Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

What is the cost of the bailout?
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, October 21, 2008

A lot more than $700 billion. Steve Shippert says it may cost us our national security:
The effective cost of the various bailout packages is that the expansion of the U.S. military that had been set in motion is now effectively dead. D-E-A-D.

That's the word in Washington that no one wants to talk about, proving once again that regardless of which party's administration sits atop the Executive, the military is the only federally mandated 'program' ever under consideration for real and meaningful cuts.
Because it is one of the few federal programs which isn't an "entitlement" program and thus cuts are prohibited, the military is wide open to such cuts. And after discovering, much to our dismay, that our force was too small to effectively carry out two "regional wars" and still have the capacity to engage elsewhere if needed, we're now faced with probable deep cuts in the force structure to pay for the bailout. Or said another way, our military will most likely stay the same size it is now and possibly see cuts in critical weapons system development because the money is needed elsewhere in government - to pay entitlements.

Does anyone doubt that spending priorities will favor programs other than the military in an Obama administration? Will we hear the Murthas of the world whining about an "over-stretched military" then?
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

I’m not sure why this is surprising in any way. This is exactly the choice that the countries of Western Europe were faced with in the 1960s, and they chose to fund social programs rather than national defense.

If we want European-style Social Democracy, then we’ll end up with European-style military impotence. National defense is the only area of the budget where signifigant cuts can be made to make up for the increased spending in other areas.
Written By: Dale Franks
Russia is just going to roll across Europe.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
And if Obama wins why would any of this matter in the least?
Trust me, expansion of the Military, regardless of need, is simply not in this guy’s playbook, making the plans a moot point.

Written By: Bithead
Don’t worry McQ. There won’t be any conflicts anymore once Obama is president. We won’t need the military anymore.
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://
After reading this entry and the comments, I had a strange vision of Rod Serling’s classic Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man"
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Wasn’t sure we were EVER going to expand the military, and don’t know we need to...what we MIGHT have ended up with was the worst of all worlds, a larger force and a smaller budget. The US military is as good as it is because of its O&M budget and training, not because of size or technology....My point is I never really ever thought we’d fund the Army and USMC larger and sustain the budget at a level necessary to maintain that larger force. Better, we lose the money now, before we get bigger and have to RIF and/or have a weaker force.

And No, the Russians AREN’T going to just "roll across Europe" as the Russian forces are only about 20% of their previous Soviet levels, and the Soviet military, though large, was nothing to write home about, it turns out.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe, ask the Georgians about that.

The ’roll across Europe’ was not in one military advancement. I meant one state at a time. A combo of Political, economic and military pressure. The military part just upticked in importance.

Or do you think Russia’s uptightness about the missile defense shield is only defensive in nature?
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
"This is exactly the choice that the countries of Western Europe were faced with in the 1960s, and they chose to fund social programs rather than national defense."

They were only able to do that because we paid for their defense.

In very serious ways, The Truman Doctrine actively fostered the decline of the West. The moral indolence of Europe was a luxury that they could afford only out of the pocket of American taxpayers.
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—
Sad thing is that the only way we’re going to get the sort of military funding / programs we need if it the filthy dems in Congress perceive that there’s porkbarrel in it for them.
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
This begs several questions.
(1) Are we noticeably more secure with simply having a bigger or more expensive military?

(2) Is the Military we do have big enough, do we need more? or could we actually do with far less?

(3) Is our commitment to the security of other nations always synonymous with our own security?

(4) the 700 billion is an actual cost. This assumes that the assets acquired by the government will not increase in value.

(5) Personally I am not inclined to be alarmed about it.
Written By: kyleN
Joe, ask the Georgians about that.
You mean the ability of the Russia to pick off tiny, un-armed states? And suffer disproportionate losses in any event?
They were only able to do that because we paid for their defense.

In very serious ways, The Truman Doctrine actively fostered the decline of the West. The moral indolence of Europe was a luxury that they could afford only out of the pocket of American taxpayers.
Wow, Beck said something I kind of agree with. Still, the US was going to be the bulk of the power of NATO, no matter what...the US was 50% of the Planet’s war-making capacity in 1945, who else was going to defend Europe. And, a lot of US defense spending either was dual-use, defending the US AND NATO, e.g., Strategic Nuclear Weapons, or really pretty much for US use alone, Aircraft Carriers, the USMC. Or for wholly non-NATO uses, such as troops in Korea. So, that Europe’s contribution to its defense was pretty high as a percentage of its total defense outlays. Short-hand: probably a vast majority of Europe’s spending on Defense went to NATO, whereas only a portion of US Defense Spending was solely for NATO.

Bottom-line: Whilst Beck makes a good point, it’s not a clear-cut as he and others would make it out to be. For example I’d bet that 90-plus % of the BRD’s Defense spending went to NATO and its own defense, certainly the US can’t make that claim.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Russia is just going to roll across Europe.
Yeah, well,.. Pardon if I say good on them. Time they had to wake up and realize what kind of world we are in. And what Orwell’s dictum about rough men and cutting throats was all about.
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Today, we have an active duty force of 1.46 million out of a population of 306 million. On December 7th, 1941, we had a military of 1.45 million out of a population of 135 million. By the summer of 1945, the US had 8.3 million men under arms. In perspective, our military today is smaller but much better.

There’s a Ted Talk by Tom Barnett that’s well worth watching. It’s not the war we should worry about, it’s the power.

The Russians are not the Soviets. They are 150 million and Georgia is 5 million. The leverage they have over Western Europe is oil and natural gas, not their military. That doesn’t mean they cannot cause trouble for us. If Obama is elected, expect Russia to make one of three moves - Iran, Ukraine or the Amur River on the Sino-Russian border.

We live in a very dangerous world.
Written By: arch
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks