Saturday, June 26, 2010

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman Joint Chiefs Says Debt Is Our Greatest Threat To National Security

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen views the national debt (and the projected 512 billion in interest in 2012) as the greatest threat to our national security. Of course he is absolutely correct. This nation can not sustain continued deficit spending ad infinitum.

Video:



Pentagon leaders, the military services and defense contractors must work together to cut bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary programs, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday.
Adm. Mike Mullen also renewed his warning that the nation’s debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security.
“I was shown the figures the other day by the comptroller of the Pentagon that said that the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012,” Mullen said at a breakfast hosted by The Hill. “That is, noticeably, about the size of the defense budget. It is not sustainable.”

The Admiral is concerned with the countries ability to continue to fund the military at levels that allow us to be the world's policeman. Which translates into this... Allowing the military industrial complex to maintain traditional style American security. Which translates into the interventionist foreign policy we have had every since Woodrow Wilson.

There is no doubt but what our Leviathan government is bankrupting us with it's European style socialist collectivist entitlements. Namely social security and the level of unfunded entitlement liabilities. Every one realizes we need a strong vibrant economy, and most realize we need a government that lives within it's means  In order to accomplish both we simply are going to need to reform our entitlement programs and reduce spending by cutting unnecessary programs and streamlining those that are necessary. Sooner or later later we must realize, as Admiral Mullen does, it is critical to our national security.

The Defense budget cannot be a sacred cow either. Every American want's our nation to be secure. They realize this requires a strong well equipped military with the most modern technology. Maintaining a strong national defense does not mean we must maintain a global presence with troops spread all over the world. The interventionist foreign policy posture we have maintained has been costly, has on occasions caused ill will
and needs to be re thought. Just by scaling back our overextended military presence and finding a way to close out the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements we could save  hundreds of millions of dollars.

So the Admiral is right. But we need to look at the budget in it's entirety, make rational and sensible decisions and then cut away. The other thing we need to do is maintain balanced annual budgets going forward.

Via: Memeorandum 

26 comments:

  1. when are you guys gonna get it, Social Security is not going away. What's killing us is these wars!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have to wonder if THIS military leader wants to retire, also. You can't blame him.

    As for Social Security, don't kid yourself; NOTHING that the government runs is ever safe

    ReplyDelete
  3. We need to close unnecessary bases. We are still structure along cold war lines. Keeping thousands of troops in Western Europe is not cheep.

    And Sue Social Security will go away if it is not restructured. That's not my opinion, that's a mathematical reality.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sue is a great example of the average liberal. She doesn't stop to think that when we "stop all the wars," the spending for them stops as well.

    Social Security has burdened us with trillions of future liabilities.

    I hope conservatives start waking up to this. Yes, we need a strong defense, but as you say, the defense budget cannot be declared a sacred cow.

    Learning to stand aside and stay out of other people's fights would be a good first step. As I said in a previous post at my blog, isolationism has been given a bad name. We have almost everything we need here in The Americas.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sue - Think outside of your liberal box. Read carefully my post. And then re-read it again. Perhaps then you will understand. At least it's a shot.

    Thanks for your comment. This country needs the thoughts of all thinking people

    ReplyDelete
  6. Greg - I don't think he wants to retire. I think he is simply speaking the truth. Although as my post says I believe aside from some minor adjustments in spending priorities he would preserve the interventionist mentality.

    ReplyDelete
  7. SilverFiddle - The problem with liberals is they see everything from the same lenses. They refuse to acknowledge that "real" conservatives and Libertarians recognize we have multi pronged issues.

    It requires that we have NO sacred cows. Yet they have many and refuse to acknowledge we need to trim the fat from all.

    This means restructuring as Trestin noted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We needed the Generals kind of thinking 30 years ago when Republicans began chanting cut taxes. They kept chanting cut taxes until we were 12 trillion in debt. Did Republicans not understand 30 years ago that deep debt was a national security issue?
    Now all Republicans can scream about, is the debt Obama is building as they vote down extending unemployment benefits. More Americans lose their homes and pile up unpaid bills.
    If you like this economy, thank the republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Congratulations Tom! You brought republicrat-demican blather to a libertarian discussion!

    Instead of telling you to pull you head out, I'll politely repeat what Rational Nation said to Sue:

    "Think outside of your liberal box. Read carefully his post."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tom - In the interest of respect I shall refer you to SilverFiddle,s reference to my reply to Sue.

    It would serve us all well if you consider this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. SilverFiddle - The problem with many progressive collectivists is they have been programmed to think only inside the box controlled by Leviathan.

    They cannot possibly acknowledge the truth of what we say and believe in. Either it is because to acknowledge it would shatter their long cherished yet discredited beliefs. Or they simply do not get it.

    I guess either amounts to the same.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >What's killing us is these wars!

    Or maybe it's the fact that 99% of what the federal government does is in direct violation of the Constitution and the rights of each individual to his or her life, liberty, and property. Get rid of Big Mother and we would have no problem funding legitimate government action with a tiny fraction of the taxes (in all forms) that we pay right now.

    ReplyDelete
  13. >They kept chanting cut taxes until we were 12 trillion in debt.

    The problem was that the morons in Congress, controlled by the Dimwitcrats, of course, didn't do anything to reduce the size of government, but worked as hard as they could to grow the beast.

    It's the same now. The problem is not, and never has been, insufficient taxation. The problem is ALWAYS massive spending by power-hungry thugs in the Decadent City.

    >If you like this economy, thank the republicans.

    Only the ones that voted like Dimwitcrats to promote the takeover of the United States by totalitarian collectivists. Whether with an R or a D, a big-government thug is a big-government thug, and is the enemy of liberty in general and the United States in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bastiatarian - Strong words and medicine is sorely needed in America today. You provide both!

    Thank you for your reasoned voice.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I believe I stated the facts. Republicans refused to cut spending. Cutting taxes without cutting spending (Reagan and Bush) leads to financial disaster. Something a child on an allowance can understand, but obviously a President with an MBA cannot. The numbers show the truth and where the blame lies for our financial mess, with the Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bastiatarian...you are starting to sound a lot like Donald...

    Hmmm...

    Lets see, if Washington spends money then whether they are Democrat or Republican that makes them a "Dimwitcrat"

    So, anyone that votes for these democrat or republican "dimwitcrats" are in turn supporters of "dimwitcracy" which basically covers Les, and Silverfiddle, and all the other idiots on the right who claim to believe one thing but then vote another because it is the lesser of two evils...

    I am sure that YOU on the other hand, with your superior knowledge and your engulfing yourself in a 19th century character never voted anything other than for the libertarian candidate....

    ReplyDelete
  17. For the record Tom, Reagan and congress first raised some taxes with the agreement that congress would then cut an equal amount out of the budget. No surprise, the DEMOCRATIC congress never cut anything. Reagan and Bush couldn't spend ONE DAMN DIME without congressional approval.

    Yet you persist in splitting hairs over who spent more, the demicans or the republicrats.

    We are a spread it around progressive nation. that is the system even a good conservative man like Reagan has to work within.

    Keep goosestepping MAO TAO! Dictators love liberty surrendering apologists like you!

    ReplyDelete
  18. When the Republicans hold the White house 21 out of 30 years and the congress until 2006 - blame can be laid, and is clear.

    ReplyDelete
  19. >if Washington spends money then whether they are Democrat or Republican that makes them a "Dimwitcrat"

    That's a bizarre statement. Obviously it's fine if the federal government spends money on protecting my right to my life, liberty, and property. Any more spending than that, and they're just dimwits (and thieves), of course.

    >anyone that votes for these democrat or republican "dimwitcrats" are in turn supporters of "dimwitcracy"

    If they do it with a knowledge that they are voting for totalitarian collectivist thugs, then yes. They are dimwits or just plain bad people.

    As for Les and Silverfiddle, I am confident that when they make decisions at the polls, they do it with an eye only toward promoting a restoration and protection of the rights of each individual to his or her life, liberty, and property.

    That's what we "idiots on the right" care about, and that's what we work for each day. (You're welcome, by the way.)

    It's because of people like Les and Silverfiddle that you have the right to spew out the irrational, juvenile things you write.

    >then vote another because it is the lesser of two evils

    Though I'm not personally a fan of voting for evil, "lesser" or not, I do understand the concept of taking steps in the right direction. Most adults do, and would therefore not make the type of statement that you have made.

    >with your superior knowledge

    Well, apparently you're not completely unobservant.

    >and your engulfing yourself in a 19th century character

    Don't forget the 18th century characters. You know, the Founding Fathers, etc. You might want to delve into the writings of those "characters" a bit. I'm sure somebody would be willing to read it to you.

    >never voted anything other than for the libertarian candidate

    Actually, I've voted for a few Libertarian (upper-case "L") candidates as well. I try to find candidates that are serious about fulfilling their duties to help maintain the right of each individual to his or her life, liberty, and property, and that understand the eternal truth that government has no other legitimate role. I have no interest in voting myself other people's property, unlike you, apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I believe that the President proposes the budget, the Congress approves and then the president has veto power...

    So, that would make Reagan and Bush dimwitcrats just like everyone else...

    Right Silverfiddle? But you gotta have your superheros don't you? Even if you have to distort reality to create them!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tao - Getting your sorry ass handed to you once again!

    I will have more on your thoughts at a later time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. >blame can be laid, and is clear.

    True. The blame is clearly on Dimwitcrats and liberal Republicans.

    >the Congress approves and then the president has veto power

    In theory, yes, at least to a certain extent.
    In actual practice, not so much. Especially if the president is in the middle of trying to ensure that the Soviet Union doesn't succeed in its plan to, well, enslave the world. Sometimes he has to let the idiot children have their lollipops so he can get them to stop preventing him from protecting the house from the bad guys.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Getting my ass handed to me?

    By whom?

    Lets see, Bastiarian has acknowledged that it is okay for our country to battle the Soviet Union because it was going to enslave the world...

    That is really a very LIBERAL ideal! Nothing makes for big government and deficit spending like a military industrial complex...and I believe our founding fathers were all against foreign wars and foreign intervention!

    So, that makes him a Republican...

    Lets see we have "Dimwitcrats" and "Liberal Republicans" again....another frustrated Republican hiding his frustration behind a bogus claim of being a libertarian.

    By the way, I don't owe anyone for my freedoms, I protect them well enough all by myself.

    So, whats your point Les?

    Write all the pretty poetry you want about this bogus ideals that you have....and it doesn't take much to prove that none of you are who you claim to be....

    Just Republicans.....

    ReplyDelete
  24. TAO - As always I appreciate your comments. In spite of the fact they are usually delusional and and as a result wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi,

    I used ”National Relief” to settle my debt and avoid bankruptcy. They managed to reduce my debt up to 58% and improve my credit score. It’s legitimate . I came across this company on NBC News Special Edition. Check it out here:

    http://NationalRelief.org

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.