Friday, June 3, 2011

Obama and Admiral Mullen to Find Cuts in Spending Via Military Pay

I read an article at today that has absolutely infuriated me.  It seems that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officer in the military, Admiral Mike Mullen  was quoted as saying yesterday that members of the armed forces will very likely see cuts in pay and benefits over the next twelve years as the military tries to come up with $400 billion in cuts to meet President Obama’s proposed budget spending cuts that are expected to largely come from the Department of Defense.

Admiral Mullen told reporters yesterday that expenses must be trimmed and that, “"Two of the big places the money is, is in pay and benefits, and so when I say all things are on the table, all things are on the table.”

Despite the fact that our Commander in Chief seemingly has at best an apathetic attitude towards our military, and at worst an outright disdain for them, I would hope that he would see the necessity of providing for and taking care of those heroic folks that have sacrificed so much in their lives by volunteering to serve and protect our nation in the military.  It is not like such men and women are getting rich from their government paychecks they receive for military service.  Further, these folks are sometimes put in harm’s way or support those good folks that are.  They damned well earn every cent they receive and every few benefit they are afforded.  They have truly earned these already pitifully inadequate paychecks and benefits.

Our President wouldn’t dream of making cuts to the welfare rolls and social safety net, despite the fraud and abuse that is rampant throughout the system there.  No, these folks are all reliable Democratic constituents by a large margin.  Never mind that there are many folks not working that could be doing so that receive any variety of tax payer funded benefits.  Cutting out the waste and fraud in this venue is taboo and strictly off the table to President Obama and the Democrats evidently.

On the other hand, since the military has traditionally been far more conservative in its voting predilections, cuts made there won’t come back to haunt President Obama and the Democrats as badly in the long run.  Never mind that we have THREE wars going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya that is severely straining our military as it is.  Far be it to fund one of the few items that the federal government is actually CONSTITUTIONALLY mandated to fund. 

Indeed, I am certain there is some waste and unnecessary things that can be cut in the Department of Defense, but it strikes me as a slap in the face to those very folks protecting us to now tell them that their meager pay and benefits will be cut.  Why don’t we start with cutting all civilian government employees’ pay first?  Why don’t we cut pay and benefits for each and every one in the Executive Branch, including the president, and everyone in the legislative branch?  If one wants to further save money from cuts to the DoD, why don’t we start by stopping the asinine social engineering the left has championed and the millions upon millions of dollars that will have to be spent to accommodate folks in our new gay-friendly military?

The military is there to protect and defend America and its freedoms and to ensure that its interests that make those freedoms possible in the world are never put in jeopardy.  It is an insult of the highest caliber to deny those sacrificing to do so with even less than what they already are given in exchange for a honorable life of service.  President Obama and Admiral Mullen should be ashamed of themselves accordingly!


S.W. Anderson said...

FYI, Obama has already gone along with cuts to the social safety net. Furthermore, the article quotes Mullen as saying he doesn't know where the White House comes down on making DoD cuts, so you're rush to condemn Obama for decisions not yet made is uncalled for.

I suspect Mullen's references to cuts in pay and benefits means reductions in increases, not actual cuts. The two aren't the same thing. Time will tell.

BTW, reductions in increases or actual cuts to military pay and benefits would probably not be necessary had George W. Bush and his administration not chosen to wage the Afghanistan and Iraq wars on credit from foreign countries, instead of increasing taxes or imposing a 10 percent war tax surcharge, as President Johnson did during the Vietnam War.

John Myste said...

You make a lot of sense, Mr. Paine. Obama has gone too far this time! He had the choice of taking food and medicine from the elderly and the homeless or considering limitations on military earnings, which is to say, government jobs, and he sided with the sick and helpless. He is an asshole! Has he already forgotten that he can just cancel the Elderly’s healthcare to solve the budgetary crunch initiated by the Bush administration? I am with you on this one, Mr. Paine. If we have to cut funds, make sure we cut them from the most helpless among us. The military is strong and powerful and capable. We definitely want to give as much to them as possible. After all, they risk their lives for us, for you and for me. To those who say it is a government job and the employees are there because they accepted employment there, I say, idiots! Military employees are made of utter virtue; they are the princes among us, renowned for their abnormal knightly integrity, famed for their honor. There is no motivation for joining the military, but to save the lives of most Americans, so the Republican Party can slowly starve them to death afterwards.

Trash men are altruistic like that. They haul trash so I will not have to wade in refuse in my home. They are very generous, those trash men. We should make sure they are paid well before the elderly are allowed to survive. Mechanics are very giving. They selflessly repair my cars for a nominal fee, lest I have to walk. My hair stylist is utterly generous. She cuts hairs, hundreds of thousands of them per day, so I will remain well groomed. We mustn’t deprive the hair stylists of their grand piece of the pie, even if our mandate survives at the expense of the elderly.

There are lots of other volunteers that come before the helpless, the poor, and the sick. These volunteers must be paid. Since we can see generosity oozing out of them like a dying pimple, they have earned the right to have their wages protected at all costs, up to and including grandma’s life. My mother is in her mid seventies, destitute and very unhealthy. I think she needs to give a little more in order to contribute to the standard of living of these other fellows. My mother does not fight for me, haul my trash, cut my hair, or repair my car. She is just helpless.

Obama is trying not to allow anyone to starve or to die from untreated maladies that we have the technology to address. I am sure you are right, though. He would like them to die and go hungry, but he cannot allow it for political reasons. The Republican Party’s constituents don’t seem to suffer political backlash by demonstrating little concern when they see people go hungry and succumb to treatable illnesses, and so they can be more honest about how little the suffering of the helpless troubles them. The same is not true for Obama, though. Like all liberals, he has to lie, to pretend his priorities are civilized. Obama pisses me off.

S.W. Anderson said...

Wow, Myste, that was amazing. A tip[ of my metaphorical cap to you. ;)

T. Paine said...

Anderson, I understand the politician's cynical and deceitful tool of base-line budgeting where a decrease in the rise of benefits is counted as a "cut" in spending.

When Mullen says that he doesn't want to necessarily take hardware or programs off line and instead wants to consider cuts in pay and benefits, I think these are actual cuts he is considering and not accounting gimmicks.

JMyste, you misrepresented what I said, although your satirical diatribe was amusing. NOWHERE did I say to get rid of the social safety net and screw the sick and elderly. I said that the rampant fraud, abuse, and gaming of the system needs to be eradicated as much as possible in order to substantially save tax payer dollars.

I understand that there is a need for a safety net for those that are truly incapable of working and providing for themselves. I have never had a beef with that.

Nice try, the both of you, though!

John Myste said...

Thank you, Mr. Paine. Trying is the best I can do, and when I try, whether I actually succeed or not, is irrelevant. Either way, I move on, as my job is done.

Anonymous said...

"Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen warned against taking the "relatively easy" choice of cutting hardware while maintaining the increasing costs of paying and providing ongoing health care to troops and retirees".

Spelled another way; Equipment takes priority over personnel.

Pay cuts and screwing the military used to come AFTER we finished the war; now it looks like with an out of control deficit, everybody is scrambling to throw somebody else to the budget cut lion to prevent being eaten themselves. Since we in the military are kinda busy fighting three wars at the moment, we're the easy target it seems.

How nice that the knife in the back comes from the most senior military man who is showing himself to be more politician than service member.

Fortunately they have a rotten economy to help keep retention up; that's a sad way to treat your employees though; disgraceful actually.

T. Paine said...

Albert, thanks for stopping by and for commenting.

I find myself in absolute agreement with your excellent observations, sir. It is indeed disgraceful. While I am not suprised by such ungrateful behavior from our Commander in Chief and his Democratic minions, I had hoped that Admiral Mullen would at least have a spine and explain the repercussions to Obama for this horrible decision, should it come to pass.

Thank you so very much for your service for us, Albert. I, and indeed most Americans still do appreciate and honor you and what you do for us!

free0352 said...

I say lets start with the 400 plus generals and admirals that don't actually command anything.

But yeah, I can get my ass blown off for 25k a year and pay copays for my war wounds. Yeah, that's fair. Sometimes I wish we'd draft a bunch of college liberals and make them go fight this shit for a pittance and see how long we cry for the welfare queens who don't put their lives on the line for their welfare check and instead sit arround, do drugs, leech money, and churn out crack baby after crack baby.

Liberty said...

Well we can easily tell the liberals. They always start out with things like. If Bush wouldn't....Well Bush did or didn't, or lets get real This is all Bush's fault! HOGWASH. When, if ever, will the mess we are in now be attributed to Obama and a all Democratic Congress and House? I guess the Libs don't realize the Democrats have been in control since 2007, house and senate and total control since 2009. Oh but its Bush's fault that we still have over 50,000 troops in Iraq. Yes another Obama promise kept. We will be out of Iraq by Summer 2009,if I'm elected (then just take a few troops out, say we won and hey the wars over). Don't forget It's also Bush's fault that we are still in Afghanistan. Another Obama promise kept that we would be out by 2009. Lets not forget that damn Bush getting us into another war in Libya. It has to be BUSH he must have started it while fishing in the Gulf of Mexico! Can't be Obama he NEVER does any wrong! That's right no democrat has ever done one thing wrong since 1790. They are the perfect party. Why I'm amazed any atheists are in the Democratic party because to democrats the party IS God. Oh yes Obama has the poor, the pathetic, the down and out in mind! Boy do I have a bridge to sell you. I've been unemployed for 3 years now. I lost my house, my job, MY HEALTH INSURANCE, thanks Obamacare. My Sister is a walking 60 year old mess. Hasn't held a job for years, living on handouts. She voted for Obama and where is her money (part of that $4 trillion) my mom is supporting her on her $24k a year. But under Obama mom makes too much to get anything and my sister is single so she gets $90 if food stamps and $100 in state help. Where is my money. I got 36 weeks of unemployment. When we were under Bush I had a job and my sister WAS being taken care of by the government, but last year the government (Obama, democratic house and senate) cut her down to $100. Oh but my nephew is 30 years old, not worked a day in his life, dropped out of school at 15, but he married a drug addict, had a crack baby and they collect about $30,000 a year in benefits (HUD housing, free medical, food stamps, free babysitting, and to top it off they collect about $2000 a year by filing a tax return and paying no taxes to get the $2000 EIC. His wife gets another $600 a month because she is considered disabled due to her drug habit. Oh and my nephew and his wife go out about 3 times a week and stand on a corner to collect about $500 a week tax free. Holding a sign "Work for Food" and his wife's sign says "Out of work 3 kids" So that gives them an equivalent total of $58,000 a year tax free to spend on their drug habit. I could go on but there have been books written on this, so Libs do something surprising like READ!!! But then: I LOVE OBAMA and the LIBERALS cause they can't be wrong!!!!!

T. Paine said...

Thanks Liberty for stopping by and commenting.

You said it best here, "Why I'm amazed any atheists are in the Democratic party because to democrats the party IS God."

My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family for better times ahead!

John Myste said...


I carefully read the anecdotal evidence you use to prove that those in need are in need because they are slovenly drug-addicted beggars. I "read," per your directive.

Have you considered a course in critical thinking? Focus on the section on fallacy, and primarily on composition fallacy and anecdotal fallacies. When you complete your study, you will be prepared to have an intelligent discussion about this.

No offense intended, sir.