Tuesday, September 29, 2009

I stumbled across a site called "The Heritage Foundation" and found a helpful little treatise on "A Defense Budget Strategy for Winning the Long War."
This was written by somebody with the remarkable name of Baker Spring and includes all kinds of helpful advice on funding overseas slaughter for a long time to come. Naturally, it starts with the kind of rhetoric so necessary to, and smoothly accepted in, Mr. Spring's dark world:
"With the stakes no less than the survival of the free world, U.S. leadership is essential to winning the 'Long War' now raging against the forces of Islamic fascism. Given the open-ended nature of this conflict, U.S. lead­ership requires a long-term commitment to making the necessary resources available to the military."
Well, sure, that's understood. The conflict against "the forces of Islamic fascism" (as opposed, I guess, to armies of pure-minded Baptists) must be carried on to ensure the triumph of "the free world." And how will we provide the wherewithal to fund this glorious victory? Mr. Spring counts the ways, including
GOAL # 2: Limit the future growth in spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
Great idea! It's a national disgrace how those pesky old people and indigents are gobbling up funds just to eat every day and pay for medical care. We need that money to fund our carnage objectives, so let's cut down on these frivolous expenditures. (No COLA increase in SS this year? That's just a coincidence.)
GOAL #4: Set a goal of allocating at least $200 billion annually to the military modern­ization budget by the middle of the next decade.
It's interesting to note that this little essay is dated March 2, 2006. Three and a half years ago, this guy--and, I assume, his cockamamie colleagues--were hawking (I love puns!) a bigger and better military. And, sure as God made little green republicans, if an army grows in size and menace, that extra oomph will be put to use.
So, fellas and girls, don't look for an end to the long war anytime soon. Mr. Spring and his ilk will protect us from having to wrestle with the problems of perpetual peace for decades to come. And protect our children, and our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren, and our...

Labels:

6 Comments:

At September 30, 2009 1:08 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Hi Mimi,
Welcome aboard! A great first post Mimi these are no doubt similar to the tough choices we were told about during the election. Hmm, let’s see, cut valuable domestic programs and expand the military. That seems about right to me. I think anytime these self-appointed gurus of the free world want us regular folk to be committed and sacrifice for the glory of Rome it’s a sure sign that what we have is pure propaganda.

 
At September 30, 2009 2:08 PM, Blogger Mimi said...

Thanks, Rob. Glad to be welcomed here to the 'hood.

 
At September 30, 2009 2:28 PM, Anonymous cemmcs said...

I think GOAL # 2 is just another example of the cruelty of the people who advocate endless war. Just for the sake of argument, let's say the guy's right: We need to spend more money in an effort to kill people -- It's a good cause! Do we really have to fund it by cutting Social Security? Couldn't we just undo the Bush tax cuts?

 
At September 30, 2009 6:22 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Predators attack the most defenseless and in this case it’s the elderly who rely on social security. Who could be more defenseless than that? That’s how the corporate kingpins think It’s nothing personal just business. The right wing has been after social security ever since it was implemented but just as it was easier for a Republican president Nixon to go to China so it will be easier for a Democratic president to dismantle social security they way Clinton dismantled the welfare system.

 
At September 30, 2009 11:18 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

Hi Mimi, and welcome. You know there are other think tank discussions about this issue that approach it in terms of growing the US taxpayer base through more aggressively encouraging immigration, and my impression is there is a pretty bipartisan consensus(among non whack-jobs) that recent immigrants of both the legal AND illegal variety are a net plus in terms of growing the tax base, but you won't hear much about that on CNN or MSNBC, let alone Fox. I wish I could remember a useful link-- maybe later.

 
At October 01, 2009 5:58 PM, Blogger Jim Wetzel said...

Way to represent, Mimi!

I'll have to admit here that, in my darker imaginings, the existence of outfits like the Heritage Foundation might be a good thing. I imagine that, after the great soggy collapse into anarchy, lists of the names of people who were actively involved in such death-cabals could be ... convenient ... in the settling of scores.

An ugly thought, I know. But then, it's getting to be a really, really ugly world out there.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home