How to Defend America in the 21st Century, Part 2

Dr. Earl Tilford, FloydReports.com

Note: This article is Part II in a series. Click here to read Part I. — Ed.

The U.S. Department of Defense must restructure to accommodate deep budget cuts and, more importantly, be ready for the challenges of 21st-century warfare. Those challenges will include unconventional operations and wars fought in vastly expanded battle spaces. Reforms are needed in three areas.

First, today’s DoD — structured around land, air, and sea forces to accommodate Industrial Age conflict — is inadequate for Information Age warfare. The U.S. Air Force received separate service status in 1947 by a mating of the atomic bomb to the long-range delivery system of the day, the B-29 bomber. For five decades, air-power enthusiasts argued that air power formed the tip of the spear while land and sea forces constituted the supporting shaft. That is no longer the case.

Human-piloted combat aircraft undergird the Air Force’s reason for being. It is likely that the 20 B-2 bombers currently in the inventory, at $2 billion dollars a copy, will be the last of the manned bombers. Additionally, the F-35 is likely to be the last manned fighter developed by the United States. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will be the fighting platforms of the future. They can do more for less cost because UAVs are not designed for pilot survivability. Additionally, in the current war, the Air Force has been the supporting—rather than the supported—service. It’s time to reintegrate the Air Force into the U.S. Army. This eliminates an entire service with accompanying bureaucracies while minimally expanding an Army likely to experience reductions throughout its other branches….

Read more.

After Credit Downgrade, the Tea Party Must Dump Obama

Michael Reagan, FloydReports.com

President Obama, the Democratic Party and its members of Congress have spent years blaming former President George W. Bush for the nation’s current economic woes, which is akin to blaming the bank’s tellers for a bank robbery, or for the dishonesty of their bosses, the bank’s executives who were looting the till.

Nobody in the liberal-dominated media bothers to note that in the last years of the Bush presidency Democrats controlled the Congress and thus had a death grip on the nation’s economy, having complete control over the nation’s purse strings. They spent (and spent, and spent) the yet-uncollected taxes of future generations — as well as our own — as if there were no tomorrow.

It wasn’t a Bush Congress that jammed the incredible costs of ObamaCare down the throats of the American people and their children and grandchildren — it was our spendthrift president and his allies on Capitol Hill doing their classic imitation of the legendary drunken sailors on shore leave.

It’s simply common sense to understand that spending money one doesn’t have in the hopes that the future will provide the needed funds is something like believing that some beneficent tooth fairy will come up with the money in the future.

Now the president and the national Democratic Party have suddenly discovered a scapegoat for the latest economic mess they have thrust upon the American people. They insist that the credit-rating downgrade was the fault of the Tea Party trying to control the nation’s purse strings. I’m not kidding. They really expect us to swallow this whopper as the Gospel truth.

They expect us to ignore the fact that the millions of Tea Party members are simply Americans, deeply and sincerely concerned about the nation’s economy and the tendency of the government to spend their hard-earned tax money on whatever scam strikes its fancy.

It’s time to place the blame for our economic malaise where it belongs — on the shoulders of the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress.

Tea Party members have been the voice of reason, not the wild-eyed terrorists portrayed by the Left’s crazy spin doctors.

What would have averted the credit-rating downgrade and the subsequent turmoil in the markets? Precisely the spending cuts advocated by the Tea Party.

According to a statement by Jenny Beth Martin, a co-founder and national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, the debt-ceiling compromise was….

Read more.

The Dirty Dozen Democrats Who Could Have Prevented the Downgrade

William E. Been, FloydReports.com

While watching the debt ceiling increase by $2.4 trillion just to cover spending until the next presidential election, the scam perpetrated on the American people could not have been any more obvious. While the Republican-controlled House of Representatives negotiated with itself for weeks in an attempt to propose something that might save our great nation from financial disaster, neither the U.S. Senate nor the White House proposed any plan at all. Even worse, while listening to Barack Obama’s rhetoric about the need for a bipartisan solution, the Majority Leader of the Democrat-controlled Senate announced that bills coming from the House were “dead on arrival.” In fact, nothing coming from the House was even allowed to be debated by the overly partisan Senate leadership. This resulted in another crisis-not-to-be-wasted. As the administration-imposed deadline of August 2 approached, the Democrats’ rhetoric followed a familiar pattern as they attempted to frighten the American public with false accusations that grandma won’t get her medical care, seniors will lose their Social Security, sick children will be turned away, and that a major calamity will occur if no increase in the debt ceiling is approved by August 2.

In attempting to understand how and why our government has become so blatantly irresponsible, I heard an interview with Orrin Hatch on FOX News. Senator Hatch spoke of his past attempts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, specifically one in 1997 that failed to pass by a single vote. I could not help but wonder what that one vote would have meant to the current situation. With the debt being $5.4 trillion in 1997 and heading for $15 trillion in 2011, it is clear that holding at the 1997 levels would have assured that no crisis would have occurred and that the spending being generated by the Obama administration would have been dramatically reduced. As a result, it is important to understand who those senators were who accounted for the missing vote that would have facilitated financial soundness.

A familiar pattern was again evident. The vote was 66-34, with a super majority of 67 votes required to pass the Amendment. Upon review of the senators’ vote, it was once more aggravating to see the partisan politics that has ruled this country since the early 1990s. The “one vote” that killed the bill was cast by 34 Democrats as a block. They collectively killed the chance for financial sanity. Even more remarkable, every GOP senator voted for the bill, joined by 11 Democrats. Yet, the 34 Democrats blocked a bill that could have prevented the debt ceiling crisis of 2011.

Sadly, 18 of these 34 senators are still in the Senate, and still blocking all attempts to reduce spending and debt. This Group of 18 has destroyed the financial stability and strength of the greatest nation in history. Every American needs to know these senators, who will be listed as the “Dirty Dozen plus 6” at the end of this document.

Having documented the Democrats’ destruction of mortgage lending standards during the 1990s, this irresponsible destruction of a bipartisan Balanced Budget bill in 1997 coupled with the mortgage lending debacle should be an indictment of the entire Democratic Party. No theft of wealth at any level can even begin to approach what the Democrats and their allies in the Progressive movement have committed against our country. The Democrats have destroyed our financial reputation, the reserve status of our dollar, and are continuing reckless spending at the….

Read more.

Cartoon of the Day: Barack Obama, Suicide Spender

U.S. Credit Downgrade: Another Obama First!

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Three years ago, many well-meaning Americans suspended concerns about Barack Obama’s experience, judgment, and associations in order to vote for an “historic” president. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, they got one — good and hard. Friday night, for the first time in history, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+. The United States earned the top rating the moment such rankings began in 1917 — which means we maintained our AAA rating through the Great Depression, stagflation, malaise, and the 1982 recession. Thirty months of Barack Obama, and it is gone for the first time in history. Change we can believe in!

The retrogression is neither surprising nor is it the only “historic” first The One has perpetrated against the United States. Obama cajoled Congress for weeks that it had to pass a debt ceiling compromise by August 2 to avoid just this occasion. But as Rep. Tom McClintock, R-CA, pointed out, “The purported cuts, even if realized, are far below the $4 trillion deficit reduction that credit rating agencies have warned is necessary to preserve the Triple-A credit rating of the United States government.” S&P used precisely this language in its statement about downgrading the United States, saying the resultant cuts fall “short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.” It faults political gridlock and the lack of “containment” of entitlements. The same administration experts who insisted GOP sellouts on the debt compromise would stave off Friday’s downgrade also insisted passing a stimulus plan would hold unemployment below eight percent.

Even less surprising is the fact that the Obama administration actually believed its rhetoric could stop the inevitable. When Standard & Poor’s began hinting at its actions, anonymous officials began a whisper campaign that the agency’s math was off. Jake Tapper reported Friday evening, “Because of the pushback, the Obama administration is preparing for the downgrade but is not 100% positive it’s going to happen, officials said. And if the downgrade does happen, officials are not sure when it will happen.” S&P downgraded the U.S. hours later. Choosing talk over action has consequences, at home and abroad.

The consequences of his actions are unknown and foreboding. The new credit rating may cause inflated interest rates to trickle down to states and localities, or make all borrowing rates rise.

Economic growth would shrink the importance of the national debt — but such growth is not expected as long as Obama is president. Economists expert growth in debt, and its attendant economic disintegration, in the years to come. Under most estimates, debt would amount to 88 percent of GDP in ten years. S&P warns under its pessimistic scenario, debt will reach 101 percent of GDP in 2021. (AFP news service reported on Wednesday, that U.S. borrowing topped 100 percent of GDP.) Carmen Reinhart of the Peterson Institute for International Economics testified before the House Budget Committee in March that growth begins to slow noticeably once debt crosses the 90 percent threshold. The European Central Bank suggested negative impacts begin at the 70-to-80 percent level. Even the adoption of the debt compromise spooked the stock market, causing a decline for nine out of the past ten sessions, a streak not seen since 1978 when Jimmy Carter was president.

The other two ratings agencies, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings, are not likely to follow suit…at least, not yet. However, Moody’s has warned the ratio would have to come down to 73 percent by 2015 “to ensure that the long-run fiscal trajectory remains compatible with a AAA rating.” For its part, S&P warned “a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again,” to AA, putting us on par with such economic powerhouses as Spain and Qatar.

You Wanted Obama to Make History? He Has

This slide toward mediocrity is only the latest of a string of historic firsts in Obama’s presidency. Yes, Obama was the first black president. He has been called the first….

Read more.