Obama Ready To Quickly Reverse Bush Executive Orders...

Considering that American automakers are so flush with cash right now, I am sure they can bear the R&D costs without federal assistance.

 

If they won't do it, someone else will.

 

Not that I would ever trust a site called "Truthandpolitics.org," but even assuming the charts are correct, that was all set in motion by Bush 1 (and in irony of ironies, Cheney). I liked Clinton and didn't care to much for Bush 1, but it's really not correct to give Clinton credit for this.

Considering Bush 1 was against the intervention in Iraq, PGW 1 was a UN action, PGW 1 didn't have anything to do with a military buildup (Bush's "peace dividend" was already in the works), and oh about a billion other reasonable answers, don't lose the forest through the trees.

You're missing the point. Those mentioned EOs you are referring to restricted where already allocated funding could go. There isn't any indication of net new allocations (ie the pie getting bigger) by removing these EOs.

Are you seriously contending that American automakers can't sell a car that gets 36 mpg? If they had to do that next year they could do it, much less over a decade. That doesn't even touch on the fact that EVERY SINGLE TIME some regulation about mpg comes in, Detroit claims they can't do, and then they do it. This is a big fat red herring.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that this CREATES a market for cars like the Chevy Volt. Save your rolleyes for when you have a right to be indignant.

 

Nice attempt to save face - but Major's point is real and you know it. It is possible to appropriate money to programs without spending more money. You know this.

 

Probably so but given this country's track record there pretty much never seems a time to balance the budget. Either the economy is hurting and we have to spend money and cut taxes or else the economy is great so we should spend money and cut taxes to keep things going great.

 

As good as Clinton looks compared to GWB, during his time as president, we went on a procurement holiday and as a result we're facing a major reinvestment in our armed forces if we want to continue to project power militarily. We are faced with spending fortune to replace 20+ year old fighter planes that have been used constantly throughout their lifetimes... They are done, worn out. By and large, the Air Force is simply extending the number of flight hours before an airframe is retired. It's fine if you decide to drive your 20 year old Camary a few more years, but 9g, mach 2 aircraft must be held to a higher standard. F-15's, A-10's and FA-18's have all been grounded in the past year due to fatigue issues. Individually, these issues may be manageable, but take a step back and you can see the cracks in the facade beginning to spread.

The other option is to stop pretending that we could do something like protect Taiwan if China should invade or engage Russia should they take the Ukrane or whatever else they want. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf
We can't, at least not without incurring huge losses. I know we spend megabucks on the military, but be outraged at what we've gotten for our money and not the fact that the military needs equipment to do what we ask of them.

Incidentally, that Rand report echos what I've been saying about the F-35 for years. It's a dog, a huge mistake that only gets worse every time we spend a dollar on it.

 

I'm not sure one could contend that Rand is an objective source. I'm not saying we don't need some modernization or military spending though. However, I'm not really sure what's new in this report concerning potential chinese tactics. It's the same strats we've been war gaming for decades.

 

What changed things is the build up of the Chinese submarine fleet. While not the equal of U.S. subs, they are sufficient to deny the U.S. Navy the ability to operate in the Luzon strait/South China Sea as the Navy has no long range Tomcats or tankers of their own.

 

Don't really think that's true. China's large number of diesel boats are not going to be able to challenge our combined ASW and/or attack sub forces designated for ASW usage. The Soviets had similar mass force doctrine, so this isn't new.

 

In open seas, you may be correct... however if you narrow the battle space a diesel sub is much more effective. Our ASW is the best in the world, but it's still a needle in a haystack and enough of a threat that I don't think you even try it.

My main point, however, is that if we want to continue to provide security guarantees across the world... we must invest huge amounts of cash into a DOD with a poor recent track record of getting value and lots of problems that need addressing. I don't think there is a whole lot of public support when you see people pointing to pie charts in the federal budget.

 

Whether or not a product would sell is irrelevant to whether or not an entity has the funds necessary to develop the product. I suppose it is possible that the automakers can spend tens of millions of dollars for R&D at a time when they are contemplating bankruptcy and are asking for a bailout just to satisfy their existing operating budget and union obligations. Similarly, I suppose it is possible to fly from Houston to Detroit without an aircraft. It just isn't likely.

I suppose that the government could give a larger bailout for this purpose, but that would be the government paying for the R&D, now wouldn't it?

 

Will he also reverse Bush I's executive orders?

Namely Title 18 of the US Code (18 USC), Chapter 44 Section 922?

 

"Restrictions" doesn't mean the money wasn't spent, it could just as well spelled out priorities and what the money was allowed for.

Case in point about 200 million was spent on an abstinence only programs initiative when comprehensive sex ed programs have proven more effective in preventing pregnancy and STDs. So not only was the 200 million authorized misguided, but you have to figure the subsequent increase in Medicaid and welfare costs because the original money didn't go to effective programs in the first place.

Same kind of issue with stem cell research. It didn’t mean less federal money went to related research, it just meant instead of scientists focusing on the most promising routes to solve their problems they had to go to less efficient routes. (which has actually had a lot of other bad side effects like private capital flowing out of our country and setting up shop in other countries whose governments worked in partnership on that research)

 

I have seen other graphs on federal expenditures on defense. It is hard to fudge those numbers. Look on table 3 below. I know nothing of this cite, but they are referencing the CBO numbers, so I assume they are roughly accurate. Defense spending had a consistent decline every year from 88-00, except GHB's 91 year. Thus I'd give the CA at least shared credit.

http://www.cbpp.org/2-1-99bud.htm

I agree Bush 1 involvement is less crystal clear. There are some claims GHB gave mixed signals to SH on entering Kuwait, kind of wanting an internationally justified/sanctioned opp to take out much of his military. GHB was tight with the Saudi's who where very nervous about SH as well. While what happened in Iraq this century was not his fault, nor can I say I think he tried to steer us clear from ME--that is why I said he put in some of the seeds that contributed to later problems.

 

If I can split the difference between what Refman is saying and Major's point. Major is absolutely correct that executive orders aren't appropriations but I still don't think they are necessarily spending neutral. The problem is for many of these they involve regulation and it still takes funds for that regulation. So if an executive order mandates cars have 36 MPG even though the auto companies are required to do the R & D the fed still has to do the enforcement which will cost money. Its true that such money can be moved from other agencies and programs but then those other programs suffer and if there are new Executive orders are tasking them with further enforcement money has to come from somewhere leading to more spending.