The Right Way to Cut Defense Spending

By Byron York

Republicans, and many Democrats, are upset by the prospect of so-called sequestration cuts to the nation's defense budget. Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is so alarmed that the day before the Senate took up what became the "fiscal cliff" agreement, he called a key Republican lawmaker, Sen. Lindsey Graham, to express deep concern that the cuts might go into effect. As it turned out, Congress put them off for two months.

Sequestration would force the government to reduce discretionary spending by about $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Roughly half of that, or $600 billion, would come from defense -- a hugely disproportionate amount to take from the Pentagon. And the cuts would be the worst possible sort: everything slashed, across the board, good programs and bad.

That's no accident. Sequestration was designed to be so awful that Congress would find a better way to cut spending. So far, that hasn't happened.

But just because the sequestration cuts are bad doesn't mean…

Read more.

Source: Town Hall

Ron Paul Responds to Comments by Defense Secretary

“The recent statements by Defense Secretary Panetta once again illustrate the Obama administration’s blatant disregard for the rule of law and our U.S. Constitution”

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Today Congressman and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement in response to comments by Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta regarding military options in Syria. See comments below.

“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent statements once again illustrate the Obama administration’s blatant disregard for the rule of law and our Constitution.

“For President Obama’s head of the Defense Department to state that international permission, rather than congressional approval, is what would be needed as a legal basis to initiate a no-fly zone over Syria flies in the face of the guidelines established by our Founders.

“There is no issue more serious than war.  And make no mistake, establishing a ‘no-fly zone’ is in itself an act of war.

“Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress – not the President – the authority to declare war.

“This was meant to be an important check on presidential power.  The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control Executive Branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a congressional debate.

“But such actions should no longer come as a surprise.  During the conflict in Libya last year, we saw exactly what this President thinks of following the rule of law. President Obama consulted NATO, the United Nations, and the Arab League for permission and authorization to use US military force against Libya.  But he utterly ignored the one body that has the legal authority to grant that permission—the U.S. Congress.  That was, and still is, unacceptable.

“This is a complete 180 from what we once heard when Obama was seeking the presidency, as he spoke passionately about the abuses of the Bush Administration in violating the War Powers Act.  But, like many candidates, the rhetoric did not match the disappointing reality of what he would do as President.

“I have fought my entire political career for greater transparency, greater accountability, and strict adherence to the Constitution.  If elected President, I pledge to always maintain the sovereignty of the United States and remain faithful to our rule of law.”

A Blueprint for American-Made Energy

In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Obama laid out a Blueprint for an America Built to Last, underscoring his commitment to an all-of-the-above approach that develops every available source of American energy. The President’s plan calls for the safe and responsible development of domestic oil and natural gas resources, support for a wide range of clean energy technologies, and new initiatives to increase the energy efficiency of the industrial sector to make American manufacturing more competitive. For more information about President’s plan, take a look at our fact sheet.

 

A few days after the State of the Union Address, the President took to the road to highlight how natural gas can play a larger role in our transportation sector. The President visited Las Vegas, Nevada to tour a UPS depot that hosts natural gas-powered trucks. The depot is less than a mile from a new natural gas refueling station in Las Vegas, which was developed jointly by the Department of Energy, South Coast Air Quality Management District, UPS, and Clean Energy Fuels.  The new refueling station will make it possible for trucks to drive from Long Beach to Salt Lake City, powered entirely by American natural gas.

 

The President also traveled to Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora, Colorado to talk about his “all-of-the above” energy strategy. The President underscored his commitment to clean energy and discussed the Administration’s plans to:  expand the development of renewable energy on public lands; push for a Clean Energy Standard: and work with the Department of Defense to purchase enough clean energy to power 250,000 homes a year. The President also emphasized the importance of improving energy efficiency by helping manufacturers and businesses upgrade their facilities, which could save the U.S. manufacturing sector $100 billion over the next decade.

These actions represent just a snapshot of the Administration’s efforts to promote clean energy.

Rules Restrict Political Activity by Military Personnel

By Donna Miles

American Forces Press Service

 

WASHINGTON  – With election activity steadily picking up, defense officials are in the process of issuing regular election-year guidance to remind military and Defense Department civilians that they're subject to rules regulating their involvement in political activities.

 

This issue -- one the department regularly addresses during election periods -- came to light earlier this week after an Army Reserve soldier in uniform appeared endorsing a political candidate.

 

Several sets of rules help to protect the integrity of the political process, DOD officials said. DOD Directive 1344.10 applies to members of the armed forces, whether they serve on active duty, as members of the reserve components not on active duty, as National Guard members in a nonfederal status, and military retirees.

 

In addition, the Hatch Act applies to federal civilian employees, and employees also are subject to widely published DOD guidance that discusses participation in political campaigns and elections.

 

These rules are designed to prevent military members’ or federal civilian employees’ participation in political activities that imply -- or even appear to imply -- official sponsorship, approval or endorsement, officials said. The concern, they explained, is that actual or perceived partisanship could undermine the legitimacy of the military profession and department.

 

That's not to imply, however, that military members and civilian employees can't participate in politics. In fact, DOD has a longstanding policy of encouraging members to carry out the obligations of citizenship, officials said. DOD encourages its military and civilian members to register to vote and vote as they choose, they said. Both groups can sign nominating petitions for candidates and express their personal opinions about candidates and issues.

 

However, officials emphasized, they can do so only if they don’t act as -- or aren’t perceived as -- representatives of the armed forces in carrying out these activities.

 

Beyond that, the list of dos and don'ts differs depending on whether the employee is a member of the armed forces, a career civil service employee, a political appointee or a member of the career Senior Executive Service, officials said.

 

Military members, for example, may attend political meetings or rallies only as spectators and not in uniform. They're not permitted to make public political speeches, serve in any official capacity in partisan groups or participate in partisan political campaigns or conventions.

 

They also are barred from engaging in any political activities while in uniform.

 

A combat engineer assigned to the 416th Theater Engineer Company potentially violated these rules Jan. 3 when he stepped onto a stage at Ron Paul’s headquarters in Ankeny, Iowa, during the Iowa Caucus to offer a personal endorsement. Although he was wearing his uniform, the soldier was not in an active status at the time, Army Maj. Angela Wallace, an Army Reserve spokeswoman, confirmed.

 

Wallace emphasized that the soldier “stands alone in his opinions regarding his political affiliation and beliefs, and his statements and beliefs in no way reflect that of the Army Reserve.”

 

His chain of command is aware of the issue and is considering appropriate disciplinary action to take, she said.

 

Most civilian DOD employees, whose political activities are governed by the Hatch Act, are permitted to be active in and speak before political gatherings and serve as officers of political parties or partisan groups, officials said. These activities, however, cannot involve fundraising.

 

Civilian employees also are permitted to manage campaigns, distribute literature, write political articles or serve as a spokesperson for a party or candidate.

 

There are, however, exceptions to this, including but not limited to Senior Executive Service.

 

While the dos and don'ts concerning political activity may vary, the basic tenets hold true for all DOD employees.

 

The bottom line, officials said, is that they should steer clear of any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating DOD or the military with a partisan political activity, or that “is otherwise contrary to the spirit or intent” of the rules described.

Red State on “Big Government Conservative” Rick Santorum

Writes Red State founder Erick Erickson:

 

I’m rather tired of all the people who don’t like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative… He is.  You will have to deal with it.  Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state…

 

Erickson then runs through Santorum’s voting record (edited for length, emphasis mine):

 

NEA

Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.

 

Defense and Foreign Policy

Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same payraises as uniformed military.

Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia.

Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea

 

Labor

Voted against National Right to Work Act

 Voted against Real of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages

 Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor

 Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding

 Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization

 Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.

 Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here

 

Read more to see how Santorum voted on Gun Rights, Immigration, Taxes, Welfare, Wasteful spending, Entitlements, Health Care, and more.

Pretrial Wraps Up for Alleged Document Leaker

By Donna Miles

American Forces Press Service

 

FORT MEADE, Md.  – The prosecution and defense rested today after delivering their closing statements in the Article 32 hearing of a soldier charged with leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents.

 

Today’s session, which adjourned at about 10:30 a.m., wrapped up eight days of pre-trial proceedings in the case against Army Pfc. Bradley E. Manning that began Dec. 16.

An Article 32 hearing, often compared to a civilian grand jury, is a pretrial hearing to determine if grounds exist for a general court martial, the most serious of courts martial.

 

The investigating officer, Army Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, now has until Jan. 16 to issue his recommendations to the Special Court Martial Convening Authority, a Military District of Washington spokesperson told American Forces Press Service.

 

Alamanza may ask for an extension, if needed, the official said.

His report will recommend that the case be referred to a court martial, or that some or all of the charges against Manning be dismissed.

 

The Special Court Martial Convening Authority, Army Col. Carl Coffman, will then provide Alamanza’s recommendation to the General Court Martial Convening Authority, and indicate whether he concurs with it, the MDW official said.

 

Manning, an intelligence analyst, is suspected of leaking military and diplomatic documents to the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks in what officials believe is the biggest intelligence leak in U.S. history.

 

WikiLeaks, in turn, released thousands of these documents, including classified records about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on its website last year.

 

At the time, then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other senior defense officials condemned the organization’s actions, claiming the act put deployed service members at an increased risk.

 

The Article 32 hearing marked 24-year-old Manning’s first appearance in a military court since his arrest in Iraq in May 2010.

 

He faces more than 20 charges alleging he introduced unauthorized software onto government computers to extract classified information, unlawfully downloaded it, improperly stored it, and transmitted the data for public release and use by the enemy.

 

The charge of aiding the enemy under Article 104 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is a capital offense; however, the prosecution team has said it won’t recommend the death penalty, a legal official said.

 

If convicted of all charges, Manning would face a maximum punishment of life in prison. He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge, officials said.

 

(Editors’ Note: Elaine Sanchez contributed to this article.)

Support Our Troops: The Hypocrisy of So-Called Patriots

By Zach Foster

 

Many conservatives at this stage of the campaign cycle agree that they like the majority of Ron Paul’s platform, yet they disagree with him completely on foreign policy.  Some of them periodically muster the courage to call his foreign policy naïve.  Those who dislike him completely will condescendingly call him a lunatic in the face of anyone they suspect to be a Ron Paul supporter.  These “enlightened” conservatives are so self-righteous and wrapped up in their elevated opinion of their star-spangled selves—and their preferred flip-flopping candidate—that their opinion on maintaining the militarist status quo, infallible as they see it, is so correct that it doesn’t even warrant an intellectual defense, least of all to those no-good dumb-dumb “Paulbots.”  Periodically however, there arise a few who have a sense of honor and decency that are willing to at least defend their ideas with a logical argument.  All of the above, though, are people who claim to “support the troops.”

 

In light of their claim, it is necessary to analyze who the troops themselves are supporting.  The easiest way to find out is not by straw polls, which can be faulty at times when considering the participating sample of the population, but rather by looking at the way the troops are literally putting their money where their mouth is.  As of September 30, 2011 President Obama has received over $68,000 in monetary campaign donations from active duty troops.  The candidate trailing him is Mitt Romney with a distant $11,000, and for the rest of the candidates the numbers only go down from there.  All of their donations from the troops combined with Obama’s come out to $106,266.  Many of these Republican military donors would be content to vote for any Republican candidate in November 2012 just to get rid of our incumbent President.

 

And now for the pressing question: How much money has Congressman Paul raised from active duty troops?  $112,739, not counting the various money bombs that would come in October and November.  The numbers clearly show that Ron Paul garnishes more support from America’s fighting sons and daughters—the true patriots who currently risk life and limb for the country—than all of the opposition combined.  No one is in a position to be more fully and painfully aware of the consequences of America’s militant foreign policy than those troops whose job it is to literally fight wars and terrorism, as well as “keep the peace” around the world.  The vast majority of troops—endangered enough by foolish civilian policy makers that they awoke and joined the political process—clearly wish to abide by the noninterventionist (not isolationist) foreign policy of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

 

Yet the so-called “patriots” who disagree with and/or scorn Paul’s noninterventionist ideas are convinced that he is incorrect, naïve, or just plain crazy.  These are the people who most ardently proclaim their support for the troops, yet by writing off Dr. Paul’s idea of bringing the troops home from around the world they also write off the opinions and experience-based beliefs of the very troops they claim to support.  These warhawks all have one thing in common: their idea of “supporting our troops” rests with slapping a yellow bumper sticker on their car and occasionally sending a box of cookies to Kandahar Airfield rather than actually heeding the passionate cries from those who wear the uniform and bleed for the stars and stripes.  This is the ultimate form of hypocrisy for so-called patriots and it is unacceptable.  Every servicemember as well as discharged veterans from the decade-long war on terror ought to call these warhawks on their sickening hypocrisy.

 

Perhaps the most hardline warhawks will never be able to change their minds; they have already drunk the kool aid of staunch ultraconservatism and are long gone.  However, this is not true for the majority of conservatives who are intelligent critical thinkers.  After all, they love Ron Paul’s non-socialist economic and domestic policies, yet they disagree with his foreign policies.  They also claim that they support the troops, regardless of the overbearing contradiction in their words and logic.  The day these conservatives will truly demonstrate their support for America’s military heroes will be the day they honestly listen to them and vote for the man the troops overwhelmingly champion: Ron Paul.

Grass roots image courtesy of the Daily Paul.

Panetta Again Calls on Congress to Exercise Leadership

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 2011 – Congress must show leadership as the deadline approaches for its deficit reduction committee to find $1.2 trillion to close the gap between federal revenue and spending, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said today.

Panetta and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news briefing that the department already is working on cutting the defense budget $450 billion over the next 10 years.

Senior leaders across the department are working together to devise a strategy that maintains American military strength while being fiscally responsible, Panetta said.

Their immediate concern is to detail a five-year budget plan in February that reduces the department’s budget by $260 billion.

“This process … has to be driven by strategy,” Panetta said. “It also has to be a team effort. My hope is that … as we work through this, that we will put the entire leadership of the department, both military and civilian, in the same place so that we can finalize this effort within the coming weeks.”

The budget process continues in the building, but planners are casting a wary eye toward Capitol Hill, where the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is looking at ways to reduce the federal spending deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. If the so-called super committee cannot agree on how to do that by Nov. 23, an automatic “sequester” goes into effect.

“This sequester approach would virtually double the size of the cuts that we face here at the Defense Department,” the secretary said. “And it would also force us to cut across the board.”

Sequestration would take effect in January 2013, and would force the department to cut more than 20 percent in every area. It would lead to a “hollow force,” Panetta said.

“Obviously, that which is hollow retains a shell, but lacks a core,” he said. “A hollow military has the organizational structure, but lacks the people, the training and the equipment it needs to actually get the job done.

“It’s a ship without sailors. It’s a brigade without bullets. It’s an air wing without enough trained pilots. It's a paper tiger,” he said.

A hollow force has low morale, poor readiness, and is unable to keep up with potential adversaries. “In effect, it invites aggression,” he said. “A hollow military doesn't happen by accident. It comes from poor stewardship and poor leadership.”

The secretary’s message to Congress is to lead; to make the decisions to solve the budget problems. Congress “must show the necessary leadership by doing the job that they’ve been asked to do,” Panetta said. “That means identifying savings in the two- thirds of the federal budget that still has yet to be considered for deficit reduction along, in my view, with additional revenues.”

Panetta has told Congress that the nation’s service members are willing to fight and possibly die for the country. “It really shouldn’t be too much to ask our leaders to sacrifice just a little, to provide the leadership essential to solving the problems facing this country,” he said.

Panetta photo is the property of "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" and is used via Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License. Image was obtained from Wikimedia Commons.

Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta Statement on Operation Enduring Freedom

Today marks ten years since our nation went to war in Afghanistan.  In toppling the Taliban regime, we removed a government that had provided safe haven and support to Al Qaeda, and allowed its leaders to plan and launch the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history.  Our military has been at war ever since, determined to prevent Al Qaeda from regaining a safe haven and the ability to launch attacks on our homeland.  Over these years – and especially this year – we have dealt heavy blows to Al Qaeda’s leadership, and terrorists now know that we will pursue them relentlessly in order to defend our country.  In Afghanistan, we are reversing the Taliban insurgency’s momentum, and our efforts are creating the right conditions for transition to Afghan security lead.  Thanks to the progress we have made, we can draw down our forces while building a long-term enduring relationship with the Afghan people.  But we must stay committed to this effort to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for terrorists.

Over these ten years, our men and women in uniform and their families have borne a heavy burden to protect our country.  Nearly 1,800 U.S. service members have lost their lives in Operation Enduring Freedom, and more than 14,000 have been wounded.  On this tenth anniversary, our thoughts turn to those who have paid this heavy price for our freedom and our security.  Our country is stronger, and the world is a safer place, because of their sacrifices, and the sacrifices of all who have served.  We must honor them by staying committed to this mission of protecting America.  This day, and every day, we must continue to fight for the goal of a better and more secure world for our children.

Defense Leaders Laud Repeal, Return of ‘Equality’

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20, 2011 – The official end today of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law reflects the American values that military members uphold, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said today.

“Thanks to this change, I believe we move closer to achieving the goal at the foundation of the values that America's all about -- equality, equal opportunity and dignity for all Americans,” he told reporters during a Pentagon news briefing.

Panetta reaffirmed his dedication to all who are serving and ensuring everyone who wishes to serve has the opportunity to do so regardless of sexual preference.

“As secretary of defense, I am committed to removing all of the barriers that would prevent Americans from serving their country and from rising to the highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant,” he said. “These are men and women who put their lives on the line in the defense of this country, and that's what should matter the most.”

Panetta credited several groups for helping prepare the Defense Department for the implementation of the repeal.

“I want to thank the repeal implementation team and the service secretaries, along with the service chiefs, for all of their efforts to ensure that DOD is ready to make this change, consistent with standards of military readiness, with military effectiveness, with unit cohesion, and with the recruiting and retention of the armed forces,” he said.

“All of the service chiefs have stated very clearly that all of these elements have been met in the review that they conducted,” Panetta said. “Over 97 percent of our 2.3 million men and women in uniform have now received education and training on repeal as a result of these efforts.

“I also want to thank the Comprehensive Review Working Group for the work they did on the report that laid the groundwork for the change in this policy,” he added.

Panetta also lauded Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for his commitment to the repeal of the 1993 law.

“And above all, I'd like to single out … Admiral Mike Mullen,” he said. “His courageous testimony and leadership on this issue, I think, were major factors in bringing us to this day. And he deserves a great deal of credit for what has occurred.”

Mullen said he steadfastly believed repealing the law was the right thing to do.

“I testified early in 2010 that it was time to end this law and this policy,” he said. “I believed then, and I still believe, that it was, first and foremost, a matter of integrity.

“It was fundamentally against everything we stand for as an institution to force people to lie about who they are just to wear a uniform,” Mullen added. “We are better than that.”

The chairman said the repeal will strengthen the DOD and emphasize positive values.

“Today, with implementation of the new law fully in place, we are a stronger joint force, a more tolerant force, a force of more character and more honor, more in keeping with our own values,” he said.

Mullen also emphasized the Defense Department is well prepared for implementation of the repeal.

“I am convinced we did the work necessary to prepare for this change, that we adequately trained and educated our people, and that we took into proper consideration all the regulatory and policy modifications that needed to be made,” he said.

“I appreciate [Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s] confidence in me, and his kind praise,” Mullen said. “But today is really about every man and woman [in uniform] who serves this country … regardless of how they define themselves.”

Panetta said the long-awaited repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” brings the nation closer to true equality.

“Thanks to this change, we move closer to achieving the goal that is at the foundation of American values -- equality and dignity for all,” he said.