool at the prospect of finally achieving.  It is an idea situated on the left, nurtured by Marxism, and supported by those who hate America and or are simply too simple and feeble-minded to know the difference.

Today Obama plans on gutting the military -

Obama plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops

 

Wed, Jan 4 2012

By Laura MacInnis and David Alexander

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will unveil a "more realistic" vision for the military on Thursday, with plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops and invest more in air and sea power at a time of fiscal restraint, officials familiar with the plans said on Wednesday.

The strategic review of U.S. security interests will also emphasize an American presence in Asia, with less attention overall to Europe, Africa and Latin America alongside slower growth in the Pentagon's budget, the officials said.

Though specific budget cut and troop reduction figures are not set to be announced on Thursday, officials confirmed to Reuters they would amount to a 10-15 percent decline in Army and Marine Corps numbers over the next decade, translating to tens of thousands of troops.

The most profound shift in the strategic review is an acceptance that the United States, even with the world's largest military budget, cannot afford to maintain the ground troops to fight more than one major war at once. That is a move away from the "win-win" strategy that has dominated Pentagon funding decisions for decades.

The move to a "win-spoil" plan, allowing U.S. forces to fight one campaign and stop or block another conflict, includes a recognition that the White House would need to ramp up public support for further engagement and draw more heavily on reserve and national guard troops when required.

"As Libya showed, you don't necessarily have to have boots on the ground all the time," an official said, explaining the White House view.

"We are refining our strategy to something that is more realistic," the official added.

President Barack Obama will help launch the U.S. review at the Pentagon on Thursday, and is expected to emphasize that the size of the U.S. military budget has been growing and will continue to grow, but at a slower pace.

Obama has moved to curtail U.S. ground commitments overseas, ending the war in Iraq, drawing down troops in Afghanistan and ruling out anything but air power and intelligence support for rebels who overthrew Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

The number of U.S. military personnel formally assigned to bases in Europe - including many now deployed in Afghanistan - is also set to decline sharply, administration sources said, while stressing that the final numbers have not been set.

'BASICALLY DISAPPEAR'

"When some army brigades start coming out of Afghanistan, they will basically disappear," one official said.

Many of the key U.S. military partners in the NATO alliance are also facing tough defense budget cuts as a result of fiscal strains gripping the European Union.

The president may face criticism from defense hawks in Congress, many of them opposition Republicans, who question his commitment to U.S. military strength.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to hold a news conference to flesh out the contents of the review after Obama's remarks, which are also expected to stress the need to rein in spending at a time when U.S. budgets are tight.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the defense cuts stemming from an August debt ceiling deal - worth about $489 billion over 10 years - need to be enacted carefully.

"The president made clear to his team that we need to take a hard look at all of our defense spending to ensure that spending cuts are surgical and that our top priorities are met," Carney told reporters this week.

The military could be forced to cut another $600 billion in defense spending over 10 years unless Congress takes action to stop a second round of cuts mandated in the August accord.

Panetta spent much of Wednesday afternoon briefing key congressional leaders about the strategic review. Representative Adam Smith, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said after speaking to Panetta that the review was an attempt to evaluate U.S. strategic priorities for the future rather than identify specific budget reductions.

Maintaining a significant presence in the Middle East and Asia, especially to counter Iran and North Korea, was a leading priority in the review, Smith said. So was making sure that military personnel are sufficiently cared for to guarantee the effectiveness of the all-volunteer force. Reductions in the size of U.S. forces in Europe and elsewhere are a real possibility, he said.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain John Kirby said with the military winding down a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is appropriate to re-evaluate the role of U.S. forces abroad.

"From an operational perspective it's ... an opportune time to take a look at what the U.S. military is doing and what it should be doing or should be preparing itself to do over the next 10 to 15 years," he said on Wednesday.

"So, yes, the budget cuts are certainly a driver here, but so quite frankly are current events," Kirby said.












obama

Obama: His Economy

Wait, we just went through a couple weeks of 'the sky is falling' and the Republicans 'are terrorists' or worse, and in one day, very nearly everything they okayed on Tuesday, was meaningless and they will need to raise the limit again, very soon!

U.S. eats up most of debt limit in one day

$239 billion spike uses up 60% of funding OK’d on Tuesday

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times
Wednesday, August 3, 2011

U.S. debt shot up $239 billion on Tuesday — the largest one-day bump in history — as the government flexed the new borrowing room it earned in this week's debt-limit increase deal.

The debt subject to the statutory limit shot way past the old cap of $14.294 trillion to hit $14.532 trillion on Tuesday, according to the latest the Treasury Department figures, which are released on the next business day.

That increase puts the government already remarkably close to the new debt limit of $14.694, which means one day's new borrowing ate up 60 percent of the $400 billion in space Congress granted the president this week.

Debt numbers go up and down regularly, depending on what the Treasury Department is redeeming or issuing on any day, but have been on a steep upward trend for the past decade as spending has ballooned and revenues have fluctuated.

For the past 2½ months, though, the number essentially was frozen as the government was poised to reach the borrowing limit set by law. The Treasury Department used extraordinary means to stall, but was about to run out of room on Tuesday.

With little time to spare, Congress and the White House managed to cobble together a deal to grant new borrowing authority: an initial increase of $400 billion, coupled with future increases.

The fight was so bruising that President Obama on Wednesday took his debt team out to celebrate by buying them hamburgers at Good Stuff Eatery, a well-known burger joint on Capitol Hill. The White House said it was a reward for their "nonstop" work over the past few months.

At a meeting of his Cabinet later in the day, the president said the debt increase gave the government some room to maneuver.

"We have now averted what could have been a disastrous blow to the economy. And we have identified on the front end over a trillion dollars in spending reductions that can be done sensibly and safely without affecting core programs," Mr. Obama said.

He also looked ahead to the committee the debt deal creates and charges with finding an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by the end of the year.

"It's going to be challenging work, and I'm encouraging Congress to take it with the utmost seriousness," Mr. Obama said.

The deal called for caps on future spending and granted the president the power to win an initial $400 billion debt increase, with another $500 billion coming later if Congress doesn't manage to block it. Yet another increase is contingent on the committee's recommendations.

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson, who co-chaired the deficit commission that Mr. Obama formed last year, called the spending limits in the bill "a baby step of the first order."

"Disappointing would be half a world. Until they get to the point where they can change the 'B' in billion to a 'T' in trillion, we are not going to get anywhere," he told Bloomberg Television.

The previous one-day record debt increase was $186 billion, set on June 30, 2009.

Government debt subject to the statutory limit is broken down into two categories: debt held by the public, and intragovernmental loans such as money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund and used to cover other basic government expenses.

According to the latest figures, the debt held by the public stood on Tuesday at $9.908 trillion, and the intragovernmental debt was $4.673 trillion. A slight portion of that debt is excluded from the legal limit.

 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
debt

Biden: Republicans are Terrorists. Democrats: Republicans are a Satan Sandwich.

Many Democrats and almost all Liberals oppose war and want negotiation with terrorists, most especially the Taliban.  9/11 for many Liberals was payback for US 'imperialism' and when Bush said 'you are either with us or against us' - all Liberals and many Democrats (imagine the scene in the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers where one of the remaining humans in the town is uncovered by the aliens and they turn, point and open their mouths and the noise that follows ....) began emitting a noise that would seem to come from an animal close to death, in its last throes of pain as it squeals in agony.   How dare Bush question our patriotism.  How dare Republicans question our dedication and commitment to the United States.  So fierce were their screeching sounds that Republicans prefaced everything with - we don't question their love for the country or we don't question their patriotism ... and Republicans tempered their statements even though what Bush stated was very true - you either stand with the United States government and Western Civilization or you support those who want to kill you.  We don't have to always agree on how we will oppose them, but we do need to agree we oppose them.  Liberals can't even agree on that issue and so perverted the argument it is meaningless - except to place Republicans on the defense.

All of that means nothing if you are a Liberal because you can call anyone you want names and not feel the slightest bit guilty.  After all, whatever you call someone, it must be accurate and so calling them a name is fine.  Unlike Republicans who do it out of spite and hate.

Unlike Democrats.

Sources: Biden likens tea partiers to 'terrorists'

By: Jonathan Allen and John Bresnahan
Politico

August 1, 2011

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Biden’s office initially declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session, but after POLITICO published the remarks, spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said: “The word was used by several members of Congress. The vice president does not believe it’s an appropriate term in political discourse.”

Biden later denied he used that term in an interview with CBS.

“I did not use the terrorism word,” Biden told CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Scott Pelley.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals.

The vice president’s hot rhetoric about tea party Republicans underscored the tense moment on Capitol Hill as four party leaders in both chambers work to round up the needed votes in an abbreviated time frame. The bill would raise the debt limit by as much as $2.4 trillion through the end of next year and reduce the deficit by an equal amount over the next decade.

Democrats had no shortage of colorful phrases in wake of the deal.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called it a “Satan sandwich,” and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) called seemed to enjoy the heat analogy, saying: “the Tea Partiers and the GOP have made their slash and burn lunacy clear, and while I do not love this compromise, my vote is a hose to stop the burning. The arsonists must be stopped.

The deal was consummated Sunday night, the text of the bill was posted in the wee hours of Monday morning, and the House was expected to vote first on it Monday afternoon or evening. But there are still plenty of concerns in both parties and in both chambers.

Liberal Democrats have had the most averse reaction to the plan, which ensures between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade without requiring any of it to come from tax increases.

Biden told Democratic lawmakers that the deal would take away the tea party’s “weapon of mass destruction” — the threat of a default on U.S. debt obligations.

“They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want,” Doyle told POLITICO after the meeting.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
dems

Obama's Secret Plan: To Tell Us He Has a Plan and Not Show Us.

I am curious.  Is there a plan or not.  It seems to me that there is no plan, rather, as Blitzer states, a framework (and the CBO) of what he wants.  Republicans have a plan.  Obama has a framework.  And Republicans do not cooperate or come together in bipartisanship over a framework. 

Media types who argue it is republicans who are not cooperating, not working together - this is not much different than someone telling you their vision, and then accusing you of not working with them to make it happen.  Obama spent a good part of a year reminding retardicans that 'we won, get over it' ... well, last November, 'Republicans won, so quit with the vision thing.  Voters are tired of your hope and change - they are hopeless and in debt.  Concrete plans, concrete policy statements - not ideas.  As soon as Republicans agree to your vision - you will shift the posts, and it is doable because it was on a vision, not a concrete plan.

They may be retardicans, but they are not stupid.

05:07 PM ET

July 28, 2011

CNN

On debt deal, Daley tells Blitzer: "We are optimistic"

CNN's Wolf Blitzer sat down in an exclusive interview with White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley to discuss the current debt negotiations. Highlights from the interview are after the jump. The full transcript of The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer is posted on CNN.com.

BLITZER: But then they've got 40 percent of the checks that are supposed to go out won't go out.

DALEY: Well, that - that will be the - the Treasury Department will lay out exactly how that would work after - at a certain point between now and Tuesday, obviously.

But we are optimistic. The four leaders of the Congress have said that the debt ceiling will be extended. We are confident that they will come together. The - the sense - look at the stock market. The market's dropped over the last four days like 3 percent. Real people are losing money - pensioners, people who depend on their 401(k)s and the value of the stocks in those. They're losing money right now while Congress and Washington is kind of just dallying here.

BLITZER: So the bottom line, you think there will be a deal between now and Tuesday somehow crafted...

DALEY: Um-hmm.

BLITZER: - but you're not convinced, necessarily, that the AAA credit rating that the United States government has will remain AAA?

DALEY: Well, I - I - I don't - no one can guarantee that, obviously. The rating agencies which make that judgment will look at this and will look at what comes out of this effort and to see whether or not - two things, whether or not we have a serious attempt that's going to affect the deficit and reduce the deficit and get this cloud of another vote of another debt ceiling of uncertainty off of the table for at least 18 months, until - it's not about the election, it's trying to give the general economy a chance to get healthier over the next 18 months.

BLITZER: When you say the president speaking to people on the Hill, is he speaking to the speaker of the House?

DALEY: He’s not spoken to the speaker in a few days. The truth is it looks as though the speaker is rather engaged in - in putting together his bill and getting the votes for his bill. So when that's put aside this evening, after it's, I assume, passed in the House, and then defeated in the Senate, then I think there will be a whole new stage of the Senate and House having to come together to avoid August 2nd as being a day that has never happened in the U.S., and that is a day where we wouldn't back up the full faith and credit of the United States.

BLITZER: You say the president has put forward a plan.

DALEY: Um-hmm.

BLITZER: But the Congressional Budget Office says there is no plan that they can score because it's just a framework, it's just a speech. They haven't seen a document...

DALEY: Well, Speaker Boehner knows - and Congressman Cantor knows the plan that they both worked on try to bring the debt down and get past this debt ceiling. He does not have a legislative fix right now to this, because there's a bill in the House and there's a bill in the Senate and they will deal with those two bills. He's endorsed Senator Reid's bill. He feels very strongly that the bill that the House may pass tonight does not help the economy.

And what all of this should be about is trying to not only lower the debt, but at the same, get this cloud of uncertainty off our economy.

And the thought we'd be right back in the - this same thing in four-and-a-half months, with an economy that's in a difficult shape with or without Washington's craziness that goes on, is just unfathomable.

BLITZER: So what you're saying is the president did present a plan to the speaker, John Boehner.

DALEY: Yes.

BLITZER: But - but he didn't...

DALEY: Right.

BLITZER: - make it public.

DALEY: No, because there's... both the speaker and - and the president had agreed and - that these sort of negotiations do not happen in public. There's not a plan out there in the public realm, whether it's the fiscal commission, whether it's the Gang of Six, whether it's Congressman Ryan's plan - Congressman Ryan's plan lost in the Senate overwhelmingly.

So there's no plan that's out there, by any of these people who are saying this, that has any sort of chance of passing both houses and getting signed by the president.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
budget

OBAMA and HIS Spending Habit

FACT CHECK: Obama and his imbalanced ledger



FACT CHECK: A tricky juggling act as Obama urges more spending and a freeze on spending


Calvin Woodward, Associated Press
Tuesday January 25, 2011, 10:24 pm EST



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.

Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."

But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.

For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.

A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."

THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.


OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."

[Great, but where have you been for the last couple years.  Why promise to veto now?  Why didn't you then??]



THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.

It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.




OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."

[So an idea Democrats have ignored and quite honesatly ignored - he is NOW ready to consider.  Why now, if it is good enough to look at now, wasn't it worth considering it two years ago?]

THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.

Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.

Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to pay for pilot programs and studies.

Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.



OBAMA: Praised the "important progress" made by the bipartisan fiscal commission he created last year.

[That commission decided nothing, achieved nothing, and considering the composition - was not as equally balanced as he suggests.  It is easy to agree to milk toast - we need to cut spending.  What braniac doesn't recognize that imperative - cut spending.  His touting the bipartisanship of this committee is like celebrating the fact your child just graduated from pre-school - and suggesting to anyone and everyone that one graduation (pre-school) indicates you child is well on his/her way to graduating from Harvard.]


THE FACTS: The panel's co-chairmen last month recommended a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases, each of them unpopular with one constituency or another, including raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting future benefit increases, raising the gasoline tax and rolling back popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction. But Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."

Obama missed another chance Tuesday night to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, the president said he wanted to "strengthen Social Security for future generations" -- but ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.


OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."

THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.


[And the AP story is not a right wing hatchet job.  I would NOT consider the AP right-wing, by any stretch.]




















obama admin

Obama and the Tax Ceiling

One wistful commentator on the question of raising the debt ceiling stated rather forcefull that the Republicans were holding the American people hostage, another implied that as a result of opposing the increase in the debt ceiling Republicans were yet again messing up the government.

Not too long ago, back when he had just been elected a US Senator - Obama was opposed to hiking the ceiling, noting: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.”










 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
democrats and debts

And the Cuts Continue

U.S. Second Fleet in jeopardy as DOD continues to trim budget

13NEWS / WVEC.com

Posted on August 24, 2010 at 7:48 AM



NORFOLK -- The U.S. Second Fleet, which trains and certifies all strike groups before deployment and employs 348 active and reserve military personnel, civilian employees and contractors, is in jeopardy as the Department of Defense continues to trim its budget.

If the Second Fleet were to be shut down, hundreds of jobs could be lost in the Hampton Roads area.

Retired Navy Captain Joe Bouchard says that any potential cost savings would come at a big price.

Captain Bouchard is the former commanding officer of Naval Station Norfolk and now a board member of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance.

"I'm concerned that the Department of Defense is scrambling for savings somewhere in its budget."

He says he thinks that the civilian bureaucrats in the Pentagon may not fully understand the operational impact of shutting down certain commands.

The fleet trains and certifies every ship, sailor, and air wing that heads out to sea, with responsibility over 130 ships and submarines primarily in the Atlantic Ocean.

Security, in addition to the hundreds of jobs, could be at risk.
"We don't even want to think about the degradation of the combat readiness of those forces either to deploy overseas or to carry out their homeland defense role," says Captain Bouchard.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama budget

Get in line - first Europe will falter, stumble, and fall ...

Britain no longer has the cash to defend itself from every threat, says Liam Fox



Britain cannot afford to protect itself against all potential threats to its security, Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, has warned.


By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
22 Jul 2010
The Telegraph



In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dr Fox said the dire state of the public finances meant the Armed Forces could no longer be equipped to cover every conceivable danger.

Since the Second World War, the nation has maintained a force that can conduct all-out warfare, counter-insurgencies such as in Afghanistan or medium scale campaigns like the Falklands or Sierra Leone.

But Dr Fox has given the strongest signal yet that it will have to give up one or more of these capabilities, which have been maintained at the same time as contributing to collective security pacts such as Nato. “We don’t have the money as a country to protect ourselves against every potential future threat,” he said. “We just don’t have it.”

The military had to be configured only for “realistic potential future threats”, he said, hinting at a substantial cut to conventional forces such as tanks and fighter aircraft.

“We have to look at where we think the real risks will come from, where the real threats will come from and we need to deal with that accordingly. The Russians are not going to come over the European plain any day soon,” he added.

Dr Fox’s frank admission also casts doubt on the future of the 25,000 troops currently stationed in Germany. The Defence Secretary has previously said that he hoped to withdraw them at some point, leaving Britain without a presence in the country for the first time since 1945.

“I would say, what do Challenger tanks in Germany and the costs of maintaining them and the personnel required to train for them, what does that contribute to what’s happening in Afghanistan?” he asked.

The Ministry of Defence is facing a substantial squeeze on resources, with indications that 30,000 servicemen may be sacrificed to meet the Government’s stringent review of departmental budgets.

Dr Fox signalled in a speech at Farnborough air show this week that Britain’s fleets of warships, fighters and armoured vehicles would be reduced because the MoD’s equipment programme was “entirely unaffordable”.

A National Audit Office report on Tuesday also found that the MoD was already £500 million over budget for the current financial year with “insufficient funds to meet planned expenditure”.

There has been growing speculation that the Army could be reduced by a quarter of its strength to 75,000 under the defence review.

But Dr Fox insisted that no troops would be made redundant until the fighting in Afghanistan was over.

“Everything that we might want to do with the Army will be constrained by what’s happening in Afghanistan,” he said.

“Any changes will have to be phased in. But with the Army in particular the difficulties come with how stretched we currently are providing forces in Afghanistan.”

He added: “I did not come into politics to see reductions in the Armed Forces but I also did not come into politics to see the destruction of the economy.”

He described as “nonsense” the idea that the Ministry of Defence would sacrifice personnel before equipment to make savings to a budget shortfall estimated at £36 billion over the next decade.

“I am not planning for any particular size for the Army,” Dr Fox said. “This idea that we are coming at the review with a particular size for the Army or the Navy or the Air Force is nonsense.”

In the last week Dr Fox has been fighting the Treasury to ensure that cash for the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent comes from outside the MoD’s core budget.

Asked if he would be prepared to resign if he did not get what he wanted, he said: “I am in the middle of complex negotiations and I am not in the business of megaphone diplomacy with the Treasury.

“The country is in an economic crisis, defence cannot be exempted from it.”

Despite the likelihood of a 20 per cent cut to the MoD’s £37 billion annual budget, he insisted that Britain would remain in the “first division” of armed forces alongside America.

“We have to keep sufficient land forces to hold territory if required, we have got to maintain enough maritime power and we have got to maintain air power to maintain air superiority.”

Dr Fox hopes that substantial savings can be found by renegotiating defence contracts. Companies supplying the MoD have been threatened with the loss of lucrative orders unless they lower prices.

“Either companies reduce the costs or we cancel whole projects,” he said. “Either we cut costs or cut programmes. The defence industry will understand that helping us over the short term will give them greater security over the longer term.”

It has been suggested that the Defence Secretary favours the Navy above the other two Services.

But Dr Fox criticised the fleet’s obsession with hi-tech ships such as the Type 45 destroyer, described by BAe Systems, its makers, as the most advanced warship of its kind, or Astute submarines.

“If I had a criticism of the Navy it is that it’s been too centred on a high specification end and not had sufficient platform numbers (ships) in a world that requires presence,” he explained.

He also questioned the number of different transport aircraft required by the RAF. It has a fleet of 36 Hercules, planes, seven C17 Globemasters and about 22 A400M transporters on order.

“Do we have to have all these different fleets or can we reduce them down?” Dr Fox asked.

“Fewer types means less training and fewer spare parts.” He admitted that for a political “hawk” the prospect of reducing the Forces was difficult.

“It is very difficult for someone like me who is a fiscal hawk and hawkish on defence policy to arrive here at a time when the previous government have bankrupted us,” Dr Fox said. “It is really difficult and we will have to make really hard choices.

“Labour have left us with such a car crash that next year the interest on the national debt will be nearly one and half times the defence budget. That is not sustainable.”














military

Budget Issues

I asked a group of people how it was that the government did many of the things it did, where did it get the authority to do them?  Despite my making it clear that if the government did anything it was not constitutionally given the authority to do, it would 'implode'* - I still had many student who responded to my question with - because they are the government and they can.

The answer I was looking for was Article I, Section 8, last sentence.  Many students did find it!!  Yippee, we have now all been fooled. 

I think the next time I will ask another question - who proposes a budget?  Who ultimately passes the budget and who has greater control of the budget - the Executive or the Legislative?  The answer is the legislative - House of Representatives to be even more specific.  So - a president who proposes a budget of $1 trillion dollars in spending may see only a portion of his proposed budget ever see the light of day or the touch of a president's pen.  The Congress creates, modifies, changes, revises, and controls the budget - AKA - the spending AKA the debt AKA the deficit. 

I have to go a little further and ask - who controlled Congress in 2006 (December)?  And who immediately after the election in November, began taking control of the committees and restacking the bills?  From November 2006 through and up to and including November 2, 2010?  That's right - the Democrats.

The budget for fiscal year 2008, 2009, 2010 ... have been Democratically controlled, but we cannot forget 2007 spending by Congress using continuing resolutions.  Spending in this country, has been almost exclusively since 2007, and completely since 2008 - under the control of the Democrats.  All debt, all deficits, all of it is the Democrats.  INCLUDING the votes by Obama when he was the Senator from Illionis for a year, for all those continuing resolutions, and balooning budgets.

Yet we hear how it is all Bush's fault.  True, it can be argued.  From October 2001 through November 2006, those 5 years are Bush's responsibility, and the war that was thrust upon us in 2001.  Yes, those costs are high, have been high, and are in some cases, questionable.  So what is Obama's excuse?  Just before he left office, Bush accepted a huge debt under his administartion - one he could have left for Obama to incur, but he accepted it - you know that whole fanny and freddie (thrust upon us by yet more idiots and fools disguising themselves as serving the poor and oppressed).

Get it straight, even if you wish to continue blaming everything on Bush - recognize where the responsibility lies, accept the facts, and then go on with whatever nonsense.  Reality is painful, but not as painful as ignorance.


















* - I meant this facetiously yet still, if the government acted unconstitutionally in creating ... a new department of taxation, without the authority to do so, it would be ruled unconstitutional and would be disbanded.  Again, it would not happen quite as simply as this, but the end result would be changes or deletions.  The government can only do what it is given the authority to do. 








dems

Let the Cuts Begin

The cuts begin.

We learned from this article that during the 1990's our combat strength was cut by nearly 40%.  Which makes perfect sense why Democrats in 2003 were screaming about the fact we could not wage two wars in two different places at the same time.  They were right.  They had allowed their party and their president to cut our combat strength by 40%.  They would know, they did it.





Gates says urgent need to cut defense bureaucracy


By ROBERT BURNS
AP
2:17 PM 05/08/10


ABILENE, Kan. -Warring against waste, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Saturday he is ordering a top-to-bottom paring of the military bureaucracy in search of at least $10 billion in annual savings needed to prevent an erosion of U.S. combat power.

He took aim what he called a bloated bureaucracy, wasteful business practices and too many generals and admirals, and outlined an ambitious plan for reform that's almost certain to stir opposition in the corridors of Congress and Pentagon.

"The Defense Department must take a hard look at every aspect of how it is organized, staffed and operated — indeed, every aspect of how it does business," he said in a speech at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in the former command in chief's home town. Gates was the keynote speaker at a ceremony marking the 65th anniversary of Nazi Germany's surrender in World War II.

The library was a fitting setting for Gates to caution against unrestrained military spending. In his farewell address to the nation from the Oval Office in January 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned of the "grave implications" of having built during that war an enormous military establishment and a huge arms industry that could wield undue influence in American society.



"Eisenhower was wary of seeing his beloved republic turn into a muscle-bound, garrison state — militarily strong but economically stagnant and strategically insolvent," Gates said. He recalled Eisenhower's impatience with a mindset within the military that often sought to add new weaponry without regard for cost or efficiency — "pile program on program," as he once put it.

Gates said he had recently come to the conclusion about the urgent need for big cuts in light of the recession and the likelihood that Congress no longer will give the Pentagon the sizable budget increases it has enjoyed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time," he said.

In earlier remarks to reporters, Gates said it was clear that defense budgets will be tight "for as far into the future as anyone can see."

The current defense budget, not counting the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, is $535 billion; the administration is asking for $549 billion for 2011.

Gates used tough talk to stress that he will personally oversee the effort to reshape the Pentagon bureaucracy, and that he won't be denied.

"We're not going to just roll over to preserve programs that we think we don't need — regardless of where the pressure is coming from," he told reporters Friday.

Pressed to say whether he would remain as defense secretary next year to wage the budget battle with Congress, he replied, "We'll get this done." Gates has told Obama he will remain at the Pentagon through 2010, but his future beyond that is unclear.

Gates said it highly unlikely that the Pentagon will get Congress to approve budgets in the coming years that grow enough to sustain the current size of the military. That's why he is looking for roughly $10 billion in savings from trimming the bureaucracy and applying that money to sustaining the combat force and investing in its modernization. He said the savings must be repeated in additional years.

"Simply taking a few percent off the top of everything on a one-time basis will not do," he said. "These savings must stem from root-and-branch changes that can be sustained and added to over time."

Gates noted that for the past two years he has focused his budget cuts on major weapons programs that he believed were unnecessary or unaffordable. He managed to get Congress to agree last year, for example, to stop production of the Air Force's F-22 stealth fighter earlier than previously planned, and he halted an Army ground combat vehicle project that had been a top Army priority.

"More is needed — much more," he said.

That means cutting what he called "overhead" — the bureaucratic machinery that he said chews up about 40 percent of the Pentagon's budget.

In this category he included the hierarchy of flag officers — the generals and admirals who run the military services.

To illustrate his point that there are too many of these top officers, Gates said that while the overall troop strength of the Army was sliced by nearly 40 percent during the 1990s, the reduction in generals and admirals across the military was about half that. He suggested that this was a top-heavy structure that is making it harder to get proper resources to the war fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Consider that a request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan — or for any other unit — has to go through no fewer than five four-star headquarters in order to be processed, validated and eventually dealt with," he said.

It is widely known, but also widely accepted, in the military that the bureaucracy is bloated.

Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen, the commanding general of the Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., said Friday that it is obvious there are going to be more intense pressure to save money and that the bureaucracy is going to be a prime target.

"There's tons of bureaucracy," Caslen said in an interview with reporters traveling with Gates, who visited Leavenworth Friday.

In his Abilene speech, Gates also took on the Pentagon's approach to setting what it calls "requirements," or the numbers, types and capabilities of weapons it says it needs to accomplish its mission. He suggested that the military has overstated its requirements in a post-Cold War world.

"Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?" he asked.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
military

Obama: When are two bills the same, when they are both in one bill - regardless of the subject matter.

I have one question. 

Why is a defense bill coupled with hate crimes legislation?

Why are these not two separate issues?

I would think, if you are honest, and consider the 3-4 possible reasons - that it is not a matter of ease, simplicity - the legislative body has never been interested in such things.

keep thinking.




Obama inks defense bill with hate crimes provision


(AP) – October 28, 2009

WASHINGTON — Trumpeting a victory against careless spending, President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed a defense bill that kills some costly weapons projects and expands war spending. In a major civil rights change, the law also makes it a federal hate crime to assault people based on sexual orientation.

The $680 billion policy bill doesn't provide any actual dollars, but rather sets guidance that is typically followed by congressional committees that decide appropriations. Obama hailed it as a step toward ending needless military spending that he called "an affront to the American people and to our troops."

Still, the president did not win every fiscal fight. He acknowledged he was putting his name to a bill that still had waste.

The measure expands current hate crimes law to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to the must-pass defense policy bill over the steep objections of many Republicans.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Obama

Losercrats: Redefine what PORK means

This of course was worth fighting over? This of course is money that we need for a STIMULUS, this of course was NOT PORK!!

Democrats. Redefining what PORK means. Wasteful spending.






Pelosi's mouse slated for $30M slice of cheese


Thursday, February 12, 2009
SA Miller
Washington Times



UPDATED:

Talk about a pet project. A tiny mouse with the longtime backing of a political giant may soon reap the benefits of the economic-stimulus package.

Lawmakers and administration officials divulged Wednesday that the $789 billion economic stimulus bill being finalized behind closed doors in Congress includes $30 million for wetlands restoration that the Obama administration intends to spend in the San Francisco Bay Area to protect, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area.

The revelation immediately became a political football, as Republicans accused Democrats of reneging on a promise to keep so-called earmarks that fund lawmakers' favorite projects out of the legislation. Democrats, including Mrs. Pelosi, countered that the accusations were fabricated.


[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]







democrats

California: We have no money

California declares fiscal emergency
Reuters


SAN FRANCISCO, Dec 19 - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency on Friday to call lawmakers into another special session to tackle the state’s weakening finances, and separately ordered state officials to prepare to furlough and lay off employees to cut costs.

His two actions mark a dramatic escalation in the budget battle waged in recent weeks in Sacramento, the capital of the most populous US state and world’s eighth-largest economy, as its revenues fall harder and faster than expected.

California’s state government now faces a $40 billion budget shortfall over its current and next fiscal years and is on track to run out of cash in February.

California’s Democrat-led legislature concluded its prior special session on Thursday by approving an $18 billion budget package, but Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said he would veto it because he wants lawmakers to both address the state’s budget gap and ease regulations to speed construction projects to help stimulate the state’s economy.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass said the Democrats’ package would have provided for $3 billion in revenues for transportation projects, accelerated $3 billion in bonds for transportation projects and made it easier for hospital construction and expansion projects to move forward.

The dispute over which approach would better boost California’s ailing economy, underscored by its 8.4 per cent unemployment rate last month, comes on the heels of a decision on Wednesday by the state’s Pooled Money Investment Board to halt $3.8 billion in loans for public works.

The state government needs funds from the Pooled Money Investment Board to pay for vital services. The board’s action affects almost 2,000 projects, including highways, schools, levees, housing and parks.

The legislature now has 45 days to pass and send a bill or bills addressing the state budget to Schwarzenegger.

In the meantime, the state’s Department of Personnel Administration will under Schwarzenegger’s executive order adopt a plan that would go into effect in February to furlough state employees and supervisors for two days per month.

The order also calls for state agencies and departments to initiate layoffs and other ”program efficiency measures” to post savings of up to 10 per cent in the state’s general fund.

”Every California family and business has been forced to cut back during these difficult economic times and state government cannot be exempt from similar belt tightening,” a statement from Schwarzenegger office said.

Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico and two other top Democratic lawmakers issued a statement that said Schwarzenegger’s order ”adds insult to injury for the state’s economy” and chided him for failing to win over either Democrats or Republican lawmakers to his budget plan.

”The governor has shown he can’t negotiate with Republicans, he doesn’t negotiate with Democrats, and now he’s refusing to negotiate with employees,” their statement said.

”It’s the same lack of leadership that has kept him from coming up with a single vote for any budget solution. And now that lack of leadership has resulted in his making a scapegoat of employees who are not the source of the problem.”







education



California