Military Spending Cuts are Necessary

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

Millions of Americans have become unified by the message of lower taxes and less government spending over the past few years. Our voices were heard last November when a significant number of deficit hawks were elected to Congress. Many signaled that they were willing to put every item of the budget on the table. Yes, that includes military  spending. As Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has said “national defense is the most important thing we do in Washington, but there’s still waste in the military budget.” Unlike most of what Washington does, defense is a constitutional function of the federal government. But we cannot restore fiscal responsibility without addressing the bloated defense budget.

Just to be clear, FreedomWorks does not take a position on foreign policy. However, we have always railed against wasteful spending in all areas of the federal budget. The Department of Defense (DoD) budget is just as prone to reckless spending as any other government department. Politicians are not angels. It’s foolish to believe that every single dollar in the defense budget is spent in the wisest possible manner. The truth is that the defense budget has been greatly susceptible to earmarks and pet projects.

Only brave leaders are willing to call for cuts in military spending. An unfortunate stigma still exists that those who propose reasonable military cuts must not support the troops. That’s far from the truth. Both parties have shown a willingness to cut the military budget. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Barry Frank (D-Mass.) recently set party differences aside to call for significant reductions in military expenditures. Department of Defense spending has enjoyed protected status that has been isolated from serious scrutiny. We are not calling for military spending cuts that would put the troops in harm way. We are instead calling for sensible cuts such as ending the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program that funds an extra General Electric engine. This simple cut would save taxpayers $485 million dollars. That’s just a small fraction of the defense budget that needs to go.

Powerful special interests benefit from heavy military spending. Rent seeking General Electric is one of the biggest defense contractors in the United States. They heavily lobby for a bloated defense budget that would add to their company’s bottom line at the expense of taxpayers. Last month, the Pentagon cancelled General Electric’s alternate F136 engine. The House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon has been committed to keeping the General Electric engine alive. He has been increasingly hostile towards any military spending cuts. That makes sense since his top campaign contributors include defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing Co. and General Dynamics. General Electric also donated thousands of dollars to his reelection campaign in 2010.

The House is expected to consider H.R. 1540 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 soon. The bill sponsored by Rep. McKeon would provide $690 billion in funding for the Department of Defense. It includes funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The Washington Post reports that “the pressure is for less and less spending, but McKeon makes clear that he would ‘like to see a higher top-line number.’ He concedes that ‘every dollar is precious,’ but is concerned about ‘cutting back to the degree we have in the last few years.” He is “visibly irritated” by the modest military cuts that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has proposed. How much has Washington cut back in military spending? Not enough.

The Pentagon budget for 2010 was $693 billion—more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. That’s nearly half of all military spending on earth. Military spending has doubled over the past decade when adjusted for inflation. Under President Bush, military spending averaged 3.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product. It has increased to 4.9 percent—a full percentage point higher—under President Obama. U.S. military outlays in real terms are higher than at any time in our entire history.  Think about it: we’re spending more than we ever spent during the Cold War, Korean War and Vietnam War.

More Americans are concerned about our national debt which has sparked greater scrutiny of the entire federal budget. We cannot afford to avoid certain parts of the budget. Unfortunately, several GOP presidential candidates have noted that they will not even touch the bloated defense budget. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney recently stated that “I’m not going to cut the defense spending.” Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty joined him by saying “I’m not one who’s going to stand before you and say we need to cut the defense budget.” True fiscal stewards will put wasteful military spending on the cutting board.

The subject of military spending is finally getting more attention like it deserves. We must ask ourselves the question: “how much is too much spending?” A public debate on military spending is needed without any ad hominem attacks. The Washington Post reports that there is an “odd combination of fiscal conservatives and liberals who would like nothing better than to hack away at the Pentagon. McKeon seems determined to make sure that doesn’t happen.” It is impossible to reduce the size and scope of the federal government without tackling the bloated defense budget. We should not have any sacred cows in dealing with our $14.3 trillion national debt.

Time to End IMF

Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.

The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested in the first-class cabin of an Air France jet bound for Paris on Saturday. The French socialist who is nicknamed the “le grand séducteur” or Great Seducer was charged with attempted rape, unlawful imprisonment and a criminal sex act. A New York grand jury formally indicted him yesterday on seven counts related to the alleged sexual assault of a maid in a fancy $3,000-a-night Midtown Manhattan hotel over the weekend. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and Strauss-Kahn does have at least two other women accusing the married socialist of previous sexual misconduct. But what he is clearly guilty of is working to advance the political interests of the power elite at the expense of everyone else as head of the IMF.

The good news is that DSK (as he is known to his supporters) resigned as head of the International Monetary Fund on Wednesday. Unfortunately, we’re still forced to foot the bill for the international bureaucracy. Dominique Strauss-Kahn and other privileged IMF bureaucrats have lived large on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime. U.S. taxpayers subsidize the IMF to the tune of billions of dollars annually. We have the largest stake in the IMF contributing roughly 17.09 percent of its total funding. Despite our payments to the IMF, our elected representatives in Congress have no authority to directly control the actions of the international organization. Unelected bureaucrats at the IMF have the ultimate power to dictate fiscal and monetary policy on a global scale.

As a self-proclaimed socialist, Strauss-Kahn claims to support wealth redistribution. He has said that “gaping income gaps threaten social and economic stability.” Dominique Strauss-Kahn seems to never let anything get in the way of his privileged lifestyle. He earned $420,000 a year in salary plus pension contributions and generous benefits. These job benefits included $75,000 annually to solely pay for his house in Washington, D.C. The European media has dubbed him to be a “champagne socialist” since he’s been known to ride around in lavish Porsches. Dominique Strauss-Kahn has a special arrangement to always fly first class. His IMF contract stated that “your travel on official Fund business…shall be in first class.” Strauss-Kahn was known to jet-set around the world in style while violating our national sovereignty.

How then can the American people trust the IMF with their hard earned money? As Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) stated “these are the kinds of people who are running the IMF and we want to turn the world’s finances and the control of the money supply [over] to them?” The problems with the IMF go far beyond Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s lack of character. The international bureaucracy itself is an immoral and unconstitutional organization. It no longer serves its original purpose under the Bretton Woods system which ended in 1971. Instead of shutting down, it found a new role as an international bailout fund. The IMF regularly puts taxpayers on the hook to bailout powerful banks and profligate foreign nations. According to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, “IMF loans are used to rescue wealthy, politically connected bankers, investors, and financiers at the expense of domestic taxpayers.”

Even worse, the IMF has a long history of fueling third-world dictators. IMF loans and bailouts are government to government transfers. A Joint Economic Committee study says that, “evidence suggests that the IMF knowingly makes loans to corrupt governments while recognizing that some of its loan conditions and procedures can create circumstances promoting additional corruption.” The IMF has given taxpayer funds to the Mubarak regime in Egypt and the Khadafi regime in Libya. It’s clear that these IMF loans have hurt the average citizen in these authoritarian nations.

The recent arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn is just another reminder of the corruption present at the IMF. The alleged behavior of Strauss-Kahn has diverted much needed public attention to the unethical international bureaucracy. Rumors are swirling that the Former Prime Minster of Britain Gordon Brown may seek to fill the vacant position. The IMF will remain a dangerous institution no matter who becomes the new head. With the U.S. federal government facing a record national debt, it’s time to stop sending money to this international bailout fund.

Osama bin Laden Dead: Can We Bring the Troops Home Now?

This post is strictly own opinion. It does not represent the views of any organization.

The day that many have long awaited has finally arrived. Late Sunday evening, President Obama announced that mass-murdering terrorist Osama bin Laden had been killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan.  There’s something disturbing about celebrating the death of a fellow human being even though he was indeed responsible for unspeakable acts. It seems more civilized to be grateful that many relatives of the victims of 9/11 are able to seek closure in the healing process.

As philosopher George Santayana stated “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” One cannot fully understand the motives behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks without understanding the nature of the enemy. The United States government has a long messy history with Osama bin Laden. During the Soviet War in Afghanistan which began in 1979, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) supplied the Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviets with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of modern weapons and funds. The head of the Afghan mujahideen was a radical by the name of Osama bin Laden. According to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian, Osama bin Laden even received security training from the CIA itself.  The bloody and costly Soviet War in Afghanistan lasted over nine years with Osama bin Laden’s group declaring victory. The bankrupt Soviet War collapsed shortly afterwards.

Osama bin Laden returned to his homeland of Saudi Arabia after the war.  Using the funds supplied by the United States government, he formed his terrorist group Al-Qaeda. In August 1990, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait. The United States intervened by placing U.S. troops on the Saudi Arabia peninsula. Osama bin Laden was outraged that foreign troops were on the same land as the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina. He then turned against the United States government that had previously funded him. Even Former Deputy of Defense Secretary of Paul Wolfowitz stated that “if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina… Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda.”

Government policies generally have unintended consequences. The U.S. government’s foreign policy is no exception to that rule. Foreign policy experts use the word “blowback” to describe the consequences of meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East parallels with the movie Frankenstein. In the classic novel, Dr. Frankenstein with seemingly decent intentions creates a creature that ends up seeking revenge against him. Osama bin Laden along with Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak are monsters created by U.S. foreign-policy makers.  The U.S. government should have minded its own business and not funded these mass-murderers in the first place. A witty Facebook status making its rounds says “us praising the U.S. government for killing Osama is like the villagers praising Dr. Frankenstein for killing his own monster.”

Let’s make one thing clear: the American people are not to blame for 9/11. Not a single innocent person deserved to die on the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. The American people instead do not deserve to be put in harm’s way by their government’s policies decided upon by the elite few in Washington, D.C. Society and government are two different entities. We are less safe and prone to terrorist attacks due to our government intervening in complicated situations overseas that it does not fully comprehend.

The death of Osama bin Laden has emotional significance. The sad part is that it isn’t likely to change our policy in the Middle East. The federal government told the American people that its main purpose in Afghanistan was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members. Nearly ten years later, Bin Laden has been killed, the Taliban regime has been removed and there are fewer than 100 Al-Qaeda members left in Afghanistan. When exactly can U.S. troops come home to their families?

I hate to be a buzz kill but let’s put everything into perspective. The U.S. government killed one man. It took them nine years, seven months and twenty days. They declared war on two countries supposedly in order to find bin Laden and weapons of mass destruction. Neither was found in Afghanistan or Iraq.  Many of our civil liberties have been eroded through unconstitutional measures such as the so-called Patriot Act and the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) invasive procedures since 9/11. These wars have ended up costing taxpayers trillions of dollars over budget. The death toll for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon top 6,000 dead. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have been murdered. Many of these causalities are small defenseless children. Can you possibly see how these innocent deaths could create hatred and increase membership in terrorist organizations? Just imagine if your child was killed by a bomb dropped by a foreign government invading your country and tell me what you would do.

Here’s the kicker: Osama bin Laden death was not due to the war in Afghanistan. He was killed by a small hit-team. The same type of hit-team that Dr. Ron Paul proposed multiple times first called the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. He maintained that bringing Osama bin Laden to justice would only require a small elite force and not a full scale costly invasion.  For years, Dr. Ron Paul has stated that “Pakistan is probably where Osama bin Laden is.” Yet, Dr. Paul was mocked for proposing a hit team and saying Osama bin Laden was being protected by the government of Pakistan.

It is a relief that Osama bin Laden is no longer at large. In a Foreign Policy article, Gartenstein-Ross says that “for example, in October 2004 bin Laden said that just as the Arab fighters and Afghan mujaheddin had destroyed Russia economically, al Qaeda was now doing the same to the United States, ‘continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.’ ” In many ways, Osama bin Laden won. America is now left with bigger debt and less liberty.  U.S. deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan has surpassed the 9/11 death toll by at least twice. Has it all been worth it? The real celebration will be when the troops finally come home and our civil liberties are restored.