Browse By

The Awesome Military Pork Reduction Act Of 2013

Okay, so the legislation is not really named the Awesome Military Pork Reduction Act of 2013. That’s my unofficial name for it, though, because it’s an awesome bill that would reduce some very unawesome pork barrel military spending.

Yesterday, U.S. Representative and Senate candidate Ed Markey, joined by 39 of his congressional colleagues, introduced H.R. 1506 – a bill that would reduce wasteful government spending on nuclear submarines, intercontinental nuclear missiles, and expensive new long range bomber airplanes.

The issue is plain and simple: America doesn’t need new long range airplanes to drop bombs on anybody. America doesn’t need new nuclear power submarines pinging around the world’s oceans. America doesn’t need to be aiming nuclear weapons at other nations while it lectures North Korea and Iran about nukes.

America needs to keep its promises on Social Security to workers who have already paid in for their benefits. H.R. 1506 protects necessary domestic spending by getting rid of frivolous military spending.

The names of the wise members of Congress who have cosponsored H.R. 1506 are: Gregory Meeks (Democrat-NY, District 5), Gregory Meeks (Democrat-NY, District 5), Timothy Bishop (Democrat-NY, District 1), Earl Blumenauer (Democrat-OR, District 3), Suzanne Bonamici (Democrat-OR, District 1), Donna Christensen (Democrat-VI, District 0), Judy Chu (Democrat-CA, District 27), Wm. Clay (Democrat-MO, District 1), John Conyers (Democrat-MI, District 13), Donna Edwards (Democrat-MD, District 4), Keith Ellison (Democrat-MN, District 5), Anna Eshoo (Democrat-CA, District 18), Sam Farr (Democrat-CA, District 20), Raúl Grijalva (Democrat-AZ, District 3), Alcee Hastings (Democrat-FL, District 20), Rush Holt (Democrat-NJ, District 12), Michael Honda (Democrat-CA, District 17), Jared Huffman (Democrat-CA, District 2), William Keating (Democrat-MA, District 9), Barbara Lee (Democrat-CA, District 13), John Lewis (Democrat-GA, District 5), Alan Lowenthal (Democrat-CA, District 47), Carolyn Maloney (Democrat-NY, District 12), Betty McCollum (Democrat-MN, District 4), Jim McDermott (Democrat-WA, District 7), James McGovern (Democrat-MA, District 2), James Moran (Democrat-VA, District 8), Jerrold Nadler (Democrat-NY, District 10), Grace Napolitano (Democrat-CA, District 32), Eleanor Norton (Democrat-DC, District 0), Donald Payne (Democrat-NJ, District 10), Mark Pocan (Democrat-WI, District 2), Jared Polis (Democrat-CO, District 2), David Price (Democrat-NC, District 4), Charles Rangel (Democrat-NY, District 13), Janice Schakowsky (Democrat-IL, District 9), Louise Slaughter (Democrat-NY, District 25), Jackie Speier (Democrat-CA, District 14), John Tierney (Democrat-MA, District 6), Henry Waxman (Democrat-CA, District 33), Frederica Wilson (Democrat-FL, District 24)

iron man 3 weapons of warPostscript: Guess how many articles from the corporate news media have been written about H.R. 1506? ZERO. Guess how many bloggers have written articles about H.R. 1506? ZERO.

Much bigger in the news has been the delay of the premiere of the movie Iron Man 3, in which Iron Man uses super-expensive technologies of war to make things go boom.

7 thoughts on “The Awesome Military Pork Reduction Act Of 2013”

  1. Dave says:

    “America doesn’t need new nuclear power submarines pinging around the world’s oceans.” Well, Peregrin, when the old ones wear out, you and I will no longer be the baddest asses on the planet and someone else can take the job. Who do you want it to be?

    1. Peregrin Wood says:

      That’s like saying to a battered woman, “Someone has to hit you around. If it’s not going to be your husband, then who do you have in mind?”

      1. Dave says:

        I don’t recall that our nuclear subs have battered anybody. If it’s that nukes enable us to have our way in the world, I agree that seems bullying. Question still stands, though. Who would you rather? It’s going to be somebody.

        1. Peregin Wood says:

          No, it’s not, Dave. It’s not going to be somebody. It doesn’t have to be somebody. You are making an absurd presumption, and I’m not going along with it.

  2. Dave says:

    What is absurd here is the presumption (against anyone’s version of history and knowledge of human behaviour) that power vacuums are not filled by the willing. I think you are hoping for something otherwise, but there is no reason for such a hope. Could you honestly say, for example, that if the Democrats decided they have enough power and it’s time to scale back their apparatus, the Republicans would not take advantage of the situation? Yes, that’s national politics, but the world situation is a political situation, and the dynamics are not so different.

    1. Peregin Wood says:

      No, Dave, what’s absurd is your equation of reasonable reduction of American military power with the creation of an absolute vacuum of military power which will be filled by other nations. You say that reducing the number of nuclear weapons the USA operates, when we have thousands, and reducing the number of nuclear powered submarines the USA operates, when no other nation comes close to overwhelming American submarine power, and restraining ourselves from creating yet another multi-billion dollar bomber, when the bombers the USA already have are quite capable of dropping all the bombs that could ever be required in multiple simultaneous wars?!? Come on, Dave. That’s like saying, when someone opens a window for some fresh air, that they’re sucking all the air out of the room, so that people inside will suffer asphyxiation and exploding internal organs as a result of being exposed to a vacuum.

      This isn’t like the Democrats capitulating to the Republicans by dismantling the DNC. It’s more like the Democrats saving some money by closing down their office of operation research employed against the Libertarian Party. It’s a good idea, and the money is going to be used much better elsewhere.

  3. Dave says:

    Well said, Peregrin, and I could’t agree more that the military wastes a lot of money and resources, as does any department of government. The dynamic here is that old stuff wears out and has to be replaced. It is not clear in your article whether the idea of “new” planes, submarines, etc. means “additional” or “maintenance.” One look at Markey’s website and I could suppose he would not differentiate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!