Just say no

Posted on: October 28th, 2010 by ecthompson md No Comments

I saw this on tweeter last night as my wife and I were driving back from Texas. I didn't have the patience or skill to post it on my iPad so I'm posting it now.

From Zero Party Politics:

In an increasingly imperfect two-party system, I will be choosing between the lesser of two evils come November 2nd and avoiding anyone with an “R” beside their name on the ballot. I’m not a Democrat, but I’m also not an idiot, and I have a memory that goes back farther than 22 months. For the sake of giving a very sick America a chance to heal, I hope your memory goes back farther too.

The big question to consider before going to the polling booth next week and contemplating voting “R” again is “why?”

Why on earth would you ever consider voting for a Republican in 2010?

I realize government spending is the hot button issue utilized by those endorsing the GOP and their mentally challenged little brother, the “Tea Party.” However, before you decide to make the colossal mistake of linking “fiscal responsibility” with the GOP and its psychotic sibling, there may be a few hard issues you need to contemplate before you pull that trigger.

Let’s start with the big, bloated elephant (pardon the pun) in the room and address the issue of military spending which I freely admit is equally ignored by both parties. It’s bad enough when Democrats ignore the issue, but when the party which routinely preaches “fiscal responsibility,” ignores the most fiscally irresponsible exercise our government engages in, it becomes nearly impossible to take them seriously.

Before you cast your votes next Tuesday and fall victim to the same "neo-con" con again, please take the time to digest the gravity of this military spending problem while juxtaposing it with the other spending these Republicans and Tea Baggers routinely complain about.  If you can reconcile GOP indifference to defense spending with GOP complaints about TARP spending, Stimulus spending, and Healthcare spending, then please also consider purchasing this bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn--I can certainly use the money.

Let's consider our military budget so that we can fully realize the GOP hypocrisy here. When adding the Department of Defense budget for 2010 (over $719 billion) with other defense related costs in the federal budget, such as International Security Assistance, Veterans Benefits and Services, Interest on National Debt Attributable to Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and other non-DOD “defense” related expenditures, we are due to spend over a trillion dollars this year on our military.

Let me repeat that. We are spending a TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR ON OUR MILITARY.

Recall what Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, a five-star general, and the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in World War II declared in his farewell address to the American people when leaving office in 1961:

“…we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”

Back when the Republicans were a serious political party, they actually used to worry about an out-of-control military which demanded out of control spending.

But the Republicans aren’t a serious party anymore, so they commonly say very silly things to justify a ridiculous defense budget while claiming there is no money left over for anything else. They’ll routinely cite to the Preamble of the Constitution claiming “providing for the national defense” is right there in black and white. They’re able to get away with this because they are leading an army of drones, and drones rarely scrutinize any information given to them.

Here’s how the Preamble to the Constitution reads by the way:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Aha! See? Not one mention of “healthcare” and there was “common defense” as PLAIN AS DAY! (Of course there was no mention of ICBM’s either, but this is not a time for logic.)

Do we really need to explain to the party of “duh” why “provid[ing] for the common defense” does not justify the expenditure of a trillion dollars a year?

Of course we do—they are, after all, the party of “duh.” (more...)

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Thank you for posting this I would love to send it to some of my republican family members. But they wouldn't read the whole thing and I am going to Texas to visit them. Thankfully after the elections. It was an awesome article.

Glad you posted this. It's important for people to be constantly reminded how far out in left field the liberals really are. Defense is one of the few constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government, but the writer of the article seems very dismissive of that. Instead he wants to justify all the unconstitutional spending that Obama is using to try to enslave the American economy to the government.

Another nonsense comment from the right. The article was full of quotes and arguments on excess military spending and explains well how the stimulus saved the economy. Yet all you can read from this is the nonsense of unconstitutional spending. I'm so thrilled that there are so many constitutional experts out there like you. Just because you rant "unconstitutional" does not make it true. Sorry to get off topic a bit, but these are the same clowns introducing real unconstitutional laws like AZ SB 1070 where a court has already ruled it as such. But the right feels entitled to decide what is and what is not constutional.

The article was full of assertions that 'we spend too much on the military' without any attempt to prove the premise. No reason was given why 'this is too much'. Never was the topic addressed 'exactly how much IS too much' and how such a figure would be arrived at. Again, defense is constitutionally mandated while lots of other things that the author favors spending on arent constitutional. (If you want to argue that healthcare is mandated by the constitution, please make your case. I can't wait. ) Your reference to the Arizona law is a non sequitur since it has nothing to do with the federal budget.

When bids are closed then you won't know what is excess will you? When the amounts of what is spent on what items and do we still need them like the F-22's. The republicans threw a fit when the defense department didn't want them anymore. Sec Gates can cut his budget just like everyone else and more importantly is willing to do so.. But who stops him from doing this the republicans by putting earmarks onto the spending bills. It is the biggest industry in the world. Military and making things to blow up others. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/ Read the Washington Post article and then tell me how it is justified.

the topic was addressed because it is simply an argument. It is an opinion. I say $1 trillion for our defense is too much. I'm sure you can find many conservatives that would say it is not enough. You might be able to find some conservatives that would say we need to be spending twice as much. But, the question is, with the average average American say that spending $1 trillion on our national defense is too much? Let's look at the amount of money we've spent in Afghanistan and Iraq – http://nationalpriorities.org/en/tools/tradeoffs/state/US/program/1/tradeoff/0 Taxpayers in The United States have paid $1.1 trillion for Total War Spending (Iraq + Afghanistan) Since FY01. For the same amount of money, the following could be provided: * 16.7 million Elementary School Teachers for One Year OR * 19.0 million Firefighters for One Year OR * 143.1 million Head Start Slots for Children for One Year OR * 246.3 million Households with Renewable Electricity - Solar Photovoltaic for One Year OR * 656.8 million Households with Renewable Electricity-Wind Power for One Year OR * 139.4 million Military Veterans Receiving VA Medical Care for One Year OR * 16.5 million Police or Sheriff's Patrol Officers for One Year OR * 138.0 million Scholarships for University Students for One Year OR * 196.0 million Students receiving Pell Grants of $5550

Yes, and if our cities fired their police departments then they could hire more teachers too. What's your point? We need police and we need to be able to defend the country. So , saying 'well we COULDA spent that money on X' is pointless.

Where in the constitution does it say that she should spend more than $1 trillion on defense. No one is questioning the constitutional mandate for our government to protect its people. This is obvious. The question is, how much money should we spent? Thanks for your comments.

yes that's exactly my question. The article you posted says 'it's too much' but never addresses how much IS too much, or how that number would be calculated. So it's a pointless article.