Showing posts with label defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defense. Show all posts
Friday, October 12, 2012
Thoughts on Veteran's Day
Isn't it amazing how far things have gone in 20 years of presidencies that never served the flag in active duty service? How cavalierly they launched war after war, dragging our country, her people, and the flag through the muck of wars that did not have to be? And we now suffer through another term of presidential service offered up by yet another non veteran, willing to wage even more war, to shift the military from Iraq to the "good war" in Afghanistan, a nation that in it's 3000 year history has proved to be a hell hole for every would be conqueror, and has never been conquered by any, including Alexander the Great.
I wonder how many more body bags will come home before we finally come to realize that war isn't worth the blood spent in it, and certainly if not for a just cause. And even if Bin Laden had still existed, any more lives sacrificed would not be worth the price of removing him. If he was on dialysis before the war started in 2001, he surely was dead years ago in spite of the fake tapes trotted out by "intelligence" to prod us on to war.
God blessed America with an abundance of resources enough to last her forever - unless we develop a throw away society for the greater profit of the few. He gave us leaders that believed in his teachings, who sat up a country based on a Constitution that would allow prosperity for all. We throw him out into the gutter, allowing his name to be mentioned in earnest only in the sanctity of the home, the prison, and the church - you can curse it any time you like. We go to war in spite of the fact that his teachings and his son's teaching all speak of the sanctity of human life, and we do it in "their" names. No wonder this country has spiraled into the gutter over the past 20 years. I wonder if we will ever find ourselves again.
Yes, God bless the veteran for he gave much, received little, and is being replaced not by citizen-soldiers, but by mercenaries, who will have no respect for human life by the time they leave "service." They are an entirely different breed from those that served nobly in the wars to end all wars. I don't condemn them since they are a product of their times, their training, and the philosophy of their leaders. I only pity them and fear them.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
The debt Ceiling and the brain dead
Well, those terms DO seem to go together, really. After all, isn't it two of the three branches of government that have to solve this problem, and aren't they the same two branches that got us into this problem in the first place? But the thing that gets me the most is idiots like Lieberman carrying on about having to give up Social Security funding so as to insure a "strong defense." When I heard that, I knew instinctively that I was truly listening to a brain dead politician.
First, before we really start tearing into things, shouldn't we at least understand some of the terms used in this debate? Really? Consider the brain dead statement just listed. Consider the term "defense." Now, really, how does, say, a new multi billion dollar long range bomber actually fit that term? What has bombing targets that are 10,000 miles away got to do with defending the United States of America? Really! It is purely offensive from the start. It has nothing to do with defending the nation. And no, better war making capability is not defense, it is offense. But that IS over-simplifying, I suppose. So let's consider the other half of that brain dead statement.
Of course, the brain dead politician really was talking about entitlement programs, not merely Social Security, but that is trying to put better tasting words in his mouth for him. But, really, what IS an entitlement program? The most frequent definition I have seen is an entitlement program is an unfunded obligation. Sort of what the Federal government does to the states, for instance, when it makes new and more sweeping changes in education. But we are talking on the Federal level here, and the two most frequently "fingered" entitlement programs are Social Security and Medicare.
Now by the very definition of an entitlement program, then, neither of these two programs can even be considered entitlements. Why? Check your pay check. You will see that you are paying a dedicated tax to Social Security, and another to Medicare. If they are both funded, at least in part, by a dedicated tax, then they are not truly entitlement programs. Now there may have been unfunded obligations laid upon these funds that are supported by these dedicated taxes, but the programs themselves are not entitlement programs as they are not paid for by funds that are in the general fund but outside of the budget. And during this most recent crisis over the debt ceiling, the Chief Actuary at Social Security was quoted as saying that Social Security's current receipts are more then enough to pay its outlays. Let that soak in for a minute. Even though the Obama Administration and this Congress passed a budget that reduced the Social Security tax rate by 2% for this year, and that the unemployment rate is at 10% and possibly as high as 20%, depending on how you figure what is a job, the Social Security was in the black. Another thought to consider is the fact that the Social Security "fund" owns $3.7 trillion of the government's debt. Now how can a program that is unfunded to start with, possibly he a holder of government debt? Not just a holder, but the biggest holder? So if Social Security is a factor in the yearly deficit, it is because the government has to pay interest to the program on that accumulated debt that the fund holds. Does that paint a different picture for you?
So WHO is spending all that "entitlement" money that we hear so much about? Consider, if you will the Defense Department. If you go on the various web pages and look at employment possibilities, you will invariably see base positions that are referred to as NAF jobs. NAF stands for "non-appropriated funds." So if you are looking for an entitlement program, a program that is an unfunded obligation, you just found one. See, the Budget is APPROPRIATED funds. If I give you $10 million to use as your budget, and you plan all your expenses out of that, all those obligations will be funded. Now, say you looked at your program and suddenly realized that you leased the property and equipment, set up accounts for the utilities to be paid, put together the payroll for the front office, but somehow forgot to hire people to to do the rest of the jobs, why you could always turn back to your source of funding and submit a request for a contract, as an example, that would bring on board the people to do the job. Of course, this contract isn't part of your budget, so it represents an unfunded obligation. A NAF program or even, if you choose to use the phrase, an entitlement.
I can clearly recall during the Clinton years, when there was this big push for a balanced budget, that while working for the Commissary in Tucson, the whole operation was contracted out. When I worked for Luke AFB at the gunnery range a few years later, it, too, was contracted out. In both cases, the cost of the contract exceeded the cost of the civilian workers that were currently doing the job, but it was done as a "budget cutting action," thus reducing the appropriated funds supported budget, even though it drove up the costs of the operations. But it didn't come out of their budget, it came from non-appropriated funds - an entitlement.
Now fast forward to all those BIG contracts that were awarded for support of the war efforts in the middle east and realize that those contracts are not part of the defense department budget, but are part of the non-appropriated funds that are requiring all that borrowing. Beyond a doubt, the Defense Department, the owner of the lion's share of appropriated funds, is by far the biggest entitlement program as well. So, Joe, leave Social Security alone and go find out why the Defense Department can't live on half of the appropriated funds. I can't "defend" a department that is so "offensive" when it comes to spending money that doesn't belong to it. How can you?
First, before we really start tearing into things, shouldn't we at least understand some of the terms used in this debate? Really? Consider the brain dead statement just listed. Consider the term "defense." Now, really, how does, say, a new multi billion dollar long range bomber actually fit that term? What has bombing targets that are 10,000 miles away got to do with defending the United States of America? Really! It is purely offensive from the start. It has nothing to do with defending the nation. And no, better war making capability is not defense, it is offense. But that IS over-simplifying, I suppose. So let's consider the other half of that brain dead statement.
Of course, the brain dead politician really was talking about entitlement programs, not merely Social Security, but that is trying to put better tasting words in his mouth for him. But, really, what IS an entitlement program? The most frequent definition I have seen is an entitlement program is an unfunded obligation. Sort of what the Federal government does to the states, for instance, when it makes new and more sweeping changes in education. But we are talking on the Federal level here, and the two most frequently "fingered" entitlement programs are Social Security and Medicare.
Now by the very definition of an entitlement program, then, neither of these two programs can even be considered entitlements. Why? Check your pay check. You will see that you are paying a dedicated tax to Social Security, and another to Medicare. If they are both funded, at least in part, by a dedicated tax, then they are not truly entitlement programs. Now there may have been unfunded obligations laid upon these funds that are supported by these dedicated taxes, but the programs themselves are not entitlement programs as they are not paid for by funds that are in the general fund but outside of the budget. And during this most recent crisis over the debt ceiling, the Chief Actuary at Social Security was quoted as saying that Social Security's current receipts are more then enough to pay its outlays. Let that soak in for a minute. Even though the Obama Administration and this Congress passed a budget that reduced the Social Security tax rate by 2% for this year, and that the unemployment rate is at 10% and possibly as high as 20%, depending on how you figure what is a job, the Social Security was in the black. Another thought to consider is the fact that the Social Security "fund" owns $3.7 trillion of the government's debt. Now how can a program that is unfunded to start with, possibly he a holder of government debt? Not just a holder, but the biggest holder? So if Social Security is a factor in the yearly deficit, it is because the government has to pay interest to the program on that accumulated debt that the fund holds. Does that paint a different picture for you?
So WHO is spending all that "entitlement" money that we hear so much about? Consider, if you will the Defense Department. If you go on the various web pages and look at employment possibilities, you will invariably see base positions that are referred to as NAF jobs. NAF stands for "non-appropriated funds." So if you are looking for an entitlement program, a program that is an unfunded obligation, you just found one. See, the Budget is APPROPRIATED funds. If I give you $10 million to use as your budget, and you plan all your expenses out of that, all those obligations will be funded. Now, say you looked at your program and suddenly realized that you leased the property and equipment, set up accounts for the utilities to be paid, put together the payroll for the front office, but somehow forgot to hire people to to do the rest of the jobs, why you could always turn back to your source of funding and submit a request for a contract, as an example, that would bring on board the people to do the job. Of course, this contract isn't part of your budget, so it represents an unfunded obligation. A NAF program or even, if you choose to use the phrase, an entitlement.
I can clearly recall during the Clinton years, when there was this big push for a balanced budget, that while working for the Commissary in Tucson, the whole operation was contracted out. When I worked for Luke AFB at the gunnery range a few years later, it, too, was contracted out. In both cases, the cost of the contract exceeded the cost of the civilian workers that were currently doing the job, but it was done as a "budget cutting action," thus reducing the appropriated funds supported budget, even though it drove up the costs of the operations. But it didn't come out of their budget, it came from non-appropriated funds - an entitlement.
Now fast forward to all those BIG contracts that were awarded for support of the war efforts in the middle east and realize that those contracts are not part of the defense department budget, but are part of the non-appropriated funds that are requiring all that borrowing. Beyond a doubt, the Defense Department, the owner of the lion's share of appropriated funds, is by far the biggest entitlement program as well. So, Joe, leave Social Security alone and go find out why the Defense Department can't live on half of the appropriated funds. I can't "defend" a department that is so "offensive" when it comes to spending money that doesn't belong to it. How can you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)