let's have a war

AEI Hack Just Asking If We Should Cut Food Stamps and Give the Money to the Military

No it's OCEANIA we're at war with!Hey you guys, quick question, it’ll only take a minute. Which would you choose, food stamps or the Department of Defense? Because Mackenzie Eaglen, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, posed this ethnical dilemma in the headline of her op-ed piece over at the Wall Street Journal, and you’ll NEVER GUESS which one she chooses! Actually, to be fair, you just kind of have to guess which one she chooses because she never outright says it; just strongly IMPLIES it. So guess which one she strongly implies? Are you ready? OK, click “read more!”

It is the poor, sad, unloved, underfunded military, duh. What is wrong with you?

Even before sequestration and the possible loss of a half-trillion dollars, the U.S. military has seen three years of budget cuts. The consequences are already here. We have to look all the way back to 1916 to find a year when the Air Force purchased fewer aircraft than are included in Mr. Obama’s 2013 budget request.

Yes, the consequences are here, and they involve over 7,000 unstaffed dronesmore than the Pentagon wants or asked for actually — engaged in overseas operations in Yemen, PakistanLibya, Afghanistan, and the Philippines (Yes. There was a drone strike last year in the Philippines.) So we GUESS we could purchase “aircraft” like they did in 1916, OR we could just continue on our current trajectory and purchase state of the art, flying killer death robots unmanned aerial drones.

Then there’s the Navy, which is the smallest it has been since 1916. At 286 combat and combat-support ships, the Navy today is less than half the size it reached during the Reagan administration. And what about those men and women who have been fighting America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001? They’re losing 100,000 in active duty personnel. Surely some will go from the front lines to unemployment lines as a result.

See, this is annoying. The Navy is the “smallest since 1916″ BY WHAT MEASURE? In terms of money spent on it, when adjusted for inflation? In terms of personnel? In terms of firepower? In terms of the number of aircraft it has? HOW is it the smallest?? Whatever, we should know better than to look for logic from the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal. Oh and we thought the Iraq war was over in 2003 when GW got all gussied up and pranced around in front of a banner that said “Mission Accomplished,” but apparently we were wrong and the war in Iraq is still going on, even though Obama said he’s ending it, which is why 100,000 men and women are returning home. If these men and women can’t find jobs when they get here, should we fire the job creators for failing to create enough jobs for them? Or maybe use some of those domestic programs the GOP wants to cut? Or just let them fend for themselves in the free market, because this is America?

As the largest employer in America, the Department of Defense should not be off the hook for belt-tightening. Everyone loves to hate the Pentagon’s broken acquisition system, for good reason. The emphasis on contractors often masks the government’s contribution to spiraling costs and schedule delays. And this takes the pressure off leaders to change the way the Pentagon buys not weapons but services. Of the roughly $400 billion the military spends on goods, services, information technology and commodities each year, more than half goes to services. A reformed process would emphasize competition, reduce congressional regulations, restore the authority of service secretaries, and accelerate programs for completion in seven years or fewer…

In testimony before Congress recently, White House budget director Jeffrey Zients suggested that Congress is to blame for defense cuts. But no Republican occupies the seat of commander in chief. Mr. Obama does, and having pledged repeatedly to slice defense, he has done so arbitrarily and without an overarching strategy—before Congress ever got involved. And only Mr. Obama can broker a budget compromise. The military cannot be immune from reform, but it should at least be immune from attack.

Hey, Mackenzie? The Commander in Chief doesn’t control the purse strings, Congress does. The founders set it up that way to make sure there are checks and balances on the power of each branch of government, so yeah, Congress is ultimately to blame (or at least shares a huge portion of the blame) for defense cuts. Also, Wonkette readers, do you ever wonder if you could get published in the pages of the Wall Street Journal? The good news is that you probably can, iffen you’re willing to assert a bunch of “facts” absent any citations or sources for these “facts,” compare objects or institutions without stating the bases of your comparisons, and then make vague recommendations based on the conclusions drawn from these “facts” and comparisons.

[the Wall Street Journal]

About the author

Kris E. Benson writes about politics for Wonkette and is pursuing a doctorate in philosophy. This will come in handy for when they finally open that philosophy factory in the next town over. @Kris_E_Benson

View all articles by Kris E. Benson
What Others Are Reading

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

198 comments

    1. Antispandex

      I would say fluffer, but that would be beneath the dignity of this commenter site thingy. Proper decorum usually is our top priority, and I don't want to seem sexist…I mean if there is a need for a female to be fluffed, she could be qualified for that too. Definately something to do with sucking though.

  1. Callyson

    Even before sequestration and the possible loss of a half-trillion dollars, the U.S. military has seen three years of budget cuts

    That's *after* years of big increases thanks to 9.11.

    Bitch.

    1. 1stNewtontheMoon

      easy. if you're not growing then you're dying. the military budget's kinda like cancer that way.

    1. BaldarTFlagass

      And high-quality canvas for sails and the good hemp rope for rigging doesn't come cheap!

    2. 1stNewtontheMoon

      we have the fewest horses in our armed forces since that time when 96% of them were killed in a single WWI battle.

  2. ChernobylSoup

    Seems like there was something, some world situation, during the Reagan years, that might have required more DoD spending?

    That's right… the Sandinistas were in Nicaragua.

  3. hagajim

    Stupid crack is a stupid crack…and a shill for the military industrial complex to boot. I guess I want to know why we spend more than the next 10 nations combined to blow shit up….not how little we spend. It's fully a third of the entire budget. Go fuck yourself moron.

    1. 1stNewtontheMoon

      but blowing war-profiteers allows her access to the coolest social circles, best clothes, and, ya know, money.

  4. BaldarTFlagass

    Well, the Air Force and the Navy may be smaller than they were in 1916, but they are certainly have a lot more war-fighting capability and the latest in kill technology.

  5. noodlesalad

    What about our Gatling Guns? Our depleted fleet of Zepplins? Our Commander in Chief has no plan to address the Kaiser OR the Ottoman Sultanate!

    1. Gleem McShineys

      Not to mention the rufty and corrosife, lo, most Terrible condition that our reliable Mufkettes have become as of late!

    2. Dudleydidwrong

      If we will fully support Col. T. E. Lawrence in Arabia things in that big Middle Eastern sand trap will get better and better.

  6. Antispandex

    Ok, I see now. If we aren't killing enough people, no more jobs. AND if we cut the military budget, where will we get soldiers, because most of them come from poor, or working poor, families, or they are just trrying to find some way of paying for school. So we have to at least budget for a real big army. It makes perfect sense if you are really a cruel mother fucker. Toughen up, buttercup, we gotta kick some ass for the economy…no, wait, that hasn't…ah, screw it! Let's go for it!

    1. PubOption

      Perhaps she should go back a little before 1916. There was an army in 1914 which could lose 19,000 soldiers in a day, and still managed to function.

  7. mrpuma2u

    And what branch of service did Mackenzie Eaglen serve in again? Oh that's right, she is an elitist who leaves actual military service to the poors.
    The real tragedy here is that some defense contractor company might not continue to make disgusting profit margins.

    1. Antispandex

      You didn't think his crying little girl would ever grow up? Who else would wear the vest of shame?

  8. HarryButtle

    "And only Mr. Obama can broker a budget compromise."

    Right, because Republicans have been so willing to compromise with him thus far, I'm sure they'll get right on board with that.

    Dipshit.

    1. 1stNewtontheMoon

      no, she means, he can accept the terms of the republican budget. kinda like how Lee brokered a compromise to end the Civil War.

  9. BaldarTFlagass

    So, Mackenzie, which branch of the military did you serve in to qualify you to speak with such authority about it?

  10. Callyson

    Military leaders have suggested that taking on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Third World army would be an operation of "many, many months." The so-called "pivot" to Asia is being mimed with fewer ships on longer deployments and a shrinking, aging air force. We're ignoring a wholesale Chinese power grab in the South China Sea and watching the nuclearization of Iran.

    That brings the "how many unnecessary and potentially disastrously counterproductive failed wars are the wingnuts suggesting today?" count to three…

    1. SoBeach

      You're forgetting something. If it's a war started while Obama is in charge it's the Worst Thing Ever and the End Of Freedom. So no, they're not suggesting any wars today.

      Just spend spend spend on defense as though we've got three new hot ones on our hands. Then when a republican is in office invading Syria and Iran will become the best, most patriotic thing our country could ever do.

  11. actor212

    We have to look all the way back to 1916 to find a year when the Air Force purchased fewer aircraft than are included in Mr. Obama’s 2013 budget request.

    Ah have all th' planes Ah need, but not all th' planes Ah wan'

  12. Mumbletypeg

    assert a bunch of “facts” absent any citations or sources …without stating the bases of your comparisons.. vague recommendations

    It seems this Eaglen person, having pledged repeatedly to slice Obama's credibility, has done so arbitrarily and without an overarching strategy.

  13. Fukui-sanYesOta

    US military budget something like 48% of global defense spending. "Not enough kill-toys", claims lady.

    "Lady probably isn't getting any" responds snarky internet person.

    More at forever.

    1. Gleem McShineys

      Note to prospective lovers of Hackenzie "American" Eaglen, looking to tickle her war-boner.: try whispering "1916"

    2. SmutBoffin

      Mz. Eaglen would probably make an engaging dinner companion, if you like to hear about the relative efficacy of different weapons system in flesh-rending detail.

      1. bikerlaureate

        At least the conversation would be free of "any citations or sources for these 'facts'," so that should shave off a good five minutes right there.

  14. Poindexter718

    At this rate there won't be any spare aircraft carriers for President Romney to land on and declare "Mission Accomplished" in the war with Canada.

  15. Self-Uploader

    It makes sense as we really should make the poors work for food, so this will encourage them to join the military in order to eat. Of course we have more military than we need here and most of the people on food stamps are children too young to join the military. Maybe we can privatize the army and place the kids in countries that utilize child soldiers, or we can just give the economy a boost through endless wars. Either way, win-win.

    1. HistoriCat

      But first we need to stop providing free health care to the military, since we all know that government-run health care is Socializm!

  16. actor212

    Then there’s the Navy, which is the smallest it has been since 1916. At 286 combat and combat-support ships, the Navy today is less than half the size it reached during the Reagan administration.

    In fairness, it's hard to keep track of all those ships in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan…

    1. anniegetyerfun

      I honestly can't think of anything better than halving the size of the military as it was under Reagan.

  17. Baconzgood

    That photograph reminds me of a kid I went to Jr. High with. Every time he would get mad and yell he'd stare at the ceiling (maybe a kinda personality tick). You couldn't take this dude seriously when he was screaming at you. Needless to say EVERYONE would go around pissing him off.

  18. Estproph

    "Also, Wonkette readers, do you ever wonder if you could get published in the pages of the Wall Street Journal? The good news is that you probably can, iffen you’re willing to assert a bunch of “facts” absent any citations or sources for these “facts,” compare objects or institutions without stating the bases of your comparisons, and then make vague recommendations based on the conclusions drawn from these “facts” and comparisons."

    And then blow Rupert Murdoch.

    1. Biel_ze_Bubba

      No need for that … he's content to fap to the fallacious right-wing crap in the pages of the Journal.

  19. Billmatic

    So are they going to use this surplus from cutting food stamp money to make up for the fact that they're taking food stamps away from underpaid military families?

  20. Wadisay

    So when is Wonkette going to start handing out these vaguely continental, academic-sounding titles like right wing think tanks do? I would like to be "Very Distinguised Senior Resident Special Commentor and Holder of Four Whore Diamonds", please.

    1. widestanceromance

      I'm a humble sort, so "Most Royal Commenter with Big Swingin' P-ness" is all I need.

    2. Warwhatgoodfor

      Going with MBSCSDD (master of back,stabbing, cork screwing, and double dealing) with apologies to "The Flim Flam Man".

  21. BaldarTFlagass

    The fact that a single F-22 could probably shoot down every single airplane we had in the air corps back in 1916, and probably do it while taxiing on the flightline, probably doesn't come into the argument here.

  22. actor212

    Also, Wonkette readers, do you ever wonder if you could get published in the pages of the Wall Street Journal?

    We really should start a working group that will create the ultimate WSJ Op-Ed and see if we can get it published.

      1. actor212

        We need a first and middle name: "Rebecca Benson Wonkette"…and let's make it "III". That'll show the editors at the WSJ that we have a pedigree.

    1. SmutBoffin

      "Military minimum-age requirements unduly restrict the authority of our benevolent overclass and make our children lazy."

      1. actor212

        It's times like this I'd fire off an e-mail to my old friend Jon Swift…I miss him terribly much.

        "Children would be very helpful in combat situations, such as crawling under barbed wire or testing fields for landmines. And in a pinch, they fit nicely inside a Howitzer cannon and can actually achieve greater distances than many conventional shells."

    2. GlowneyHouse

      "Why is the Obama administration denying reports that poor people are made up almost exclusively of light sweet crude oil?"

  23. PeaceWithHonor

    I pine for the good old days when the poor earned their keep by selling their children for food.

    1. Dudleydidwrong

      Shit! I was the lead planner for that.

      Now we'll go to our fall back project, something about a Trojan rabbit…

  24. WhatTheHeck

    Has it even occurred to that hack that the military is being forced into becoming leaner, meaner and more efficient?

  25. Goonemeritus

    I’m calling BULLSHIT the defense budget has done nothing but go up since 2000. It is running at 900 Billion at this point which is 100 billion more than when Obama took office.

    1. Wadisay

      Right. The defense "cuts" Mackenzie talks about are to levels of growth. The military budget is doing just fine, don't worry.

  26. BaldarTFlagass

    Considering the adversaries we have fought against in our last couple of wars, I think we should substantially increase our manufacture of trebuchets and siege engines.

    1. Nesnora

      You'd think with that budget we'd have light sabers by now. I'm guessing the evil-looking double-penetration red kind…

  27. SorosBot

    We only spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined; obviously that's far too low, how else will we continue to conquer the Earth.

    1. Biff

      I know right? Yet here we are, conquering mars, when we haven't even finished up our own home planet!

      Earth First, my ass…

    1. Goonemeritus

      I will call BULLSHIT on that as well only the overseas component (troops on the ground) shrunk. The traditional budget has increased ahead of inflation since 2000. And these numbers don’t include all the alphabet soup black op spook shit either.

      1. not that Dewey

        That's how they claim "budget cuts" in the face of monotonically increasing budgets. Those blue bars just keep gettin' bigger.

  28. anniegetyerfun

    A reformed process would emphasize competition, reduce congressional regulations, restore the authority of service secretaries, and accelerate programs for completion in seven years or fewer.

    Oh, yes, by far the biggest problem with our military spending is that we have OVERREGULATED the FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM. That's why companies like Blackwater literally made off with bundles of cash during the Iraq War and blamed it on Iraqis, after landing a competition-free contract because Dick Cheney.

  29. elviouslyqueer

    Now Kris, I know for a fact that Glenn Beck has nightly extended s&m bootysecks sessions with Ann Coulter's pet goat Rufus behind the H&M store in Temecula. And he compares these sexual escapades to being ass-raped by a physician who testified that he was in favor of Obamacare. I can haz WSJ byline now?

  30. ManchuCandidate

    Stupid bitch does not know or care that Raygun's beloved 600 ship Navy nearly broke US Amercia (cost 1 Trillion in 80's monies) and "caused" G HW Bush to renege on his "no new taxes" idiot's pledge and the Clinton cuts to the military aka the Cold War "dividend" that caused many a wingnut to soil their dainties.

    It's like they don't fucking understand that tax cuts = less money for gubbiment to pay for shit including their precious wecious wars.

    Fucking idiots.

  31. smitallica

    Umm, sweetie? In 1916, airplanes were made of balsa wood and canvas and cost $2.95 a pop. Nowadays they run closer to $350,000,000 EACH. So it kinda makes sense that we should buy fewer of them, k?

    P.S. You cunt.

    1. James Michael Curley

      DOA Deputy Secretary Augustine, under Jimmy Carter, postulated several laws. One said that the amount of DOD budgets go up lineally but the unit cost of each new aircraft goes up exponentially. Thus he predicted that in 2050 (or thereabouts) the entire military budget would be spent on one aircraft. The Air Force and the Navy would have to share it each for 3 1/2 days per week. Except for leap year when the Marines could use it on February 29.

    2. Willardbot9000_V2.5

      Not to mention our current defense strategy is different than 1916 or…the Reagan years (sort of like the Wonder Years if they starred a bigoted old B-Movie actor with alzheimers). In 1916 uh, WWI was going on…and airplanes were brand new technology so we were adding a first of its kind air force. As for the Navy…Mackenzie, I know you wingnuts hate to hear this, but the Cold War is over and our priorities have changed from big cumbersome weapons to smaller, more efficient and lethal systems. It's like complaining that Bamz hasn't built any battleships because those were once popular when um…no one uses battleships anymore because they have been obsolete since WWI really. Keep fucking that chicken AEI and hope everyone who reads your bullshit is as ignorant as you are…

  32. kittensdontlie

    Someday soon our new guvamint will turn us into Rmoney drones and then problem solved!!

  33. cheetojeebus

    That whole "Read More" thing is a dirty trick. It's like the ol' "hey sniff this" ploy. Reading more about this fucking idiot has led to me being a little more angry, stabby and mean. You Happy?

  34. pdiddycornchips

    How can we as a nation continue to starve our military, our defense contractors and bankers of the trillions in taxpayer dollars they need? You poors are just going to have do without. Besides, you deadbeats have TV's and indoor plumbing which proves you're not really poor, just lazy. Why don't you get a loan from your parents and start a business? Preferably building munitions for the war machine. Yes, millions of poor babies will go hungry but remember, Freedom isn't free.

    1. schvitzatura

      I'm working with my Peruvian connections to gain access to high-grade copper ore, to manufacture shaped charge liners and wave guides for munitions, at a considerably reduced cost. Can this twunt help my business out?

  35. actor212

    Um, y'know, MacKenzie, the whole military budget crisis comes about because of a bill your lovely little party passed in Congress last year. Maybe you heard about it, an extension of the debt ceiling pending a bipartisan compromise on budget cuts that would take into account extension of the Bush tax cuts coupled with spending cuts domestically.

    And if that committee failed, the military cuts were made automatically.

    Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but "bipartisan" means no one gets to point fingers when it fails, and "compromise" means both sides have to give a little.

    If I recall correctly, one party stayed at the table to try to negotiate. And PS, it's the party that the President belongs to….

    The other party? Sat down for about an hour, told a couple of blue jokes, and then started to leave one by one.

  36. 1stNewtontheMoon

    Can't we just use the poors as ammunition and/or shields? you know, cut out the middleman and solve two problems?

  37. Wadisay

    I wonder how many pole dancers in Tampa are going to change their names to "Mackenzie Eaglet" for the GOP convention.

  38. CrunchyKnee

    Isn't Mackenzie something you name your prize Boston terrier bitch you bought in the Hamptons last season?

  39. qwerty42

    …Then there’s the Navy, which is the smallest it has been since 1916. …
    So we really need a 1918 navy. Oh wait. Naval doctrine has changed since then? I'm sure that if an AEI hack says we need a larger navy, then we need a larger navy! Who plans this stuff: the JCS or the AEI?

  40. CHUDster_Arthur

    In sum: Military spending should never be cut. When there is evidence of financial malfeasance in the military it is proof of the flaws of government, not of the military. As such, it should in no way be used as an argument to reduce spending.

    1. 1stNewtontheMoon

      can't we reanimate eisenhower? i might like Ike (especially if he'd nominate us another william brennan or earl warren). at least he'd start firing generals and breaking contracts with profiteers. hell, he'd nationalize the military. (imagine that.)

  41. SayItWithWookies

    If you saw the very well-done PBS miniseries "Carrier," about life on an aircraft carrier, you'd know that nobody on that particular ship on its deployment dropped a bomb in anger over Iraq — and in fact, that had been the case for all naval carriers since the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco — they were on patrol, they were showing the flag, and they weren't needed for anything else. While we were at war.

    1. Mahousu

      They were just making sure the Japanese didn't invade the Philippines while our backs were turned. And in that, you will have to admit, they were fully successful.

      Also , I don't think we had any merchant vessels sunk by German U-boats either. Win-win.

      1. TribecaMike

        Cisco Houston was on three Merchant Marines vessels sunk by the Germans during WWII. Nazi's really hate folk singers.

  42. MacRaith

    I read somewhere on the internet that Mackenzie Eaglen's brain is an unpiloted drone. And nobody's denying it, so it must be true.

  43. MLite

    And we don't even have one battleship! How will we fight the aliens and the Soviet Union at the same time?

    1. Dudleydidwrong

      I understand that those mothballs wash right off. But then you have to worry about moths.

  44. Mahousu

    If I'm reading this right, Mackenzie is supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as government make-work projects. In that case, I have good news for her: spending that same money domestically can create more than twice as many jobs! Or, if she prefers, spend half that amount and still have the same net number of jobs.

  45. chicken_thief

    "…having pledged repeatedly to slice defense, he [Obama] has done so arbitrarily and without an overarching strategy…"

    Obama didn't include all the cuts proposed by Gates in his budget proposal.

    If I know that, how could she not? Maybe Mackenzie is jes' PMS-ing or something?

  46. James Michael Curley

    Somebody remind this bimbo there was no Air Force in 1916. It was the U.S Army 1st. Aero Squadron. They had 8 Curtiss JN1s (a Curtis bi[lane) and all eight were sent to Mexico to assist the US Marines in the attack against Pancho Villa.

    This year the Air force has allready received appropriations for 30 F-35 Lightening II's and will buy another 25 next year.

  47. arduinohacker

    Uh, sweetie, in 1916 a plane cost less than a ten-thousandth of a F-22, were made out of spruce and linen, and had an average time to crash of about 48 hours. Kinda hard to compare to today?

    Likewise the US Navy in 1922 had lots of battleships and coal barges, plus the Limeys had a huge navy protecting the world's waters, and we were best buds. Nothing like the situation and mix in play today. Invalid compare much?

  48. dcjdjay

    I never trust people with first names like Mackenzie. They belong on reality TeeVee, not on reality life.

  49. Serolf_Divad

    Shocking, though it may seem, the U.S. Army Air Force is requesting fewer state of the art Sopwith Camels today than it did in 1918.

  50. Slim_Pickins

    Since th US Air Force didn't exist until 1947, I'm guessing there were many years between 1916 and 1948 where the USAF didn't purchase many planes.

  51. Nostrildamus

    The Navy is the “smallest since 1916″ BY WHAT MEASURE?

    I'm going with rum. With DADT repeal, there's been a recent uptick in sodomy.

  52. poorgradstudent

    Never mind that even when put together US domestic spending is still a creek compared to the ocean that is US military spending. But let's not bring NUMBERS or EASILY DEMONSTRABLE FACTS into this!

    Christ, it's like watching a 20-year old justify cutting his $30 food budget for the sake of the $400 video games and movies budget.

  53. gurukalehuru

    Of the roughly $400 billion the military spends on goods, services, information technology and commodities each year, more than half goes to services.

    Hookers in Cartagena, mostly.

  54. Naked_Bunny

    It's funny how news bloggers are looked down upon compared to newspaper columnists as unreliable, even though bloggers routinely include lots of links to their references while columnists just make bare assertions because, I dunno, footnotes are for elitists.

  55. DahBoner

    I call Bullshit:

    2010: $680B

    2011: $1.049T

    Looks like a BIG increase to me, Ms. Republican Liar…

  56. BZ1

    The U.S. spends more on defense than 40 countries combined expenditure on defense and has bases in over 120 countries. It also spends a meager amount on food stamps; end of story.

  57. soojank

    You know, I really love all this sequestration stuff because it reminds us who the real oppressed victims are in this society: Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gruman.

  58. a_pink_poodle

    AEI hack in 2100;

    "Did you know the US Space Navy bought less star cruisers this year than they did in 2012??"

    Okay granted airplanes were around since at least 1903 but three points 1) the US Air Force wasn't even an organization until after WW2 and 2) Airplanes were really in their infancy in 1916 and the tactics to properly utilize the new platform were just barely being developed and 3) they were initially dismissed as toys by the military establishment, unable to see beyond the old tactics of the 19th century.

  59. Willardbot9000_V2.5

    Okay…I'll just go ahead and dive right in…first off, shock to anyone who reads this comment: Mackenzie is lying. It is estimated (by the CBO and GAO) that 33% of the defense budget goes to waste: cost overruns, redundant systems and constant overcharging being among the many causes of this. If we trimmed JUST the money that is WASTED we could not just shore up the welfare program, we could provide funding for a variety of programs that would ACTUALLY get people back to work (like free college funding to state schools, etc.). In effect 1/3rd of the defense budget is little more than free cheddar for the defense industry and now you know why they and their mouthpieces at AEI are whining. Kris is right, there is no basis to compare the two programs because they are aspirated for and budgeted entirely differently….but wingnuts are VERY, VERY good at using false equivolencies for dog whistle racism. Tell you what, Mackenzie why don't we compare welfare to an actual equivolent like….I dunno, oil subsidies. Since you like those, go ahead and argue why shoveling money into the oil companies maws just 'cuz is better than making sure poor families do not starve to death. I will love to see you try…and I know you wingnuts have the cajones to go for it….

  60. Chow Yun Flat

    The military cannot be immune from reform, but it should at least be immune from attack

    That is asking a lot–that the military not be attacked. That is why they have body armor, APCs and other stuff to protect them.

  61. TribecaMike

    So what would she do about all the military families who receive food stamps?

    (That question oughta make her SNAP.)

  62. Willardbot9000_V2.5

    This is why the WSJ 'opinion' section exists because no other publication would print this sort of lazy, half assed argument. Okay, maybe the NYT would with its lust to have at least one stupid conservative and faux would because it's not Mitt Romney's tax returns but still. Using 1916 and 1985 as a basis for argument are BS, first during 1916 WWI was very much going on and there was no previous air force so we kind of…needed new planes. During 1985 the Cold War was on and we needed a conventional military (didn't really NEED one, but that was the rationale) in 2012 there is an entirely new impetus. Nowadays the important strategic initiative is on precision (not really, but again rationale) so having a bunch of giant ass ships built and a bunch of new planes would just be waste which at the end of the day is fine with wingnuts so long as their favorite companies turn a profit (and poor white, black and brown people suffer)…that's just a completely stupid column.

  63. worrierqueen

    "We have to look all the way back to 1916 to find a year when the Air Force purchased fewer aircraft than are included in Mr. Obama’s 2013 budget request"

    Double all Sopwith Camel purchases and throw food stamps out the back as USAF pilots are looping the loop.

    WIN! WIN!

  64. Dr_pangloss

    I've got "Facts" I just pulled out of my ass right now. Our military has not been this demoralized since the Battle of Agincort! Why is the Keyan Socialist Communist Muslin Usperper cutting our Trebucet Budget! We're loosing more contractor jobs all the time! We need Maor Wars to reduce the deficit!

Comments are closed.