Lucille
04-07-2012, 11:56 AM
Polling the Right Questions on Defense – Voters Get It Right (http://original.antiwar.com/utley/2012/04/04/polling-the-right-questions-on-defense-voters-get-it-right/)
Americans who despair of Washington ever cutting waste from its trillion dollar defense/homeland security budget can take heart from pollster Scott Rasmussen’s book The People’s Money. The author argues that the public is always ahead of the politicians and that the time is ripe for an effective leader to win election with real budget cuts. His polling shows that most Americans believe that the greatest threats to America are cyber warfare and deficit spending. This is amazing if one thinks how most TV just constantly bombards Americans that Iran or China or Arabs or Russia or other nebulous foreigners are out to get us, that they irrationally hate us because we are so good, as former President Bush used to claim. Today 82% of Americans believe economic threats are greater than military ones.
In a speech at Cato, Rasmussen used the analogy of the Battle of Lexington in 1775, the first in our Revolutionary War, which came 18 months before the Declaration of Independence by America’s political leaders. He cited case after case where public opinion was way ahead of Washington’s policies.
Rasmussen’s book is full of interesting statistics and rebuttals of prevailing Washington wisdom. Only 35% of Americans share the Republican view of cutting everything except defense. He explains that “respect and admiration for our troops exists alongside doubts about the jobs they’ve been asked to do.” He cautions that Americans are turned off by attacks on the military such as those during the Vietnam War. But attacking Washington for misuse of the military could sell very well. [...]
Other interesting statistics: 75% believe that no American troops should be stationed overseas except for “vital national security interests.” Only 11% support an American role as “global policeman.” The national security budget pays for 800,000 civilians in addition to the military personnel, but these people are not viewed as favorably as soldiers themselves are.
[...]
“Protect America First,” rather than “Send Americans First,” is the preferred policy by far of most voters. Troops must only be committed as a last resort and only with clear, feasible objectives. The author sees vast potential savings in a defensive rather than offensive military, as does, for example, candidate Ron Paul. Aircraft carriers, of which we have about 20 squadrons, for example, are now very vulnerable to new anti-ship weaponry. Medical insurance for veterans for life is costing some $45 billion yearly. About 700,000 men and women who served in the First Gulf War are now getting disability benefits that add up to more billions. An Air Force more focused on defense rather than offense would save tens of billions each year.
The book anticipates that only the leadership is lacking for big cuts in the Defense/Homeland Security budget and that a new candidate who is able to articulate the issues (and has military credentials, I would add) will gain vast political support in the future.
He's not new but, I know a candidate like that...
I do recommend that readers actually watch Eisenhower’s farewell address about the military-industrial complex. It is an extraordinarily well-crafted and erudite speech, far, far above the kind of talks given by most politicians nowadays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
Americans who despair of Washington ever cutting waste from its trillion dollar defense/homeland security budget can take heart from pollster Scott Rasmussen’s book The People’s Money. The author argues that the public is always ahead of the politicians and that the time is ripe for an effective leader to win election with real budget cuts. His polling shows that most Americans believe that the greatest threats to America are cyber warfare and deficit spending. This is amazing if one thinks how most TV just constantly bombards Americans that Iran or China or Arabs or Russia or other nebulous foreigners are out to get us, that they irrationally hate us because we are so good, as former President Bush used to claim. Today 82% of Americans believe economic threats are greater than military ones.
In a speech at Cato, Rasmussen used the analogy of the Battle of Lexington in 1775, the first in our Revolutionary War, which came 18 months before the Declaration of Independence by America’s political leaders. He cited case after case where public opinion was way ahead of Washington’s policies.
Rasmussen’s book is full of interesting statistics and rebuttals of prevailing Washington wisdom. Only 35% of Americans share the Republican view of cutting everything except defense. He explains that “respect and admiration for our troops exists alongside doubts about the jobs they’ve been asked to do.” He cautions that Americans are turned off by attacks on the military such as those during the Vietnam War. But attacking Washington for misuse of the military could sell very well. [...]
Other interesting statistics: 75% believe that no American troops should be stationed overseas except for “vital national security interests.” Only 11% support an American role as “global policeman.” The national security budget pays for 800,000 civilians in addition to the military personnel, but these people are not viewed as favorably as soldiers themselves are.
[...]
“Protect America First,” rather than “Send Americans First,” is the preferred policy by far of most voters. Troops must only be committed as a last resort and only with clear, feasible objectives. The author sees vast potential savings in a defensive rather than offensive military, as does, for example, candidate Ron Paul. Aircraft carriers, of which we have about 20 squadrons, for example, are now very vulnerable to new anti-ship weaponry. Medical insurance for veterans for life is costing some $45 billion yearly. About 700,000 men and women who served in the First Gulf War are now getting disability benefits that add up to more billions. An Air Force more focused on defense rather than offense would save tens of billions each year.
The book anticipates that only the leadership is lacking for big cuts in the Defense/Homeland Security budget and that a new candidate who is able to articulate the issues (and has military credentials, I would add) will gain vast political support in the future.
He's not new but, I know a candidate like that...
I do recommend that readers actually watch Eisenhower’s farewell address about the military-industrial complex. It is an extraordinarily well-crafted and erudite speech, far, far above the kind of talks given by most politicians nowadays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY