June 28, 2009
Shortchanging national defense
The federal government exists if for no other reason than to provide for the common defense, yet the current budget proposed by Pres. Obama will slash defense spending to levels not seen since before September 11, 2001. Hard though it may be to believe for my pacifist friends, the United States, even under the allegedly bloodthirsty Pres. Bush the Younger, spent less money on defense as a percentage of GDP than did even the Appeaser-in-Chief, otherwise known as Jimmah Carter.
The North Koreans are threatening to launch a nuke towards Hawaii, and the Secretary of Defense announces that we're sending an ocean-going ballistic missile interception system to protect the state. And yet Obama's budget cuts the funding for ballistic missile defense -- which is actually a perfect metaphor for this government, demanding that we get something for nothing, while spending trillions for something we'll never get, like a solvent GM, or better healthcare via socialized medicine.
So, to reiterate, North Korea has gone nuclear and nutty, the Iranians plan on getting the Bomb, no matter how much Obama begs them not to, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez threatens to invade Honduras, and we keep slashing funding for the military.
Well, at least there's money for PBS, NPR and the NEA, to keep us informed and entertained.
Posted by Mike Lief at June 28, 2009 11:11 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
Haven't we gone through this with each Democrat president since Kennedy/Johnson? They cut defense to pay for midnight basketball and Medicare hair transplants; our enemies forcibly express their disinterest in our social programs; and subsequent Republican presidents have to scramble to rebuild the withered military at greater expense than if the misguided cuts had not been made at all. As in many things, history plays no role in The One's defense decision-making.
Posted by: The Little Coach at June 29, 2009 10:07 AM