• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Peace Doesn't Keep Itself

    Yesterday afternoon, President Barack Obama told his Economic Recovery Advisory Board: “I realize that we are facing an untenable fiscal situation. What I won’t do is cut back on investments like education.” Meanwhile what our Commander in Chief is very willing to cut is defense. In Bob Woodard’s new book Obama’s War , the President is reported telling Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “I am not spending a trillion dollars” on war costs. And he told Vice President Joe Biden exactly why: ”I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

    Since 1960, federal spending on education has tripled while test scores have remained flat. Meanwhile, even after factoring the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, our nation will only spend 4.9% of GDP on defense this year compared to a post-Word War II average of 6.5%. Education is arguably a local responsibility that should be controlled at the local level with as little federal interference as possible. And even if you think federal spending on education is necessary, it is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and the Department of Education did not even exist until President Jimmy Carter invented it. But the phrase “provide for the common defense” is right there in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

    An explosion in domestic spending, particularly from entitlement programs–Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid–is the true source of our nation’s “untenable fiscal situation,” not defense.  Furthermore, our nation’s continued economic prosperity is entirely dependent on a peaceful world. With this in mind, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) President Arthur Brooks, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) Director William Kristol, and The Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner wrote in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

    [M]ilitary spending is not a net drain on our economy. It is unrealistic to imagine a return to long-term prosperity if we face instability around the globe because of a hollowed-out U.S. military lacking the size and strength to defend American interests around the world.

    Global prosperity requires commerce and trade, and this requires peace. But the peace does not keep itself. The Global Trends 2025 report, which reflects the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community, anticipates the rise of new powers—some hostile—and projects a demand for continued American military power. Meanwhile we face many non-state threats such as terrorism, and piracy in sea lanes around the world. Strength, not weakness, brings the true peace dividend in a global economy.

    But the Obama administration is simply not doing enough to ensure that our strength is preserved. We now have the smallest Navy we have ever had since 1916 and the oldest Air Force in recorded history. Heritage Foundation Research Fellow for National Security Studies Mackenzie Eaglen writes: “Between 2010 and 2015, total defense spending is set to fall from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), even though the nation has assigned more missions to the military over the past two decades.”

    Cutting defense spending is not the answer to our economic woes. After years of presidents taking “peace dividends,” by starving the Pentagon while drastically increasing spending in other areas, we are needlessly hollowing out our armed forces. When troops go to battle in the future, they will lack resources, and suffer unnecessary failures and our national security will be compromised. Like the looming Obama tax hikes, liberals would like to pin this problem on the Tea Parties, arguing that they are the ones arguing for spending cuts, which liberals say should include defense. For one, that presumes all Tea Partiers are alike, rather than a mix of conservatives and libertarians with differing views. But more importantly, it ignores that many in the conservative movement understand that a strong and modern defense system should not be sacrificed for the unhelpful pork and government largesse typical of recent Congresses. These Tea Partiers, which would include champions such as former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), embrace President Reagan’s motto of “peace through strength.”

    Sacrificing our nation’s defenses at the expense of the entitlement state will neither lower our deficits nor protect our citizens. It appears to be the policy of this White House that Washington should no longer be a leader in the world, but instead should be content with managing America’s decline in a “post-American” world. This is not acceptable. Congress must better strengthen our nation by reforming entitlement spending while funding the people and platforms necessary for a balanced defense.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    57 Responses to Morning Bell: Peace Doesn't Keep Itself

    1. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      There is NO PROFIT IN PEACE.

      That is why the GOP & HF hate it.

      LVKen7@Gmail.com

    2. B Sirrine, Traverse says:

      I just finished a book that was written 18 years ago calle The President (can't remember the author) but it like it was just like what was happening today! Possibly the presedent should read it. It's about GOD's view not the world view.

    3. James, Ohio says:

      And yet, to put what you say in context, we must also acknowledge that the USA alone spends 45% of ALL worldwide military spending, more than our NATO allies, Russia, and China combined. No other nation has a single aircraft carrier even close to the OLDEST one in our fleet – and we have 11, each ONE of which equals the full military might of most other nations.

      No one seriously disputes the need for a strong military – but there is a legitimate question of priority and excess. There is NEVER any question asked by the right of any spending, so long as it includes the term "defense" somewhere in the title. And this from the political party that calls for small government.

      All of this spending, most of it in the form of high-tech weaponry, does drain resources from other areas of the economy – and we we cannot ignore the opportunity costs of an economy that relies so heavily on only one industry – the defense industry.

      You correctly note that providing for the common defense is part of the preamble (even though a standing military was then specifically prohibited in Article I, section 8, a constitutional detail most conservatives are happy to ignore). But education is just as much a national priority, for without an educated citizenry we cannot truly establish justice, promote the general welfare or secure the blessings of liberty- concepts often ignored, but also priorities set forth in that same Preamble.

    4. Kathy OBrien, Wheato says:

      Excellent. Brilliant and concice. Thank you it was a pleasure to read. Kathy

    5. Jeff Dover says:

      If Obama tells his "economic" advisors that education is an "investment", has he also told them what the dividend is and if the investment is paying off — in economic terms? Did they even ask?

      I expect that the "investment" he refers to is socialist indoctrination and that the dividend is Democrat power.

    6. ThomNJ says:

      "Education is arguably a local responsibility that should be controlled at the local level with as little federal interference as possible. And even if you think federal spending on education is necessary, it is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and the Department of Education did not even exist until President Jimmy Carter invented it. But the phrase "provide for the common defense" is right there in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution."

      You are ABSOLUTELY correct, but it doesn't matter to a socialist who is stuck on stupid and hell bent on "change".

      We need an entirely new crop of legislators to shrink government, elminate the dept of education and dept of energy, cut entitlements and increase the size of our armed forces……and fight against judicial activism, institute some business friendly and people friendly tax policies and further promote self-responsibility and more local self-direction. A huge start would be for a new Congress to eliminate the "political class" and institute term limits. Seems they exist in a lot of places – even down to some local levels, but for the protected class of the Congress – why is it off-limits?

    7. Dennis Georgia says:

      The defnse of America is not on obama's list of to do things, now or in the future. If it is left up to him, the flag will be flown upside down. The dems are spending all the money they can borrow, and one day the bill will come due. We the tax payer will have to find the money. or hand over the deeds to the white house.

      we can face the problem now and bring all the BS to a halt, or we can sit on our collective butts and let this country go down the tubes.

    8. Bernard P. Giroux, S says:

      Too many people believe that the U.S. is a war mongering nation and that the Defense Department and its suppliers are the source of the problem. That is not really what the issue is. People must not underestimate the rest of the world. The United States must be able to defend itself. A potential enemy of this country must know that it will be crushed if it tries to disrupt the Pax Americana. Perhaps it is time for the military to examine its "overburden" and truly strip itself into a lean fighting force with the tools it needs to do the job. A strong Navy is most essential. The entire world depends upon ocean commerce for survival. A threat to those lines of trade is unacceptable. China is beginning to present that picture now. Without a doubt, despite its reliance on the U.S. for trade, China has a strategic objective to make the Pacific Ocean a Chinese lake. This president does not understand that. He thinks we should sit back and watch it happen. God help us.

    9. Freddie L Barnett,Tu says:

      Thank you for the hard hitting,sad, but true account of our nations defense issues. I would love to back our President, although I did not vote for him, but this and other dollar issues not the color of his skin as some have suggested, are at the forfront of my objection to the Obama years. +++Fred.

    10. John Yungton, Dryden says:

      What % of GDP does the Federal Govt spend on Education compared to Defense?

    11. Wayne Mieth, San Die says:

      It's bad enough that the incompetent mainstream media labels Social Security as an "entitlement program," but when the Heritage Foundation does so, it reeks of stupidity. If Social Security is an entitlement then my 401K plan is too. I, and my employer, have paid into the system for my entire working life. The problem lies with the sleazy politicians who believe it is their personal piggy bank to use for whatever program they are unwilling to own up to publically. Please stop perpetuating the myth that Social Security (and Medicare, which I also pay into) are entitlements. Supporting this belief does nothing more than play into the hands of politicains who want to cut back or eliminate the program they've destroyed.

    12. KLIMAX Baltimore, Ma says:

      With the smallest Navy since 1916 and the oldest Air Force in recorded history we, "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE", must force Congress to raise the spending in both areas in particular along with the Military as a whole !!!! NObama could have taken the entire 814 Billion wasted on the so called "Stimulus" and created more jobs spending the money on OUR Military because when contracts are signed for building ships and air planes the Defence contractors have to hire workers to meet the increased demand for their products whether it be boots or jet engines !!! If we fail to continue to be a "Super Power" it will not be long before some country will try a move on us and maybe it will be on American Soil this time !!! We need to stop trying to make democracies out of the Middle Eastern Countries when they do not want it and HATE us for trying to force it down their throats !!! The bottom line is we need to wait NObama out until 2012 so we can start building the Military back up to a point where it belongs !!! We may be able to do this after the November elections if the Republicans take over the House and get NObama back in line with OUR Democracy instead of his socialistic ideas he is trying to push down OUR Throats !!!!!

    13. Jack Lohman says:

      If you want peace, prepare to battle the defense industry because they want just the opposite. And as long as we have a political system that depends on campaign contributions, peace is out of the question. Get the bribes out of political races with public funding of campaigns and we'll see a lot of congressional decisions making sense to the nation.

      Also, find a way to get Lockheed and the others to make their profits on Clean Energy rather than wars and we'll see progress.

      Jack Lohman …
      http://MoneyedPoliticians.net

    14. Elaine Glisson, Lewe says:

      I believe Obama wants our country to go the way of the most socialistic countries. He will accomplish this by his entitlement programs, his outrageous health reform bill which will mean less services, higher taxes and worst of all by cutting defense spending which will make our country vulnerable to attack.

    15. Lin Hodges - Chesape says:

      The Dept. of Education at the Federal level should be abolished. The States and localities can manage Education much better than the Feds! Our Federal Government is out of control. Why should they collect the Lion's share of taxes and dole it out politically based, so they can please the Unions! We need to get back to a much smaller Federal Government.

    16. Evan, Anchorage says:

      If the US is going to be the world's policeman, then the world should pay for it. No more free defense for everybody at our expense. Missile defense in Europe should be paid for by Europe, or don't do it. Over seas military should be brought home unless that area of the world is willing to pay for it. If Europe takes a nuke from Iran, too bad.

    17. Tom Georgia says:

      Since the United States Federal Government is an idea or a concept that was defined and creatd by the writing of The Constitution, does the Federal Government self-nullify when taking actions that are outside the parameters that were described and established by The Constitution? Does the the idea or concept of the United States Federal Government even exist outside the parameters of its existance as described and prescribed by The Constitution of the United States? Does any government that was constituted by a written Constitution have a legitimate existance outside the parameters of The Constitution that described and created it?

      Has the United States Federal Government seceded from The Union that was created by the writing and ratification of The United States Constitution in 1787 and 1788?

      Has the District of Columbia become nothing more than a strange little foreign country to which We, The People of The United States of America send massive, ever-increasing amounts of foreign aid while the value that we receive in exchange continues to decline and to be less and less?

    18. Tom Atkinson, Myrtle says:

      Now that technology has advanced to the point that our ability to counter attack a enemy who harms us is almost instantaneous, why do we need troops all over the world? Bring the troops not involved in a conflict back home. We are spending money just to keep the troops supplied. We are spending money to bring troops home for leave and replacing troops that are discharged. If one looks where the troops are stationed in most cases it caused buildup of retail and business around them. That is business the US could have. We could build a base close to the Mexican border and stop Illegals and terrorist entering the US in that area. All the troops coming back to the US would then be supporting local rather than foreign business at their new bases.

    19. Wayne A. Moore, In t says:

      Great article, but the real question is how do we balance the extreme views of this argument? We as a people, cannot agree on the same priorities and we can't address all issues with more money! If we constantly go back and forth between left and right the only winners will be the legislators!

      It may be time for a national referendum on the issues as seen by the majority of voters! Fully realizing that the issues change with the state of the economy and national security threats, we need to have a basis for that change! With the decline of Manufacturing competativeness how do we slow the exit of jobs especially those technologies which give us the edge in the defense of the nation? Without reverting to a defense economy were are those skills going to reside until the call goes out that we need them! Our Nation's very existence is dependant on the answers to these questions and I don't see anybody stepping up to answer them!

    20. Drew Page, IL says:

      Whether it's about defense, the environment, education, health care, welfare, illegal immigration, dependence on foreign oil, or what have you, the government always seems to come up with the same old answers to problems. "Throw money at it." Unfortunately, it's our money and most of us don't have as much of it these days. The country doesn't have any money either. We continue to borrow from other countries to finance the idea that we can and should provide everything to everybody, racking up trillions in debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay off.

      In my view government is a necessary evil. Therefore the less of it we have, the better off we will be. Government like any living thing, will fight to grow larger and more powerful. Government exists to serve itself, regardless of what the politicians say. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans work on a transparent basis. They figure the less the public knows about what they do, the better for them. Of course they both will say that they will provide complete transparency, yet neither party provides this. They don't read the legislation they pass into law. Both parties uses meaningless numbers to defend their proposals. Both parties have been guilty of misappropriating Social Security funds for other purposes without ever providing taxpayers with the basic information of how much they took each time, what it was spent on and who was responsible for misappropriating the funds. We are told that the government left "IOUs" whenever Social Security funds were spent on things other than paying Social Security benefits, but were these funds taken by presidential directive, or by a vote of Congress? If by Congressional vote, is there a record of who voted to spend these Social Security funds on other things?

      Now politicians tell us that we, the people who paid into Social Security (along with matching contributions from our employers) over 45 or 50 years, or longer working career have got to get off this "entitlement" mentality because Social Security will soon be broke. By paying into Social Security we purchased an annuity contract from the U.S. We have every right to expect those contractual annuity payments. Would anyone who went to a retail store and purchased an appliance, paying in advance, and waiting for the promised delivery of said appliance consider it an "entitlement"?

    21. DanJ says:

      "…in the long run, that security will not be determined by military or diplomatic moves alone. It will be affected by the decisions of finance ministers, as well as by the decisions of Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense: by the deployment of fiscal and monetary weapons, as well as by military weapons: and, ABOVE ALL, by the strength of this nations economy, as well as by the strength of our defenses."

      Right wing, conservative dribble? Sorry – JFK 14 Dec. 1962, address to the Econ Club of NY.

      He obviously understood the connection between a strong defense and a strong dollar. It's amazing how far (left) the Democrats have come.

    22. toledofan says:

      The answers are easy to see but hard to attain especially when you have an arrogant ideolog in the White House. The defense budget should remain as a relative constant and there should be at the very least a five year plan that spells out what has to be upgraded, modified, rebuilt or redesigned. Basically, it's the cost of use, versus time, versus maintenance costs. But, I guess if we did that then we would have to cut something like education or refashion some of the entitlements. I think that the only way to break the cycle would be to force term limits and by holding Washington accountable. We can only hope that enough people use their brains in November and vote as many of the people that got us into this mess out of office.

    23. Paul Potter says:

      When will our Federal government get to total responsibility for thhe mess that they have gotten us into. Back to the basics of the Constitution, get rid of the zars, get rid of all the departments that shoul be at local or state levels, get rid of gov. control of business small and large, get rid of entitlement programs, get rid of the IRS as it exists today – flat income or a consumer sales tax, give incentive – tax breaks for all -rich- that promote job growth and demolish all programs that stifel growth i.e. carbon tax – the private market will recover and make the adjustments that are needed to make America great again.

    24. Norm Terry Melbourne says:

      Social Security Medicaid and Medicare are not necessarily the programs that has caused this problem. It's this and past Congress' that have robbed all programs of the revenues for which intended!

    25. Elaine, Ocala, Fl. says:

      Why is social security and medicare always the culprits that need to be cut? Why not all the money spent on foreign aid? Why is there no force demanding Obama prove his eligibity? We would have done away with all his expensive policies if he is not eligible.

    26. Steve S. California says:

      "Without reverting to a defense economy were are those skills going to reside until the call goes out that we need them"

      I'll answer that Wayne! The fact is that the stated view is fallacious in it's entirety. This is not december 1941. In this world, you will fight with what you have, as the issue will be decided long before you can "spin up" your manufacturing base to a wartime footing, especially given the complexity of current weapon systems. If it's not good enough, or plentiful enough, then your sheet's in the wind, so to speak. This is precisely what's wrong with our government, the fact that they do not understand this fundamental concept, and it allows them to feel OK with bleeding an overused defense system dry, and to make absolutely foolhardy decisions. A perfect example is the recent decision to halt F-22 production in return for the promise of more F-35's later (look at history. This promise is NEVER fulfilled). People make inane statements to justify this action (the aircraft was designed for a different era" while failing to understand that air superiority has not gone out of style, it is still an absolute necessity during war, to allow ground commanders the total flexibility that they need. Statements have been made that it's not needed because there's no foe. Hogwash again, especially in light of the fact that Russia is now flying a 5th gen fighter prototype (spitting image of th YF-23, strangely enough. And they will end up in China's arsenal as well. The last 10 years, with China holding the biggest one sided arms race in history, tells the tale. (this is not done for self defense, as defense can be done much more chaply than offensive weapons).Their current fleet has much more capacity, especially in air to air capability, than ours, and is decades newer. The promise of more F-35's is not what it seems either. (hands on experience speaks here).This aircraft, though electronically superior to the Raptor, is not as capable either, with no vectored thrust, less weapons carriage ability and frontal stealh, vs all around, and one powerplant. Without the Raptor, we will not even maintain parity with the potential opposition. Then we will be guilty of sending our folks out with less than the best weapons (and training) to lay their lives on the line. This is nothing short of criminal, short sighted and self serving of all those involved in this travesty, and they should know better. There will be no accountability when the crap hits the fan, which it most surely will..Admittedly narrow beam focus here, but volumes could be written, and I simply dont have the time.

    27. Timpclimber Provo, U says:

      Excellent article but the debate needs to be on going and where and what we commit ourselves to should always be part of the debate. One of the factors rarely considered are the benefits of a strong military beyond keeping our country safe and encouraging better worldwide leadership–the many benefits that military training provides our younger population. They learn much about self discipline and team work with all kinds of people. The civil rights of our african american citizens would not have had as much support had not many of us had the integrated experiences of the military in the 50s and 60s. I will never forget my outstanding black flight leader in the USAF.

    28. Clarence De Barrows says:

      Bottom line after the President's rhetoric is considered: "What I won't do is cut back on investments like education." Sounds noble, but the "investment" he is really concerned with is one which indoctrinates students with the liberal Marxist agenda he wishes to introduce into the minds of young students throughout this Country. That and the "investment" in other entitlements which appeal to nanny state supporters – all of the programs which garner votes for him and his ilk, while enfeebling our Constitution and enervating our Republic. Dollars for defense won't accomplish what he wants which is to undermine the sense of personal responsibility and associated traits which have always been fundamentally American and which made this Country strong and unique in the world. By expanding entitlements and government largesse he would destroy traditional American values in an effort to garner support for his "global agenda". An agenda wherein American exceptionalism is displaced for the "common global good" so that everyone, regardless of merit, would have an "equal piece of the pie." If you've done any thinking at all you know what that means for your way of life!

    29. Jeanne Stotler, Wood says:

      BHO does not want us to be the best, he wants to rule the world, he is striving for world gov't. with him as the leader. The one thing he forgets is he has no experiance only HE thinks he knows how. One thing I agree with is STOP giving free help and such to all countries. We spent millions after WWI and WWII helping nations rebuild and from some, like France got a kick in the rear, we are the first to help out when there is an earthquake, flood or any other disaster and we never get so much as a Thank You. Kick the United Nations out of USA, after NYC collects all the scoff law tickets, or sieze the cars of the offenders. We need to stop giving on all levels, if you are able bodied, get a job, not a hand out, if you are on welfare, medicaid or food stamps and are caught with drugs, you get your benefits cut, and put in enforced re-hab. Support united families not limit benefits to single mothers who have out of wedlock kids to collect more welfare. Teach these women a trade,make getting a job and supporting themselves a priority. Send school controls BACK TO THE STATES, our scores have been going down since the Feds took over and yet the cost have risen. We are too absorbed in getting test scores and not with teaching for the fact of learning and retaining the knowledge. Teach AMERICAN HISTORY, do away with hispanic month, african american month, lets have AMERICAN SCHOOL YEAR, Its alright to know about these other things but in relation as to how they came to be part of history. We are not AFRICAN Americans, HISPANIC Americasn, Italian, Irish or any other American, Teddy Roosevelt said it "WE ARE AMERICANS" IF NOT we cannot stand UNITED.

    30. Russell Sebring Fl. says:

      ?The Congress speak with forked tongue. On one side they demand strict observance of separation of church and state, but they want to confiscate compassion, which is the bailiwick of religion.

      The government is a monopoly. A set of rules, the Constitution, must be used to keep the government on the straight and narrow. It seams that none have kept their pledge to uphold the constitution.

    31. Mike, North Carolina says:

      From "Peace Doesn't Keep Itself" (in Heritage's "The Foundry"/"The Morning Bell":

      "Sacrificing our nation’s defenses at the expense of the entitlement state will neither lower our deficits nor protect our citizens".

      Oh how the best of our teachers of English from Grammar school 1st grade through (College) Doctorate Degree levels, could and indeed should, give an "F" (as in a non-passing grade) for that contradiction!

      How so? "Sacrifice": "to surrender, give up" (@ Dictionary.com)

      "Expense": "to be expensed", "at the expense of, at the sacrifice of" (Dictionary.com)

      Instead, hopefully, the writer meant to write "Sacrificing our nation's defenses to the so-called 'entitlement' state will neither lower our deficits nor protect our citizens".

      Other than that, what the writer wrote is all basically right-on!

    32. Sue Marie, Detroit says:

      As a parent the government is not resposible for my children's education, I am. I make sure they do their homework and learn what they should be learning. The educational money goes to administration costs, pensions and mostly political campaigns. Yeah the democrats are going keep stealing from me in the name of education, while our nation becomes dumber and dumber. My educated and skilled children are going have to support those from public schools. My husband and I will never see retirement or golden years because we have to support the ruling and welfare class until we drop dead.

    33. Mike, North Carolina says:

      From the article “Peace Doesn’t Keep Itself” in Heritage’s “The Foundry”/”The Morning Bell”:

      “Sacrificing our nation’s defenses at the expense of the entitlement state will neither lower our deficits nor protect our citizens.

      Oh how the best of our teachers of English, from grammar school through (college) degree levels, could and should, or at least did years ago, give an “F” (as in a non-passing grade) for such a contradiction!

      How so? “Sacrifice: to surrender, give up”. (@Dictionary.com) “Expense: at the expense of, at the sacrifice of” (@Dicionary.com)

      So, to put it both correctly and accurately, and so also give no grounds for both the best of our English teachers and those products of exploding national “education bills” who can barely read their own high school diplomas (assuming they didn’t quit before being graduated) “jumping all over” contradiction, is to say that “Sacrificing our nation’s defenses to the so-called “entitlement” state will neither lower our deficits nor protect our citizens”.

      Other than that, the article is all right-on!

    34. Mike, North Carolina says:

      From the article “Peace Doesn’t Keep Itself” in Heritage’s “The Foundry”/”The Morning Bell”:

      “Sacrificing our nation’s defenses at the expense of the entitlement state will neither lower our deficits nor protect our citizens.

      Oh how the best of our teachers of English, from grammar school through (college) degree levels, could and should, or at least did years ago, give an “F” (as in a non-passing grade) for such a contradiction!

      How so? “Sacrifice: to surrender, give up”. (@Dictionary.com) “Expense: at the expense of, at the sacrifice of” (@Dicionary.com)

      So, to put it both correctly and accurately, and so also give no grounds for both the best of our English teachers and those products of exploding national “education bills” who can barely read their own high school diplomas (assuming they didn’t quit before being graduated) “jumping all over” contradiction, is to say that “Sacrificing our nation’s defenses to the so-called “entitlement” state will neither lower our deficits nor protect our citizens”.

      Other than that, the article is all right-on!

    35. Mike, North Carolina says:

      From the article “Peace Doesn’t Keep Itself” in Heritage’s “The Foundry”/”The Morning Bell”:

      “Sacrificing our nation’s defenses at the expense of the entitlement state will neither lower our deficits nor protect our citizens.

      Oh how the best of our teachers of English, from grammar school through (college) degree levels, could and should, or at least did years ago, give an “F” (as in a non-passing grade) for such a contradiction!

      How so? “Sacrifice: to surrender, give up”. (@Dictionary.com) “Expense: at the expense of, at the sacrifice of” (@Dicionary.com)

      So, to put it both correctly and accurately, and so also give no grounds for both the best of our English teachers and those products of exploding national “education bills” who can barely read their own high school diplomas (assuming they didn’t quit before being graduated) “jumping all over” contradiction, is to say that “Sacrificing our nation’s defenses to the so-called “entitlement” state will neither lower our deficits nor protect our citizens”.

      Other than that, the article is all right-on!

    36. Hugh Davis - FL says:

      Everyone lists three items which are "entitlements': Social Security, Medicare,

      and Medicaid. Don't all of the recipients of the many give away programs of the government consider their "dole" to be an entitlement? These are too numerous

      to mention.

    37. Paul Rinderle says:

      There is no question in my mind

      Obama the Muslim, is deliberately dismantling the military, creating a domestic military, destroying jobs and will eventually create inflation to bring every American to their knees praising Allah and him as the Caliphate

      The only question; is why people I consider Amercans are idly standing by and watching it happen and that includes a silent Republican Party. They act like a gun is pointed at their heads.

    38. Maurice, Mason, OH says:

      We must have a strong defense system. Just as Radical Islam "evangelized" the poor African countries, the effort is growing strong within our borders. Our military must be trained to handle terrorism wherever it is encountered. The time is rapidly approaching where we must annihilate radical Islam from our own soil. To do so will require a U. S. Military presence much different than that which we employ elsewhere in the world. That means increased personnel, equipment and a different kind of warfare training. The wrong people for that are in the White House, House and Senate.

    39. dkid says:

      I CANT WAIT FOR NOVEMBER, ALREADY TOOK THR NEXT DAY OFF!!

    40. Mary , Georgia says:

      Such a great article, you are absolutely correct that more and more $$ are being spent on education and our education today stinks. I am a senior citizen, I went to a parochial elementary school, that had no support from any government, but we had a great education, and while it did cost my parents, who by the way were not rich, but sacrified so we could get a good education. My high school education was a public high school, but this was before the federal government got involved.

      President Jimmy Carter did the wrong thing brining the federal government into the schools. It has not been the same since, and also the unions have caused education to be a joke.

      Lets get back to basics and hire teachers who love to teach, and pay them a good wage, if they perform, but if they do not, they go.

      Our military has to be funded, with todays terrorists threats, we must be ready with the best trained men and women, with the best weapons and warfare. President Obama will never do this as he is not proud of our country and our military.

    41. dr3wv4n3, Harmony, N says:

      Look up John Taylor Gatto's work (former NYC and NY State teacher of the year). His analysis shows that spending more on education does not equal higher test scores. Countries/Schools spending less per student are testing higher than US public school children by a wide margin. This also goes for the relationship of time in school to test scores. In Scanavian countries, they spend far less time in school yet test higher than US school children consistently. Money does not equal better education.

      Also, I believe that for every teacher in a classroom, there is one non-classroom employee. this is a 1:1 production to support ratio. No private company could operate on this premise and benefit its industry while remaining profitable. I.E. my consulting office as 28 people who bill their time to clients and 2 support personnel. We have managed to survive even in these lean economic times.

    42. Nicholas says:

      Half the teachers in the public schools can't pass a minimum competance test in the area of there expertise. Shut it down. The free market will respond. The democratic party doesn't want a strong military in the U.S., it wants to destroy the military period. First, you look at history and find out how to destroy a military. Start with Greece and Rome, cut military budgets, get your military in wars with no intention of winning,( like Korea, Vietnam, Somalia,and now Afganistan) after this you opening leagalize homosexuals in the military. The homosexual move is the last stake in the heart of a world power. Any of this sound familiar yet? Obama didn't state his Afganistan plan until he talked to the communist Chinese. Whose financing the Taliban? The Democratic party, Taliban, and the Chinese have working together for at least 15 years.Can you stand the truth?

    43. Lloyd Welch in Carol says:

      Our countries stated objectives are to PROMOTE the general welfare and to PROVIDE the common defense. I know these two words look a lot alike to all of you with liberal arts educations but look them up and see the difference.Tell me all you socialist what is so hard to understand about this statement? You want free healthcare, free food, free housing, free transportation, free this and free that. Tell just who or what will pay for all of this free, free when you socialists have sent our jobs to where ever? All of us with the ambition to work and freedom will pay for by the loss of it.

    44. Lisa Hull Winona, MN says:

      I believe it was Richard Nixon who instituted the Department of Education.

    45. Michelle, NYC says:

      "The continued investment in militarism does not make the world safer. Weapons cannot address the main threats people all over the world are facing today, such as natural disasters, increased food prices, and lack of adequate health care, education, and a clean environment. Yet these threats are aggravating arms races and weapons development."

      http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/statements/MD

    46. Dr.Bill Chapman, Col says:

      As a retired economic professor I have more of a question than a comment. Would we not be better informed if we sought the percent defense spending constitutes of our tax income instead of a % of GDP?

      GDP represents all expenditures including indebting our progeny unto the seventh generation from now. This creates a false % of defense spending. We should base all expenditures in juxtaposition to taxes actually collected in order to have a correct picture. We must begin to live within our means and our income, so we must cut all spending or we must raise taxes. Can not have it both ways.

      Defense spending should also be carefully regulated with strigent cost analysis of each purchase in order to avoid the gross overpays to greedy contractors, overcharging, so that they can 'kick-back' to the congresspersons letting defense contracts.

      The article is correct in that education should be at least at the state level of cost and control, if not at the community or even the parental level. Of course what we have now is indoctrination rather than education and certainly not worth the cost to us the tax payers.

      This article causes thinking and that is a rare good thing.

    47. and2therepublic, ill says:

      Education is not an enumerated power of Congress. It is, therefore, none of the federal governments business. The department of education is unconstitutional.

    48. Peggy, Massillon, OH says:

      James, OH wrote: (even though a standing military was then specifically prohibited in Article I, section 8, a constitutional detail most conservatives are happy to ignore). Article I, section 8, states:

      "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriations of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

      Sounds like the Constitution does allow for maintaining a standing army and navy. It simply put into effect the authority to fund said army to the congress. Appropriating money every two years was intended to ensure that money was properly allocated during times of war and peace. During wartime, allocations would naturally fluctuate depending on the status of the conflict. Since the war for independence from England took longer than two years, I find it difficult to believe that the founders intended for any future war to be limited to two years. They also felt that "providing for the common defence" was necessary to ensure that no country could try to assume dominance over the U.S. England would surely try to retrieve the colonies. Defending what they had fought so hard for was certainly upper most in their minds.

    49. C.Berto, San Anselmo says:

      Obama SAYS he "won't cut back on education" but this is exactly what he is doing by not supporting charter schools and the voucher system. Obviously, he is pandering to the teachers' unions and the children are the sacrificial goats.

      One of the duties of government and Congress is to maintain the defense of the country by maintaining our military forces. It's indicative of Obama's incompetence that this vital presence is being allowed to deteriorate. The peace of today's world can only be preserved through military strength. Even Theodore Roosevelt knew this: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The United Nations is a failure; fuzzy-head natterings will not deter the basic threats of terrorists.

    50. Mike, Chicago says:

      At least Medicare and Social Security are somewhat funded by the recipients. Medicaid along with other programs are for people who contribute almost nothing. They pay little or no taxes even while working due to our discriminatory tax system. Some don't mind lower paying jobs so they can keep medicaid, food stamps, school lunches, etc. and some just scam the system. Cut those before Medicare and Social Security.

    51. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      In the 1920s and '30s, we were under the illusion that if we cut the military waaaaay

      back, other countries would follow suit. We had the Washington Naval Treaty, the London Naval Treaties, Anglo-German Naval Agreement. It didn't work. We had World War II anyway.

    52. Steve S. California says:

      "If Europe takes a nuke from Iran, too bad." I can't stay quiet on this one.This is EXACTLY the kind of attitude that has made it possible for the greatest crimes against humanity to occurr with little or no opposition. Mass murder? too bad! Mass starvation? Don't know 'em. Too bad! Ethnic cleansing? Too bad!

      Well, I gotta tell ya, there's nothing so low as people whith out real human compassion. To you, ther're just "they". to me, they are family and life long friends, even those I haven't met yet.It shouldn't tak living 9 years with folks to get a human being to understand that "they" might just be human like us, at least enough to warrant a little respect. Shame on you.

    53. Mace, Arizona says:

      For the life of me, now that I have reached retirement age and having paid into SS my entire life since I was 14yrs of age. I struggle to understand how it qualifies to be labeled and entitlement program. How is it that the money we have been forced to contribute to the SS system is not something which we should receive back as promised? To be sure there are entitlement programs that have been created by the Liberal & Progressives of both parties, but SS isn't one of them in my opinion. Every time I hear someone call it and entitlement, I see red. US Navy veteran of the Vietnam erra.

    54. Linda, Louisiana says:

      Like so many Democrats, Obama does not see the danger in cutting defense spending. The best protection any nation can have is to have a fully funded and fully prepared DEFENSE. Obama thinks we (he) can bow to other country leaders and that we can make them love us. The only one that could possibly want to love us is Israel, and he is fast cutting Israel off, trading them for other non-Christian countries. I have no problem with adequate funding for Education, but I do have a problem with going overboard assisting other countries such as Haiti.

    55. Aaron Ellsworth, Mes says:

      How many jobs will be destroyed by Obama's military spending cuts?

      To James from Ohio.

      I've just read Article 1: section 8

      Here's what it says about the military:

      To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

      To provide and maintain a Navy;

      To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      I don't see anything forbiding a standing army.

    56. Pingback: Blinking Blog

    57. Faithful Voter says:

      The Republicans are holding our national security hostage by not signing the NEW START treaty. The Republicans refused to sign this treaty with Russia because they did not want to give President Obama another political victory before the midterm elections. They are playing partisan politics with our safety. Former Republican leaders agree that ratifying the treaty is in our best interest but Republicans continue to put politics before people. By the way Republican hero Ronald Reagan was the primary supporter of the first START treaty.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×