It is impossible to form national priorities in a climate where one out of five Americans hates the government that manages our public interests. If your attitude is that we're all on our own and that collective action concerning our shared interests is to be resisted, then governing becomes virtually impossible.
Our representatives have cobbled together a budget resolution that almost certainly will not work, either to reduce deficits or to stimulate economic growth. What reason do we have to believe that those appointed to the so-called "super committee" will not simply reflect the factions in the Congress? Every ideology and interest group will demand representation on the super committee and it will become a microcosm of the wider Congressional deadlock.
The formula Congress adopted requires reduction in defense spending. And that spending must be on the table. But if the super committee recommends across-the-board percentage reductions, it will be a mistake. Defense contractors with enormous political influence will resist procurement reductions or weapons systems cancellations on both jobs and security grounds. The cuts will then come out of the personnel and operational accounts, and the people who defend our country will bear most of the burden.
If the Obama administration, and especially the new Secretary of Defense, use this turning point to reshape and reconfigure our forces and the equipment they use for the conflicts of the 21st, rather than the 20th, century, we can reduce the defense budget while making our security stronger. The biggest challenge facing our defense establishment now is not how to spend more money. It is how to anticipate future threats and reduce them in size. Security in this century will be much more about intelligence and less about absolute military power.
And finally, a small number of Americans benefit the most from a secure nation. They have the greatest stake in property and wealth. It is only fair that they pay a greater share than they presently do to defend their own interests as well as those of the nation.
Follow Gary Hart on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gary__hart
So, What is a 'Super-Committee'?
Ari Melber on the "Super Congress"
Ron Paul: Debt limit agreement 'super committee' unconstitutional
Where does all that "hate" come from?
""We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." (Grover Norquist)
quoted in John Aloysius Farrell, "Rancor becomes top D.C. export: GOP leads charge in ideological war," Denver Post, May 26, 2003 [2]
As a business owner, I would never even consider hiring an employee who put down on his resume "I hate the company, it provides no useful services, and should be abolished, I will do whatever I can to put it out of business".
Why people vote Republican in today's hate filled environment is beyond me.
Working from the inside to change government, to make it better is one thing.......... working to destroy it for personal or party gain.... is quite another.
No one disputes the need for government to raise its game, substantially, but Reagan was very wrong, all those years ago, for taking cheap shots during his campaign. We're paying for it today.
Wouldn't it be nice to not have these 'special interests'? Big businesses (and other groups, e.g. AARP, NRA, UAW) hire lobbyists. Lobbyists direct Congress. Congress manipulates the system (tax code and spending) to please their special interest groups. Sometimes, actually continuously for the last few decades, the special interest have asked for and gotten more than the government could afford. No problem, just borrow the money to keep the people happy. Happy? Are we happy? What went wrong? Who would have thought giving Congress all that power and letting special interest groups direct them was a bad idea?
As for the military personnel being the ones to get screwed instead of the defense contractor, you're forgetting a basic principle: The soldier can choose to not re-enlist. This fact must be considered. Your average congressman does not want to be part of the Congress that let the military go down the tubes.
Yes and their leaders are doing their best to be a part of that same government that they deplore so they can boost their net worth and retire on the taxpayer's dime.
I don't hate our government, I hate those IN our government that seek to destroy any sense of care for the underpriviledged.
It's not the job of the rich to take care of others. America's greatest asset is the freedom of its citizens to go from nothing to obscene wealth, which is why people are clamoring for US citizenship and illegally crossing into America ~ for that opportunity.
Why should the wealthy give more of their earnings to the government, which will redistribute the money to whomever it deems "worthy". I say the only person worthy of that money is the person who earned it.
Democracy and the land of the free: There is no democracy. The top income brackets have bought all the the lawmakers who work for them. And free? The US has more people per capita locked up in jail than any country on the planet and of all time.
Free Markets: There are no free markets, they are all rigged. Free markets call for a level playing field where the rules are fair; neither of those conditions actually exist. Special interests buy laws designed to eliminate their competition.
The list goes on.