 |
| Rep. Scott trying an F-35 flight simulator |
Asserts the conservative Republican politician, about the defense sequester in the Budget Control Act: "In the U.S. House, I have voted to replace these devastating cuts
to our national defense and our economy. We cannot allow politics to
take control of this situation and to cause irreversible harm to our
nation's ability to defend itself, and we cannot allow these cuts to
harm South Carolina families. Whether we're talking about IEDs,
cyberattacks or more conventional methods, we cannot step backward in
our ability to protect our soil. The past few years have shown just how
quickly things can change, and we owe it to those who put their lives on
the line for our nation to ensure they have the best resources
available to defend themselves and the rest of us."
Booker Rising response:
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), Rep.
Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Ken Blackwell, and now Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) have separately brought up this issue in recent months. My response remains the same: the proposed cuts are piddly. Yes, $500
billion in
military cuts over 10 years (or $50 billion per year) is piddly
when you're talking about a $930 billion per year military budget.
Those "dangerous" cuts are only 5% of the total military budget, so
they will hardly harm military readiness. We all
know that there is plenty of fat to be trimmed off the military budget.
That budget could be slashed in half (especially shutting down bases in
countries that can more than handle their own defense) and America
would still be doing very well on the military front.
Read more here: http://www.islandpacket.com/2012/11/20/2284345/defense-cuts-would-be-big-step.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
