Monday, May 2, 2011
AMF Osama
Well done to President Obama, the US Military JSOC- especially the Navy SEALS, and the US Intelligence Community!
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Bring the Boys (and Girls) Home
Now before you jump to the conclusion that I have suddenly become some sort of anti-war protester, let me explain. I'm talking about EUCOM - the U.S. European Command. We have continued to station thousands of troops in Germany since World War II. Until the demise of the Soviet Union, this was critical because there was a real danger that Russian tank divisions would come rolling through the Fulda Gap. Today though that scenario is highly unlikely. So why do we still have approximately 50,000 troops in Germany? In our current economic situation and considering Germany's reluctance to support the NATO effort in Libya, I assert the money we spend keeping troops in Europe could be better spent elsewhere - like in our own country.
An Internet search reveals that the annual budget for EUCOM is about $3 billion and if the military is a true representation of the American population as a whole, then using the 2008 average annual salary of $54, 124 means the 50,000 military personnel cost another $2.7 billion a year in pay. So we pump about $6 billion a year into the German economy. Why? We have an expeditionary military force which means it is intended to be deployed to fight abroad, not be permanently stationed there. The reality today, especially the political reality, is that any benefit gained by being closer to some potential hotspot is more than countered by the time it takes to make a political decision, build a coalition, or get a UN resolution passed. Once the political challenges have been met, our Navy and Marine Corps (or depending on the situation our Army airborne troops) can be on scene anywhere in the world in two weeks securing ports, landing zones or airfields for follow-on forces. Therefore, troops in Europe are unnecessary.
Instead, let's station the troops we bring back along our border with Mexico or at a minimum, have them perform their field training there. After all, in the last 30 years, our troops have been overwhelming deployed to places that resemble our desert southwest rather than the forests and fields of Germany. Moreover, we have a serious illegal immigration and drug trafficking problem that is concentrated along the Mexican border that requires additional manpower to resolve. 50,000 troops would certainly be very useful in assisting our beleaguered Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Drug Enforcement Agency perform their duties. This is especially true given the fact that the Mexican Drug Cartels are becoming more heavily armed and resemble a military force rather than a criminal organization.
Now before you throw posse comitatus in my face, let me say that this proposal would not violate the law prohibiting the military from performing law enforcement duties as long as the troops are accompanied by law enforcement personnel who would do any actual detaining or arresting if required. However, if confronted by narco-terrorists equipped with military-style weaponry, our personnel would finally have the firepower to respond effectively.
Redeploying our military personnel from Germany to the border areas of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas makes sense from an economic, political, military and homeland security perspective. For once, let's make a decision that would solve several of our problems at once in a straight forward, common sense way.
An Internet search reveals that the annual budget for EUCOM is about $3 billion and if the military is a true representation of the American population as a whole, then using the 2008 average annual salary of $54, 124 means the 50,000 military personnel cost another $2.7 billion a year in pay. So we pump about $6 billion a year into the German economy. Why? We have an expeditionary military force which means it is intended to be deployed to fight abroad, not be permanently stationed there. The reality today, especially the political reality, is that any benefit gained by being closer to some potential hotspot is more than countered by the time it takes to make a political decision, build a coalition, or get a UN resolution passed. Once the political challenges have been met, our Navy and Marine Corps (or depending on the situation our Army airborne troops) can be on scene anywhere in the world in two weeks securing ports, landing zones or airfields for follow-on forces. Therefore, troops in Europe are unnecessary.
Instead, let's station the troops we bring back along our border with Mexico or at a minimum, have them perform their field training there. After all, in the last 30 years, our troops have been overwhelming deployed to places that resemble our desert southwest rather than the forests and fields of Germany. Moreover, we have a serious illegal immigration and drug trafficking problem that is concentrated along the Mexican border that requires additional manpower to resolve. 50,000 troops would certainly be very useful in assisting our beleaguered Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Drug Enforcement Agency perform their duties. This is especially true given the fact that the Mexican Drug Cartels are becoming more heavily armed and resemble a military force rather than a criminal organization.
Now before you throw posse comitatus in my face, let me say that this proposal would not violate the law prohibiting the military from performing law enforcement duties as long as the troops are accompanied by law enforcement personnel who would do any actual detaining or arresting if required. However, if confronted by narco-terrorists equipped with military-style weaponry, our personnel would finally have the firepower to respond effectively.
Redeploying our military personnel from Germany to the border areas of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas makes sense from an economic, political, military and homeland security perspective. For once, let's make a decision that would solve several of our problems at once in a straight forward, common sense way.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Will Lincoln Get An Extra Paragraph?
A few years ago there was a controversy over the content of history books used in the California public school system. Seems that while the text contained pages devoted to the Ku Klux Klan, there was only one paragraph on Abraham Lincoln. This preposterous lack of proportion was an obvious effort by those who have contempt for the country and love to portray America as a terrible, racist place. Since the left controls most of the education establishment in not only California but most of the country, it is clear who was responsible.
Now there is a new controversy regarding how history will be taught in California. The State legislature is considering a law making it mandatory to teach "gay history" in the public schools. The excuse is this will help teach tolerance and stop bullying. Once again, you don't need to be a member of Mensa to figure out what end of the political spectrum is championing this brilliant idea.
Look, I don't think the fact that some figures from history may have been gay should be ignored but I also don't believe that is reason enough for it to be a major part of the curriculum, mandated by law - acknowledge it "yes" but don't highlight it. This action in California may have far reaching consequences. Because California is usually a bell weather State for the rest of America, if this left coast proposal ends up becoming law, expect other States to follow.
There is an up side to all this though. Periodically, one historian or another revisits the rumors that Lincoln may have been either bi-sexual or secretly gay. So who knows? Maybe as a result of California's actions, Abraham Lincoln will end up with two whole paragraphs in new history books!
Now there is a new controversy regarding how history will be taught in California. The State legislature is considering a law making it mandatory to teach "gay history" in the public schools. The excuse is this will help teach tolerance and stop bullying. Once again, you don't need to be a member of Mensa to figure out what end of the political spectrum is championing this brilliant idea.
Look, I don't think the fact that some figures from history may have been gay should be ignored but I also don't believe that is reason enough for it to be a major part of the curriculum, mandated by law - acknowledge it "yes" but don't highlight it. This action in California may have far reaching consequences. Because California is usually a bell weather State for the rest of America, if this left coast proposal ends up becoming law, expect other States to follow.
There is an up side to all this though. Periodically, one historian or another revisits the rumors that Lincoln may have been either bi-sexual or secretly gay. So who knows? Maybe as a result of California's actions, Abraham Lincoln will end up with two whole paragraphs in new history books!
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Jamie Gorelick? Please Not Again!
I had been working on several other topics for this blog when I learned about this news so I immediately shifted gears. The term of Robert Mueller, the longest serving FBI Director since J. Edgar Hoover, will end this fall and the Obama administration is assembling its list of possible successors. Rumor has it that one of the names being considered is Jamie Gorelick and if true, it would demonstrate a stunning lack of judgement even for this administration.
If the name Jamie Gorelick doesn't ring a bell, let me refresh your memory. Gorelick is a longtime Washington Democratic insider and political interloper who has moved back and forth between high profile government and private sector positions for years. As a Justice Department official, Gorelick was the co-author of a memo that resulted in restrictions known as "The Wall" which prevented government agencies from sharing information. As a consequence, the FBI and the CIA were unable to share critical intelligence regarding the activities of the 9/11 hijackers prior to the attack that may have helped our government "connect the dots" and quite possibly prevent the single largest attack against the United States since Pearl Harbor. The 9/11 Commission cited "The Wall" as one of the most significant factors contributing to the intelligence failures leading to 9/11.
If that isn't enough, Ms. Gorelick was a Vice Chairmain of Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored entity responsible to Congress for maintaining stability, liquidity, and affordability in the housing and mortgage markets. Under her leadership for which she received a reported $26 million dollars over a 4 year period, Fannie Mae was the subject of a multi-billion dollar accounting scandal that made it appear to be financially sound when in fact it was in serious trouble. Ultimately, these troubles contributed to the housing crash in 2006. Amazingly, Ms. Gorelick receive a nearly $800,000 bonus for her performance!
As a result of these two catastrophes, Gorelick has been dubbed "The Mistress of Disaster." Personally, if I found out that Jamie Gorelick was booked on the same cruise or flight as I was, I'd change my reservation. But don't misunderstand, I'm not saying she shouldn't be involved with the FBI. I just think she should be the subject of one of its investigations, not a candidate as its director.
If the name Jamie Gorelick doesn't ring a bell, let me refresh your memory. Gorelick is a longtime Washington Democratic insider and political interloper who has moved back and forth between high profile government and private sector positions for years. As a Justice Department official, Gorelick was the co-author of a memo that resulted in restrictions known as "The Wall" which prevented government agencies from sharing information. As a consequence, the FBI and the CIA were unable to share critical intelligence regarding the activities of the 9/11 hijackers prior to the attack that may have helped our government "connect the dots" and quite possibly prevent the single largest attack against the United States since Pearl Harbor. The 9/11 Commission cited "The Wall" as one of the most significant factors contributing to the intelligence failures leading to 9/11.
If that isn't enough, Ms. Gorelick was a Vice Chairmain of Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored entity responsible to Congress for maintaining stability, liquidity, and affordability in the housing and mortgage markets. Under her leadership for which she received a reported $26 million dollars over a 4 year period, Fannie Mae was the subject of a multi-billion dollar accounting scandal that made it appear to be financially sound when in fact it was in serious trouble. Ultimately, these troubles contributed to the housing crash in 2006. Amazingly, Ms. Gorelick receive a nearly $800,000 bonus for her performance!
As a result of these two catastrophes, Gorelick has been dubbed "The Mistress of Disaster." Personally, if I found out that Jamie Gorelick was booked on the same cruise or flight as I was, I'd change my reservation. But don't misunderstand, I'm not saying she shouldn't be involved with the FBI. I just think she should be the subject of one of its investigations, not a candidate as its director.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Biggest Joke of the Week!
At the beginning of the week, I was sure I had heard the best joke that I was going to hear all week. The joke goes like this.
Question: How much coke did Charlie Sheen do?
Answer: Enough to kill Two and a Half Men.
Turns out I was wrong. Though I find this joke to be pretty funny, there was an even bigger joke waiting to be told: Congresses' budget cut proposals. What were the proposals?
Well, House Republicans sent a proposal to cut $61 billion from the budget which the Democrat-led Senate promptly rejected. Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), bemoaned the mean-spirited and draconian cuts that would defund such things as National Public Radio (NPR), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS) and the National Endowment for the Arts. Senator Reid went on to cited the annual Cowboy Poetry Festival in northern Nevada as, what I can only assume, he believes to be the best example of the kinds of critical programs that would be lost due to the cuts. But wait, that wasn't the joke. The joke is that $61 billion is less than 2% of the $3.7 trillion budget. Now that my friends is a real joke. It gets better though. Then, the Senate Democrats sent their own proposal of "prudent and reasonable" cuts to the House where the Republican majority defeated it. The total amount of cuts the Democrats were able to identify - $4.5 billion which ("Are you sitting down?") is just a little over 1/10th of a percent of the budget. What both of these proposals amount to are essentially "rounding errors" when compared to the total size of the budget.
So, one week - two big jokes. The only problem is that, while the Charlie Sheen joke was at least witty, the big budget joke is nothing to laugh at. Our politicians better get serious!
Question: How much coke did Charlie Sheen do?
Answer: Enough to kill Two and a Half Men.
Turns out I was wrong. Though I find this joke to be pretty funny, there was an even bigger joke waiting to be told: Congresses' budget cut proposals. What were the proposals?
Well, House Republicans sent a proposal to cut $61 billion from the budget which the Democrat-led Senate promptly rejected. Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), bemoaned the mean-spirited and draconian cuts that would defund such things as National Public Radio (NPR), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS) and the National Endowment for the Arts. Senator Reid went on to cited the annual Cowboy Poetry Festival in northern Nevada as, what I can only assume, he believes to be the best example of the kinds of critical programs that would be lost due to the cuts. But wait, that wasn't the joke. The joke is that $61 billion is less than 2% of the $3.7 trillion budget. Now that my friends is a real joke. It gets better though. Then, the Senate Democrats sent their own proposal of "prudent and reasonable" cuts to the House where the Republican majority defeated it. The total amount of cuts the Democrats were able to identify - $4.5 billion which ("Are you sitting down?") is just a little over 1/10th of a percent of the budget. What both of these proposals amount to are essentially "rounding errors" when compared to the total size of the budget.
So, one week - two big jokes. The only problem is that, while the Charlie Sheen joke was at least witty, the big budget joke is nothing to laugh at. Our politicians better get serious!
Friday, March 4, 2011
Time for a New kind of BRAC - Let's Call It PRAC!
What is BRAC? For those not acquainted with the term, BRAC stands for Base Realignment and Closure and is a government commission that is charged with determining what military facilities can either be closed or realigned in order to save money. The first round took place in 1988 and there have been 5 rounds to date with another planned for 2015. The idea for a commission was to have independent commissioners who would be able to render their decisions without political concerns.
So what do I mean by PRAC? Well we learned last week that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) identified between $100-$200 billion in overlapping, wasteful, or duplicate federal programs. According to the Wall Street Journal which reviewed the report, the GAO found that there are:
So by PRAC I mean Program Realignment and Cancellation which would be an independent commission to to identify duplication, determine program effectiveness, and ultimately determine which programs should be eliminated, consolidated or left alone.
Although the goals of many of these programs appear to be noble, it seems very unlikely that the duplication is justified. Even if all that is accomplished by "PRAC" is consolidation, the savings realized from eliminating the administrative costs of so many separate programs would be, without a doubt, substantial and perhaps this could be accomplished while preserving the portion of their budgets that is actually spent helping citizens and improving our society.
We've got to start somewhere because if we don't, our annual budget deficits and national debt will destroy the country and threaten the future of our children and grandchildren. Isn't "PRAC" a proposal that both conservative and liberals would agree is the right thing to do?
So what do I mean by PRAC? Well we learned last week that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) identified between $100-$200 billion in overlapping, wasteful, or duplicate federal programs. According to the Wall Street Journal which reviewed the report, the GAO found that there are:
- 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws
- more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless
- 80 programs for economic development
- 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality
- 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation
- 47 for job training and employment; and
- 56 to help people understand finances.
So by PRAC I mean Program Realignment and Cancellation which would be an independent commission to to identify duplication, determine program effectiveness, and ultimately determine which programs should be eliminated, consolidated or left alone.
Although the goals of many of these programs appear to be noble, it seems very unlikely that the duplication is justified. Even if all that is accomplished by "PRAC" is consolidation, the savings realized from eliminating the administrative costs of so many separate programs would be, without a doubt, substantial and perhaps this could be accomplished while preserving the portion of their budgets that is actually spent helping citizens and improving our society.
We've got to start somewhere because if we don't, our annual budget deficits and national debt will destroy the country and threaten the future of our children and grandchildren. Isn't "PRAC" a proposal that both conservative and liberals would agree is the right thing to do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)