Obama Happy to Cut Broad Range of Services to Preserve Pentagon Pork

[Karmadillo]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/obama-happy-to-cut-broad-range-of-services-to-preserve-pentagon-pork.html

In another manifestation of Obama’s continuing move to the right, his latest stunt has been to out-Republican the Republicans as a defender of the Pentagon. The GOP, which is out to cut $100 billion more from Obama’s version, has targeted the Department of Defense for $15 billion from an initial request of over $500 billion. From a statement released by the Administration:

The bill proposes cuts that would sharply undermine core government functions and investments key to economic growth and job creation and would reduce funding for the Department of Defense to a level that would leave the department without the resources and flexibility needed to meet vital military requirements….If the president is presented with a bill that undermines critical priorities or national security through funding levels or restrictions, contains earmarks or curtails the drivers of long-term economic growth and job creation while continuing to burden future generations with deficits, the president will veto the bill.

Contrast this stand-fast position on the military budget with Obama’s willingness to throw pretty much anyone else under the bus. John Walker provided a pithy illustration of the guns v. everything else tradeoff in a mock letter to low income Americans. Key section:

So, despite your problems, you are going to be “asked” to sacrifice. Your president is planning to cut $2.6 billion from Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps people afford keeping their homes warm during the winter, despite the fact that due to the economic downturn the number of poor people needing help has increased significantly.

more...

[upi402]

1. Say it aint so!

Shocked, shocked I tell ya!

[ClassWarrior]

2. K&R for peace.

NGU.

[dennis4868]

3. Your president is planning to cut $2.6 billion from Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEA

BULLSHIT!

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/02/the-obama-budget-truth-or-dare/

The Obama budget “goes after students, minorities, and the poor”

While the Pell Grant cut provided for some tough early headlines for the White House, more sober assessments are proving the proposal to be less horrible than advertised. The Pell proposal would leave in place the full $5,500 a year cap for students (Republicans would prefer to slash that amount) while eliminating the second available grant students could get in the same year for summer courses. The summer Pell grant happens to be the one most often used by students at for-profit schools (ie the University of Phoenix.) The administration admits that their Pell proposal would mostly impact the for profit schools, which many people have criticized for taking students for a ride on the federal dime. Currently, the for-profit school industry is engaged in a knock-down, drag-out lobbying push to preserve a number of subsidies the Obama administration is looking to cut loose.

The chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus ripped into the budget on Monday, which may be why the White House planned an eleventh our conference call specifically for black press and community leaders (the mayor of Tallahassee and the editor of the Miami Times were both on the call, along with several chamber of commerce types, and your humble blogger.) The main source of CBC anger centers around proposed reductions in Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs), which help fund low income housing-related programs. CDBGs were also the concern of most of the people on the call, which is probably why before the call, the administration released a list of programs and directives designed to boost MBEs, including a significant boost in aid to Historically Black Colleges and in Small Business Administration funding for programs targeting minorities. And as the WaPo points out, the trade-off in the block grant decreases is a significant boost in funding for programs that help the homeless and those in need of rent assistance. Interestingly enough, there was almost no push-back on the call when the two administration spokespeople, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, and Dr. Cecilia Rouse, a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, explained the CDBG trade-offs.

By far, the biggest contretemps over the budget from liberals have been the Obama administration’s proposed cuts to the state-administered program LIHEAP, which provides energy assistance to the poor.

That cut is drawing the attention of liberal Obama-watchers, who see it as a sign of further capitulation to the right, or even of abject cruelty on the part of the president. And news of the proposed cut created bipartisan agita on Capitol Hill, with Republican lawmakers from West Virginia to Massachusetts condemning the cuts along with the liberal blogosphere.

And while the optics of this particular cut aren’t good, here again, the story isn’t necessarily as bad as the headline.

On the White House Af-Am call, I asked about LIHEAP, and was told it was one of the “difficult” but necessary cost savings the president was proposing. On the call, Rouse explained that LIHEAP had seen its funding essentially doubled in the president’s first two years due to spiking energy prices. Now that prices have leveled out, the White House has decided to return funding to pre-spike levels. However, Rouse said “rest assured, if energy prices spike again, the White House is prepared to bring funding levels back up.” In a follow-up email after the call, a White House spokesman explained that LIHEAP is in fact a block grant, meaning money transfered to the states and administered by them. And because the money is paid directly to utilities, not customers, with energy prices down but the funding still at spike levels, it has essentially served as a federal subsidy to those energy companies.

That message was reinforced by DNC chief Tim Kaine yesterday, when he pointed out to the Huffpo:

“What is being cut are the LIHEAP funds which are transferre d to weatheriza tion programs, which have already been funded by the stimulus. Without these cuts, taxpayers would essentiall y be paying for the same weatheriza tion programs twice.

President Obama is keeping his promise to cut tax loopholes and subsidies, in this case, subsidies for energy companies. As the National Journal article points out, critics say that the program is poorly administer ed and that, contrary to intentions , it’s become a subsidy for energy companies.”

By the way, those who are painting the budget as draconian should remember that Obama’s 2012 budget is actually larger overall than the one he submitted a year ago — one that was praised by liberals at the time for its progressiveness. And not for nothing, but the budget does raise taxes and cut oil and gas subsidies, no small things.

The second knock on the budget that strikes me as less than accurate?

[MadHound]

5. The thing about LIHEAP budget being doubled,

Yes, that is true. What isn't true is that prices for various forms of heat haven't gone down. Propane is at a record high, heating oil has gone up, and in many places electricity and natural gas have also risen.

Add on top of that the fact that this year LIHEAP is serving a record number of people, for the third straight year.

Let's also not forget that for every billion knocked off of LIHEAP, one million people will be completely without those funds. So roughly speaking, next winter we will see 2.5 million poor and elderly people without energy assistance. Can you live with that? I certainly can't, especially in light of the tax cuts Obama gave to the rich, and the fact that we lose more billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq every year than is in this proposed cut. Take that 2.5 billion out of the military budget, they wouldn't even notice it.

[dennis4868]

7. I think I will take Obama's word over yours...thank you.

Plus, you obviously misread the article regarding LIHEAP....

[MadHound]

12. You know, that's the problem

People want to believe their own version of the news. They don't want to hear those things that will upset their little bubble. This is very prevalent among conservatives and Republicans, that's why Faux news is doing so well. Sad to see this same sort of self limited thinking now coming to members of the Democratic party.

Don't like what I'm saying, go do your own research then. Find out for yourself. Just don't dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't meet with your preconceived notions or meets with your approval. If you're doing that, then you're no better than your average RW Faux viewer.

[dennis4868]

19. "People want to believe their own version of the news"

And that is why this 24/7 irrational hatred for Obama is downright crazy....I agree with you there :-)

[chimpymustgo]

14. Shit. I'll take almost anybody's word over Obama's.

[Fokker Trip]

10. Nice post Madhound.. well said.

[oldlib]

18. Unfortunately our President

is adopting policies of the right wing republicans. The Senate, controlled by the Democratic party, has to assert itself and remove the budget cuts to the poor. They should also remove the tax cuts for the rich and look closely at military spending.

[dennis4868]

4. Obama Seeks Major Cuts in Defense Budget,

Obama's budget as it relates to defense...

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Obama-Seeks-Major-Cuts-in-the-Defense-Budget-Still-the-Worlds-Largest-116187799.html

[MadHound]

15. You're calling a one percent cut "major"?

Obama's plan calls for 78 billion dollars cut from the defense budget over the next five years, a bit over 15 billion dollars a year. The total military budget(and remember, the budget for the Defense Dept. isn't the entirety of the military budget) is approximately 1.5 trillion every year, generally over half the entire budget.

So that works out to an annual trimming of one percent of the military budget each year.

Hell, that's less money than what the military loses in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
<http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/2010/10/billions-in-us-aid-dollars-unaccounted-for-lost-in-bureaucratic-labyrinth-audit.html>
<http://www.eurocriticsmagazine.com/politics/23-billion-dollars-lost-in-iraq>

I think that the military can afford it. After all, it's not like we're talking about LIHEAP, which is losing half their budget.

[Kaleva]

20. You can only reach a 1.5 trillion amount...

if you include the following as part of the total military budget:

Department of State

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Homeland Security

Veterans pensions

50% of the budget for NASA

FBI counter-terrorism which is 1/3 of the total budget for the FBI

It is possible to balance the budget and even maybe generate a surplus by doing the following:

Eliminate the Bush tax cuts in its entirety.

Eliminate the cap on the Social Security payroll tax.

Triple the payroll withholding Medicare tax.

Increase the tax on gasoline by .75 cents a gallon.

An estimated $40 billion to $100 billion in new revenue if marijuana were to be legalized and taxed.


There are several other things that have to be done too which are either cuts in programs or increases in other taxes but the above I listed are the major ones.

[Bluebear]

6. Thank you

[jeff47]

8. Two things to keep in mind about defense spending

1) It's about the only stimulus spending that can get through Congress.
2) Almost none of it can be outsourced, since much of it requires a security clearance.

[JoseGaspar]

9. He is also supporting union busting in Wisconsin...

Everyone must sacrifice, especially people who contribute very little to political campaigns.

But, hey... let's look on the bright side. If it makes him popular, it is good, no? That way, he can get reelected and do the REALLY important things like high-speed rail... or something.

And we can parse his words... he is FOR those people whose assistance he is cutting. He is FOR unions. Really... You can see it in his eyes. He is so sincere and smart. He is making hard choices...

Those people who need heat and those people in Wisconsin should volunteer to help this really important and noble cause, rather than whine about themselves.

Ask not what your president can do for you; ask what more you can do for your president.

[katnapped]

17. Yeah, seriously...

"Well I know you people don't have heat or food and are struggling but I'm trying to be reelected. Somebody has to be the ADULT in the room!"

[Lord Magus]

21. No, he's not.

Let's leave the making crap up to the Freepers.

[Kaleva]

11. unreced

From the article:

"That is exactly why in 1963 the theater commander, General Westmoreland, reviewing the remarkable firefight successes of units combat testing a remarkably light and reliable new automatic rifle, the commercially-produced AR-15, immediately demanded that the AR-15 replace the M-14 throughout Vietnam"

Army General Paul Harkins in 1963 made the a request for 20,000 of the rifles. It was Secretary of Defense McNamara who forced the Army in 1963 to order 85,000 of the rifles for use in Vietnam. But in a compromise, the Army would continue to equip its troops outside of Vietnam with the M-14 with ammo that used ball powder. (Westmoreland didn't arrive in Vietnam until June 1964)

Besides the ball powder, there were other problems with the early M-16:

"US Army replaced originally specified Dupont IMR powder with standard ball powder, used in 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition. The ball powder produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the actions of the M16 unless the gun was cleared well and often. It also had different pressure curve, resulting in increased stress on operating parts of the gun. This pitifully combined with the fact that the initial M16 rifles were promoted by the Colt as "low maintenance", so, for the sake of economy, no cleaning supplies were procured for new M16 rifles, and no weapon care training was conducted fro the troops. As a result, soldiers did not knew how to clean their rifles, and had no provisions for cleaning, and things soon turned bad. Another cost-saving measure on the part of the Army was to give up with cromium plation of the barrel bore and bolt group, which made these parts much more sensitive to corrosion and rust that originally designed."

http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/m16-m16a1-m16a2-m16a3-e.html

From the linked article:

"Other examples of crucially important, cheap and therefore neglected systems spring quickly to mind. Acquiring a better five ton truck has far more impact than C-5 or C-17 airlifters on the mobility and sustenance of our troops in battle but doesn’t receive one-hundredth as much congressional or public attention."

It is those C-5 and C-17 transports that get the trucks to the theater in the first place. Transporting equipment by sea to landlocked Afghanistan would be a problem.


From the article:

"Victory at sea is equally unrelated to weapons cost. By the end of 1914, 28 diminutive German submarines, each one-fortieth the cost of a battleship, had wrested control of the seas from the 47 mighty battleships, 195 cruisers and 200 destroyers of the Royal Navy."

Really? Imperial Germany didn't begin unrestricted submarine warfare until 1915 as submarine tactics up to that time had largely proven to be ineffective. As for "wresting control of the seas" from the RN, the Imperial German High Seas Fleet was largely confined to the safety of port for almost all of the war because the RN retained control of the seas.


From the article:

"Recently, in the Indian Ocean, the U.S. Navy’s utter lack of coastal patrol and fast attack boats left our merchant ships mostly unprotected against pirates in rubber skiffs. As a result, we witnessed the ludicrous scene of using a $1 billion destroyer to subdue four rifle-armed pirates in a 25-foot inflatable…"

The Obama Administration has asked for funding and Congress has approved the construction of a number of multi-mission Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

From the article:

"The most recent fighter built in pursuit of the BVR combat delusion, the F-22, has a $355 million sticker price and costs $47,000 per hour to fly, making it impossible to fly the hours necessary to train pilots adequately (people first!) and impossible to buy enough fighters to influence any seriously contested air war."

The Obama Administration has convinced Congress not to fund the acquisition of any more F-22s. Congress initially wanted the production line kept open even though DOD didn't want any more of the aircraft then they had asked for.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[piratefish08]

16. but he cares. deeply. and isn't that all we should really ask?

:sarcasm: