He's saying that today about something he said on Thursday, which was: "I think there is a lot of budget smoke and mirrors in the (administration's) Pentagon budget, which is not really a true, honest and accurate budget. When you confront military experts — retired or active — they concede these things to us."
So what was the point, put unclumsily?
"What I was attempting to say is, President Obama put out his budget number for the Pentagon first, $500 billion cut, and then they began the strategy review to conform the budget to meet that number... We think it should have been the other way around."
Posts
34 comments:
I think he said it better the first time.
You don't have to confront military experts to get the smoke and mirrors opinion. The ones who are not constrained legally or politically will volunteer it.
Read the blog Information Dissemination for an example from men and women expert in naval strategy and procurement policy.
MSM--of any political stripe--does not touch this. Too complicated. Not sexy. Not sound biteable.
Missle Defense, he always wanted to cut missile defense, he said it before and now he said it again.
What is so hard about this?
, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
A military that can't fulfill it's mission is not only useless but dangerous. It drains the economy without adding compensating value and worse deludes the leadership in to thinking it has capabilities it doesn't.
Ryan is wright, define the mission first then fund accordingly. As per usual, Obama is wrong about first cutting the budget then determining the mission.
The most important aspect of fundamental change is rendering the United States weak enough to fold when attacked by Hussein's allies, Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela.
I wonder if Iran placed the missiles in Venezuela yet.
I don't think its a bad idea to have government agencies developing plans to use vastly lower amounts of money. The Pentagon has been the most responsive to actual budget cuts in trying to meet mission. As long as the military can meet the mission and satisfy civilians leadership budget constraints, then the system is working.
The civilian side of the house seems more intent on turf protecting and subversion in making sure that the major cuts are those that affect the delivery of the services, in order to piss people off enough that they will demand more money for those services. This is primarily the result of the unions. You cannot serve 2 masters when being employed by Government. IOW, they will sabotage the mission in order to secure more funding . We see this in how schools fund things. The DMV in CA was another classic examples of slowdowns trying to effect public policy, taking up to 6 months to get a drivers licence. They thought voters would demand more money go to the DMV to inprove services. All it did was piss off the citizens, who basically told them to take a hike. They screwed themselves out of alot of jobs, however, because now its automated and online for both licences and registrations. Now you get it in 3 weeks. The ones laid off due to no money have never been rehired.
This is coupled with the autocracy of the administrative layer, mostly non-union, that also has a vested interest in keeping the tax money gravy train rolling.
They'll spend hundreds of millions on adminstrative buildings, hire all manner of useless Diversity strap hangers at 6 figures a pop and then tell schools they need to overcrowd the children into portables because "there's no money".
The military does not have the option of declining or sabotaging the mission. They will salute and carry on. The civilian side of the coin turns to their unions to put the screws to the politicians to get their way.
Until you change the culture of civilian civil service back to one of actual service and not turf holding and political corruption via union influence, cutting their budgets back to sustainable levels is going to be an uphill fight. They think they have a right to that money. We need to show them that they don't.
The whole budget is nothing more than smoke and mirror bullcrap.\\
ALL of it.
We are so screwed.
One tenet of my basic philosophy in business and life is: Don't start something unless you commit to finishing it. It's always better to do nothing than waste a lot of resources on doing nothing.
The generals are lying! Er, I meant the Pentagon budget wasn't prepared like I'd prefer.
He's definitely Republican Veep material though.
garage - suddenly you're in favor of the military industrial complex?
You mean like Joe "plugs" Biden is super VEEP material?
That was a very dangerous faux pas.
Anytime politicians attempt to associate the military with their political party is a danger to the republic. The American people trust their military because it is apolitical. If we ever lose the trust of the people then we risk becoming a banana regime.
It is good that he has apologized and I hope he also publicly apologizes to the heads of the services for impugning their loyalty to the Constitution above any party.
The military budget is a lot of smoke and mirrors. Just talk to anyone actually working on the DoD dime. When it comes to wasting money, the military is up there with the best. You could slash the military budget by 20% and nobody but paper pushers would notice. (Okay, the generals would make sure the right programs got cut so people would scream. Of course, they wouldn't reduce the number of generals.)
I mean come on. We could easily slash 50% of the military budget. $900 toilet seats remember? Also why should any plane cost $2 billion to make?
"I really misspoke"
mittens and Ryan would make a great team! :)
shiloh - at least Republicans admit mistakes. When as your GodZero ever admitted making any mistake?
Not a fan of Ron Paul, but I like that he came out with a "I mispoke and should have said it this way...".
Is he really this honest all the time?
You could slash the military budget by 20% and nobody but paper pushers would notice.
The Congress-critters would. Why do you think the military budget is so bloated?
Its all "cut military spending" until the local base is slated to close down. Having sat through a few of those sessions, I can tell you the long knives come out.
He called the generals liars. If a Democrat had said what he said this place would be blowing up (after orders from Rushbo, of course); instead he is defended and the President is attacked...typical.
"We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice. We don’t think the generals believe that their budget is really the right budget."
Missle Defense, he always wanted to cut missile defense, he said it before and now he said it again.
Whats amazing is that the standard critque of Missile Defense is that it couldn't intercept enough Soviet or Chineese ICBMs to make a difference.
When actually, its the emerging threat of Iranian proxy (Hamas/Hezbollah) missile attacks out of Venezuala.
It would actually be quite useful to counter that threat. Assuming you ever want to visit Los Angeles again.
I think Ryan was right the first time.
The DoD needs to think through priorities just like everyone else.
This is not to impugn the professionalism and sacrifice of our soldiers nor the importance of their mission.
But there is no single holistic mission that demands a great big unitary budget. There are many missions, some competing, and some unnecessary or even counterproductive.
Donald Rumsfeld understood this, even if the Pentagon's apologists don't.
You cannot serve 2 masters when being employed by Government
Only atheists should be allowed in the military?
I think I misspoke yesterday in the tread about Charles Pierce.. or at least I said what I said poorly..
3/31/12 4:51 PM I said..
The I don't write my own blog defence..
Look who's talking.. accusing others of not trying..
Pelosi's "you have to pass it to know whats in it" was way more diligent.
When I said Look who's talking I meant Charles Pierce.. not anyone else.
I should have fixed that yesterday.
In saying there's a lot of flim-flammery in GodZero's defense budget, Ryan merely states the obvious.
There's always plenty in the budget to please Congress.
leslyn said...
Paul Ryan thinks you should put strategy before numbers?
ROFLMAO.
The way leslyn wants to do it is the reason most big cities are underwater.
The MacArthur-FDR budget flap is the most famous
really a true, honest and accurate budget
You mean like the budget full of smoke and mirrors that Ryan himself put together, continuing the false, dishonest, and implicitly inaccurate process of "cutting" spending by X amount over a ten-year or twenty-year period (but with real-dollar increases), where your own plan calls for over $3.5 trillion in spending next year (Obama levels) rather than the FY2008 levels that you promised to stick to, resulting in spending FORTY TRILLION DOLLARS over the next ten years and not balancing the budget until 2040.
"I think there is a lot of budget smoke and mirro..
*Gasps !
\
Blogger Fen said...
You could slash the military budget by 20% and nobody but paper pushers would notice.
The Congress-critters would. Why do you think the military budget is so bloated?
Its all "cut military spending" until the local base is slated to close down. Having sat through a few of those sessions, I can tell you the long knives come out.
-------------------
The first thing that gets cut is operational maintenance funds. POL, parts, ammunition, etc. i.e. everything that is necessary for realistic training. Pilots will be flying less hours, the troops will have fewer live fire exercises. This all happens in the background, under the radar while all eyes are on the fights over the sexy weapons systems.
Well, they can always borrow ammo from Fatherl...I mean, Homeland Security.
A politicians budget is less useful than toilet paper. At least with toilet paper you can clean up little pieces of shit. A politicians budget is made up of little pieces of shit.
@leslyn
Did the dog in your avatar get adopted?
"That was a very dangerous faux pas.
Anytime politicians attempt to associate the military with their political party is a danger to the republic. "
Sorry..how did he associate the military with a political party?
This situation seems similar to someone acting one way on the job around their boss and griping about the work situation off the record.
"For a person in a position of political power to undermine that unity and steadfastness in any way"
What exactly are you referring to?
"The only thing that protects us from our own military is that military itself."
Some would contend the 2nd amendment plays a role here.
So you are contending the insertion of "(administration's)" is not accurate? That it's strictly generals doing the budgeting?
""When you confront military experts —retired or active —they concede these things to us."
I call B.S.! They're not going to "concede" this because they are not doing these things."
So..it's not true because it's not true.
"Ryan's remark had the potential to undermine the reputations and integrity of the military when they're trying to grapple with impending cuts and still protect the nation."
They are too important to criticize.
Hmm...seems like there have been other instances of criticism...some much more relevant to "mission".
Leslyn,
The posts close in proximity. Others can certainly see if I am misconstruing your position. Or you can explain yourself instead of crying foul.
Who in "the services" creates the budgets?
If it's true that military folk are coming to him and informing him "smoke and mirrors" is going on, you blame him for calling it out?
Given the military, at least at a budgetary level, is subject to pressures and pork that any governmental agency has..seems likely there is room for criticism when warranted. Giving the pentagon immunity from budgetary scrutiny is not an honorable exercise. I don't perceive Ryan as reflexively anti-military. If he's bringing it up, I place the higher honor on more scrutiny, not shutting him up.
Post a Comment