HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » California Democratic Par...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:28 PM

California Democratic Party calls for a 25% reduction in MIlitary Spending

A 25% Cut for the Pentagon? Key Dems Say Unnecessary Defense Spending Is Crippling the U.S. and Should Be Part of Debt Debate

"The largest Democratic Party organization in the nation has called on Congress to support a 25% cut in Pentagon spending. The California Democratic Party -- which includes more than 2,000 representatives of the state's more than seven million Democrats -- adopted this policy in the past year in the face of threats by Republicans in Congress to refuse to allow the U.S. to increase its credit limit."

" support a strong national defense that includes considerations for all aspects of defense, not just defense provided by the Armed Forces. We recognize that our national security depends primarily upon a strong economy, a stable federal budget, a stable environment and our perception in the world as a responsible member of the world community. ... e recognize that the current level of military and security spending -- over $1 trillion per year -- is ... unsustainable and unnecessary, and is crippling our government's ability to deal with our many serious problems, including unemployment, massive debt and looming catastrophic global warming ..."


"Despite this mandate, the two most powerful Californians in Congress -- Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- have not advocated for what their core constituents have asked that they and the other 38 Democratic members of the California Congressional delegation put on the table: a 25% cut in defense spending."

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/01/11939/25-cut-pentagon-key-dems-say-unnecessary-defense-spending-crippling-us-and-should








This is a Hope Inspiring Op-Ed from "PR Watch" (Jan 14th).
Unfortunately, the internal link in the article is non functional
and a search of the California Democratic Party's site also turned up no corroboration.




29 replies, 1459 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply California Democratic Party calls for a 25% reduction in MIlitary Spending (Original post)
bvar22 Jan 2013 OP
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #1
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #2
bvar22 Jan 2013 #4
Follow The Money Jan 2013 #8
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #20
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #25
Liberal_Dog Jan 2013 #3
think Jan 2013 #5
pscot Jan 2013 #6
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #7
mike_c Jan 2013 #9
Myrina Jan 2013 #12
NoMoreWarNow Jan 2013 #10
blueclown Jan 2013 #11
bvar22 Jan 2013 #19
blueclown Jan 2013 #23
dmallind Jan 2013 #27
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #24
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #13
ElbarDee Jan 2013 #14
SpankMe Jan 2013 #15
Scuba Jan 2013 #16
earcandle Jan 2013 #17
Phlem Jan 2013 #18
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #21
keithmkr59255us Jan 2013 #22
bowens43 Jan 2013 #26
dreamnightwind Jan 2013 #28
williamc1967txlib Jan 2013 #29

Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:31 PM

1. NY & California are really starting to take the reigns & lead on Progressivism.

And I like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:32 PM

2. Here is the correct link to the Cal Dem site...

http://www.cadem.org/resources?id=0073

To protect and defend California and our Constitution, Democrats will:

Rebalance our national security portfolio in the context of a consolidated defense budget to place more emphasis on nonmilitary security tools such as diplomacy and foreign aid;

Reduce the DOD budget by at least 25% - primarily by cutting back on that portion of the DOD budget dedicated to bases in foreign countries, projection of military power overseas and development of weapons of mass destruction, and reallocate the savings to other priorities including assistance to state and local governments to maintain and rehire laid off employees, building out the renewable power grid and rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, investing in technology and manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and deficit reduction;

Reduce the defense development and procurement programs to those items deemed essential for defense against real and not imagined threats to our homeland and national security interests;

Ensure that military spending prioritizes defense of the homeland and not the siting of numerous military bases on foreign soil as a substitute for robust diplomatic engagement;

Increase the security of ports by greatly increasing the inspection routine at all air and seaports and by further limiting points of access and strengthening inspection protocols on all land border crossings;

Integrate anti-terrorist information and actions by rapidly establishing the free exchange of threat information among the anti-terrorist operating agencies;

Increase foreign non-military aid dedicated to improved anti-terrorist police training, investigation, information exchange, and international cooperation;

Reaffirm posse comitatus and forbid the use of American troops on American soil, except in the event of invasion or in an assistance role to the states in the event of a natural disaster, and then only at the request of those states;

Increase federal funding to states and communities for equipping, training and expanding the force of first-responders;

Rebuild and strengthen and reaffirm the primary role of the National Guard as the states' principal means of providing internal security under the command of the various governors; and

Recognize the supremacy of the United States Constitution in all matters, and join our representatives in Congress to reaffirm the civil and personal rights in that document and not trade them off against invasive and intrusive security legislation against imagined or exaggerated threats. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" - the price must not be our constitutional rights.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:39 PM

4. Whoop! There it IS!!!

"Reduce the DOD budget by at least 25% - primarily by cutting back on that portion of the DOD budget dedicated to bases in foreign countries, projection of military power overseas and development of weapons of mass destruction, and reallocate the savings to other priorities including assistance to state and local governments to maintain and rehire laid off employees, building out the renewable power grid and rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, investing in technology and manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and deficit reduction;"

http://www.cadem.org/resources?id=0073


Thank You.

NOW, Nancy Pelosi, Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, and all the other reps from California?
Will you pick up the torch the largest Democratic Party Organization in the nation had handed to you?

DUers, YOU can help too!

Carry the WORD!



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:56 PM

8. yes, to the top of the greatest, then to the corrupt corporate media

 

at least someone is finally bringing up the huge fucking pink elephant in the room

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:20 PM

20. I'm a Califonia voter, and I approve this message.

Thanks, Luminous Animal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:35 PM

25. Beat me to it

I was about to post that this morning when I saw you'd already done it. It may not have gotten a lot of attention, but that platform was adopted last April, so it's not exactly news now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:32 PM

3. K & R

Bravo Cal Dems!! Bravo!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:40 PM

5. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:45 PM

6. The states are the laboratories of democracy

Highly recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:54 PM

7. I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:35 PM

9. "...at least 24%...."

Me, I'd like to see it reduced by 75% or more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:25 PM

12. 75% is a nice number ...

I'd like POTUS to start there & if he has to negotiate down to 50%, I'd be ok with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:21 PM

10. hell yes!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:24 PM

11. I'd like for the California Democratic Party to identify exactly what they'd like to cut.

Let's go line item by line item.

This reminds me of the Paul Ryan budget, where there was an abstract number that the Pukes wanted to cut from the budget but they wouldn't tell us what.

Now, I know the California Democratic Party is much more honest than Paul Ryan, but a 25% cut in military spending across the board would hurt our economy significantly. Likely, it would hurt service members more than it would hurt the MIC and companies like Boeing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:16 PM

19. Justifying the Military and Weapons Industries as Jobs Programs is an obscinity.

I'm ALL in favor of Government Spending during a recession,
but Spending on things that ADD to our CommonWealth,
things like a state of the art Rapid Rail system that could be the envy of The World,
built BY Americans using ONLY products manufactured IN America.

Bombs & Bullets do NOT add to our Commonwealth.
It is money flushed down a black hole toilet.
There is NOTHING to show for the Money or the Sweat.

”Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
---President Dwight Eisenhower




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:27 PM

23. As recently as 2010, there were 1.6 million uniformed military personnel employed by the government.

And this doesn't count the millions who are receiving benefits from the government, or the thousands of contractors who depend on the federal government.

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a large amount of waste in the military budget. What I am saying is that if you take a scalpel to the military budget, people will lose jobs. If you cut military spending 25%, people will lose jobs. How many jobs is up for the CBO and the GAO to tell us, but it will be no small amount.

You also assume bombs and bullets are the only line items in the military budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 05:10 PM

27. Clinton's Defense budget, even in real terms, was well under 75% of current

Unemployment was much lower and nobody invaded then either.

The priorities are there in summary, and I agree with them. Closing bases in countries which face no real threat wouldn't kick the people out of the army etc, but move them back to US bases where they could be supported by US workers and spend in US businesses. Germany will survive without us. We don't even have to kick out military personnel to reduce the size of the military - just be more restrained and selective in recruiting. We're not talking about the bankruptcy of Raytheon or Lockheed if we cut some unnecessary platforms. But the biggest expense is the overuse of the military. We won't have to replace Humvees and Strykers if we're not getting them blown up in failed nation-building. We won't use as much gas if we're not driving up and down the length of Afghanistan. The VA will cost less if we stop our soldiers getting wounded in ME hotspots unless they are absolutely needed to preserve our safety - which I suspect is free from risk from Balochistan peasants. The military of a free nation should be defensive first and protective second. We can send divisions to help UN peacekeepers quite comfortably and do a good job with a 1990s budget, as Kosovans will attest. We're certainly a damn sight more popular, and at less risk by far, there than we are with far greater expenses in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cutting these imperial adventures doesn't just cut bombs and bullets, but the whole support function, much of it outsourced to foreigners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:30 PM

24. I don't know whether our government's expenditures are transparent enough for them to do that.

We are, for example, implicated through some sort of military or quasi-military presence in a number of African countries. Why? What is the extent of our engagement? How much are we spending on it?

The CIA budget, I believe, may be mostly classified. A lot of the troublemaking starts there as far as we can tell from the tiny bit we know. And yet, there is a lot of legitimate information-gathering at the CIA that doesn't stir the already troubled waters around the world.

More transparency might make it easier to discuss the details of cutting our military budget. And we will not improve our government's budget unless we drastically cut the military.

We cannot cut Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or Food Stamps or SSI or health care. Those expenditures keep Americans alive and out of the bankruptcy courts. Every penny "saved" on those programs had to be found somewhere in our economy. It's best to leave those alone.

But we can cut back on our troops overseas and our too big to succeed corporate subsidies, and that is what we should do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:26 PM

13. At least it would be a start in slimming down our most sacred of Sacred Cows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:28 PM

14. Damn right! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:32 PM

15. Yeah!!

I'm a CA Dem...count me in on this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:38 PM

16. K&R Remember, we didn't win the arms race, the Soviets just lost first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:52 PM

17. We don't need to be supporting CIA's private armies and mercenaries. Cut them.

Those are illegal warriors who are not responsible for their actions.
We need to regroup on these kinds of actions caused by CIA secret America and her new kill listed no trial murderous ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:09 PM

18. finally.

and they could go more say 30 to 40%.

Great news!

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:25 PM

21. Why so little?

Ask for 50% at least. Negotiate for more than 25.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:36 PM

26. That would be a good start

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:56 AM

28. Make it so!

K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:03 AM

29. I'd be all for such a cut

 

Honestly, we're spending too little on social services as it is. We need to reduce military spending as much as we can, so that the less fortunate can be taken care of. In fact, I'd say a 50% reduction would be more like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread