Gary Johnson: Cut defense spending by 43%

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/pres...on-calls-for-43-reduction-in-defense-spending

August 30, 2011, New York, NY – Saying it is “fantasy” to suggest a balanced U.S. budget can be achieved without deep reductions in military spending, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is proposing more than $300 billion in cuts in defense and defense-related expenditures.

Johnson outlined a path toward implementing those defense reductions in a national conference call with bloggers on Tuesday, August 30.

Johnson said, “Given that we are borrowing or printing 43 cents of every dollar the government spends, balancing the budget means we have to begin with the premise that all spending has to be reduced by 43%. And that means looking at everything government does, including the huge portion of the budget we call defense spending.

“Nearly half of all the money spent world-wide for military purposes is spent by the U.S., and much of the remainder is spent by our allies and strategic partners – not our adversaries. With an unsustainable national debt and an economy on the ropes, we neither can nor should be picking up half the world’s defense tab.

“The first and most important question, of course, is whether we can protect America from legitimate threats while reducing ‘defense’ spending by more than $300 billion? The answer is: Absolutely. We do so by getting out of wars we should not be in, stopping the nation-building we are asking our military to do, and by prudently scaling our procurement, forces and the overall defense budget to match what we legitimately need to protect ourselves.”

“As with the entire federal government, reducing what we spend requires reducing what we do, and there is ample room to restrain what we do in the name of defense and, in the process, make ourselves safer.”

“Absolutely, we must protect ourselves from terrorists who would do us harm. But our approach is occupying and trying to reshape entire nations from which those terrorists, like Al Qaeda, may operate. Guess what? First, our efforts to reshape those nations have not worked, and second, groups like Al Qaeda simply move. They are not nation-based armies with defined loyalties or boundaries. We can ‘conquer’ Iraq or Afghanistan or topple Qaddafi at costs of billions per day, but does that defeat Al Qaeda? Obviously not, which begs the question, why are we sending the Army and the Marines on manhunts?

“Likewise, why do we need tens of thousands of active duty personnel in Europe, which is in reality a massive transfer of American dollars to Europe with little enhancement to our security?”

“If we align our approaches with today’s realities and the true nature of the threats we face, we can reduce our active Marine Corps and Army troop force by as much as 1/3, and still maintain the strength we need to win conventional conflicts and participate in reasonable multi-lateral missions with our allies and strategic partners. Combined with the accompanying savings in procurement, civilian contractors, and infrastructure, these reductions in forces will save at least $30-40 billion per year.

“Likewise, over the next 10 years, we can cut defense costs by $40 billion by reducing the number of aircraft carrier battle groups we currently maintain, and an additional $30 billion by simply maintaining our current level of other warships, rather than procuring additional ones as currently programmed. Again, doing so will still leave us with more than ample naval firepower and flexibility to deal with real threats.

“Additional major cost savings can be achieved by aligning our nuclear arsenal with reality, with no loss of security. We can cut our nuclear weapons delivery platforms by half, and still maintain the capability to reach every corner of the earth with nuclear warheads. It defies common sense to imagine that any aggressor, whether it be Iran, North Korea or whomever, will somehow be more tempted to attack us because we only have 500 or so nuclear warheads deployed at any given time, deliverable by missile, submarine or aircraft. Such a re-sizing of our nuclear capability can save as much as $6-8 billion per year.

“And then, of course, there are the wars we don’t need to fight. Over the past several years, we have spent as much as $200 billion per year in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even with planned troop withdrawals, the cost of these wars next year will exceed $100 billion. Ending these wars now and bringing our troops home will allow dramatic reductions in spending in the near term.

“These major steps, combined with other common-sense reductions in procurement, intelligence, military construction, research and development, and other areas will produce what many Republicans and Democrats alike would have you believe is unthinkable: a reduction in annual U.S. defense spending of more than $300 billion – now.

“If, as we should, we stop asking our military to build nations, direct the outcomes of civil wars, manage the price of oil and carry out the whole menu of interventions we engage in, we can have a defense second to none that keeps us safe and maintains our position of military supremacy – at a price we can actually afford.

“When all is said and done, there is no greater threat to our national security than continuing to borrow or print 43 cents of every dollar the government spends. As long as we continue to feed an $800 billion per year military habit, we are not making ourselves safer.”


Seems steep. But he makes some obvious points. I really like the last paragraph though.

Keep in mind GJ ran New Mexico like a Boss. His resume in regards to fiscal responsibility is the best out there in the race.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
You can tell by the number of replies that doing this will be no small feat. But obviously it will happen, one way or another. It just depends how much damage we are willing to do to ourselves before stopping the madness.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
The double edged sword of cutting defense is that it's part of a dwindling manufacturing base. Cut it and the savings go to unemployment benefits. A difficult problem with no good political solution.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
10
0
I suspect his 43% across the board reductions will run into a brick wall with SS/Medicare, but I do like the idea, a lot.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
The double edged sword of cutting defense is that it's part of a dwindling manufacturing base. Cut it and the savings go to unemployment benefits. A difficult problem with no good political solution.

If the deficit simply exists to employ manufacturer and military industry employed, might as well rip off that band-aid now and let the pus out of the wound.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
14
81
Unfortunately a guy like this would never make it out of the primaries because the GOP is cornering the market on da crazy in 2012.
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
the guy seems to normal and reasonable to win the republican primary
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,379
7,443
136
The double edged sword of cutting defense is that it's part of a dwindling manufacturing base. Cut it and the savings go to unemployment benefits. A difficult problem with no good political solution.

Then they can be sent home and used to manufacture a southern border.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
Unfortunately a guy like this would never make it out of the primaries because the GOP is corning the market on da crazy in 2012.

What's so crazy about Ron Paul might I ask! Is it the fact his school of thought economically prefers a yellow metal as opposed to green paper?
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
What's so crazy about Ron Paul might I ask! Is it the fact his school of thought economically prefers a yellow metal as opposed to green paper?
He never said Paul was crazy, he stated that republicans will only vote for crazy.... Paul will not be elected by republicans
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
He never said Paul was crazy, he stated that republicans will only vote for crazy.... Paul will not be elected by republicans

OIC, corning the marketing on da crazy. Yea anything short of Paul would be pretty damn crazy. People are scared of anything but the status quo though.
 

Chaosblade02

Senior member
Jul 21, 2011
304
0
0
Most of the money we are spending on defense is going to fight foreign wars and bases of operations in countries we don't really need to be in. Even if we slashed defense spending in half, we would still be spending more than anyone else does on defense. Even with half the budget we could still have and maintain the most powerful airforce and navy in the world, and have the best technology. We will just keep our military resources in our own country.

We need to pull out of Korea, like Israel they are also capable of holding their own. We cannot keep babying them, they are going to have to man up and take care of themselves. Same goes for Japan, we should pull back the treaty and allow them to assemble an adequate military. Its possible they could grow into a power that could keep China in check by keeping them from doing anything silly in the region in the future.

If we put half of national defense spending into our space programs we could also claim and colonize the moon and mars for America uncontested. By the time anyone else gets in the position to challenge it, we will already be in a position to deny them. Both the Moon and Mars are loaded with resources that have been unraped by civilization. If we own it then the future will be in America's hands. I see this as more important than fighting petty wars here on Earth that are just money and death pits.
 
Last edited:

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
I really like Johnson, seems like a more moderate (and therefore more palatable to most voters) Ron Paul. He also has a solid track record both in the private sector and as governor of New Mexico.

It's just a shame he hasn't been invited to more of the GOP debates so he can get his name and message out there. Then again in some ways it might be for the best, what little chance Ron Paul does have would probably be even lower with another libertarian candidate splitting the vote.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
I'd cut it deeper. By 50%(350 billion) then cut entitlements by 35%(~900 billion).
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
I'm sure a lot of Americans support the ending of the wars and some cuts to military spending. The fact that we account for 50% of the world's TOTAL military spending is ludicrous. If we weren't in the unfortunate position of having a mountain of debt to pay down, that money could be put to good use in so many other ways.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
If the deficit simply exists to employ manufacturer and military industry employed, might as well rip off that band-aid now and let the pus out of the wound.
No, the debt exists because we are spending $2.5 trillion this year on "human resources" or 65% of all spending. Back in the 60s when we had a nearly balanced budget human resource spending was 30-40% of the budget.

So in the last 40 years we have doubled the amount of money that we give away for nothing.



National Defense spending is $768 billion or 21% of the budget or 5% of GDP. In the 60s it was 40% of the budget and 8-10% of GDP. Current defense spending is lower than it was at any time in our history, except the 90s.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces
---
As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[22]
- 85,600 Iraq,
- 103,700 Afghanistan
- 52,440 Germany
- 35,688 Japan (USFJ)
- 28,500 Republic of Korea (USFK),
- 9,660 Italy
- 9,015 United Kingdom
--

Most of them should be brought home and the overseas bases closed. Stop paying Haliburton $100 a gallon for gas and $50 per meal served, stop paying the leases for the bases we don't need, cut the size of our armed forces so we can be more selective about who is in them.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Would never pass congress and if he pushed it too far they would probably kill him.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Imagine a Democrat who called for a 40% cut in social spending and welfare.

All the Republicans would love him and ask why a guy like that can't win the primaries...
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Imagine a Democrat who called for a 40% cut in social spending and welfare.

All the Republicans would love him and ask why a guy like that can't win the primaries...

No they wouldnt. Their position would then become anything less then cutting 60% is liberal communists.
 

mchammer187

Diamond Member
Nov 26, 2000
9,116
0
76
Imagine a Democrat who called for a 40% cut in social spending and welfare.

All the Republicans would love him and ask why a guy like that can't win the primaries...

So I guess your mantra is "No new taxes and cut only what I want cut."

The guy is advocating for a 43% cuts to across the board if you read the article. He only goes into defense spending because it is easy to see how to cut defense spending whereas cutting medicare for example requires a lot more effort (a la public option modeled after another country's system).

I honestly would be for that as long as we went to a public option for healthcare.