Just lately I've been hearing an interesting new narrative coming from the mouthpieces of the far right, such as the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation, when it comes to the federal budget.

They're saying, and I quote: "The United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next 14 countries..."

This is very new. Until maybe a month ago, the military budget was sacred with that crowd. It could only go one direction: Up. America's hegemony was nonnegotiable, and the fact that we massively outspent the rest of the world, at the expense of our own citizens' health and prosperity, was something to be celebrated by them.

But now that's changed. I'm sensing the Karl Rove and company have decided to try a new tactic, and are willing to sacrifice the military budget short-term for some sort of political gain. I'm quite certain they haven't come to their senses regarding military spending - this is obviously just a political move. But it's an interesting one to watch.

We are only talking about a 2.4% reduction in the RATE OF GROWTH.
We are broke, & it is well past time we grow up.
The holy obama government ( peace be upon him) could confiscate 100% of the income of the top 2% , & this annual buget still would not be in balance.
We need to make REAL cuts.

Come on guys, please save them for when someone says something inflammatory or irrelevant.

And the rules of inflation don't apply to the government like they apply to everyone else. They're still paying the same price for gas as they were in the 50's. And those leases they have...just ignore the annual rate increases that are written into them. And those replacement M16's no doubt cost exactly the same as the ones they bought 5 years ago...

But I thought the tax increases were for paying the deficit down. You DO want to pay the deficit down, don't you?

This current bunch, under obama, is HeII bent to bring the Republic to it's knees! They don't care about deficits anymore than they care about you and me.I know about inflation and costs and I'll be damed if I know why the left wants to destroy the country so badly, BUT they are doing so. I don't know how they can be stopped, do you???

The US government spent $17,762 for every person in AK in 2010, putting it number one per capita for federal money - 69.8 precent above the national average. And AK pays in the least in tax dollars.

AK is also the single largest recipient of stimulus funds - $3,145 per capita.

Gets the most + pays in the least = MOOCHERS

And for all you so called libertarian independent rugged individualist and stalwart free market conservatives, the next time you get your welfare check called a PFD send it back to the corporations whose intellectual capital and hard-work made it possible. MOOCHERS!

send9line you should keep in mind that the feds control a great deal of our lands. I for one would be more than happy to take back our lands, both owner ship, & complete control, in lieu of federal pork.

the amount of funding the Ted Stevens brought into Alaska for off the wall projects. Remember his speeches on the Senate floor regarding the "need to fund" super computers to study the Aurora as the future energy source for the country. Don Young had no problem funding the infamous bridge to nowhere and he continues to openly state he has no intention of stopping his earmarks. Lisa has no problem funding lots of things for her constituents. While Markie has certainly found his way to the trough.

All together none of the above has anything to do with the federal ownership of the lands. It all has to do with politics and the ability to spend while crying over the growing national debt.

Then take the same mode of operation and multiple it by a factor of at least 50 to account for the special project funding going to every state and territory.

Its really hard to change things in a Democracy but what we need is reform.
Our country needs to heed the same advice it gives developing countries. Make major structural reforms to be competitive and investments for future growth.

Austerity is not working to restore growth in Europe and our debt burdens are not working here. What we need is to reform

We need financial reforms & other reforms but for the politicians that sit on the committees etc..
Our infrastructure is ranked 25th in the world. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave on country's infrastructure a D and said it would cost $2 trillion to renovate
Think US air traffic contorl, our energy grid. We need reform in congress so we have careful planning and oversight. So that congress allocates money based on need & merit not based on politics. What we need is to reform

But highflyer, look what happens when the word reform is mentioned by Paul Ryan or any other Republican. The Democrats start crying that grandma will be eating cat food and the children will be without a home and school and medicine and you've heard it all.

What's killing this country are the social programs - Medicare and Medicaid, SCHIP, the food stamp program and section 8 and Obama cell phones, etc. And another huge problem on a federal, state and local level is the unfunded liability on the public pension plans. That debt is unsustainable.

Which puts us in the same boat as the socialized countries of Europe - only we're a few years behind them but the chickens will come home to roost sooner than later for us if we keep going down this path.

How can a country even dream about restoring growth and prosperity when they're hanging on by their fingernails just to make it through each day? At some point, the money becomes worthless and the whole structure falls apart.

We WILL have a day of reckoning and if America's population continues to agree at the ballot box to kick the can down the road, so be it, I guess. We'll all have to suffer at some point, whether it's through a lower standard of living or maybe even civil unrest.

It's a scary thing. No country has survived socialism. Capitalism is king.

There are lots of charts and graphs comparing the number of federal employees under Clinton, Bush and Obama. Obama has added to the number of federal workers but what's more important is the private sector worker numbers are down by 1.1M under Obama and that's not even counting the number of people that have just given up looking for work. We all know that the private sector is what drives growth in America and without a healthy private sector there's no chance for economic growth.

Social program dont even add up to one line item in the defense budget...

Are you actually saying blue states like Massachusetts and Maine produce more than Alaska and Texas? Or that the great blue state California, which is bankrupt, is less of a burden than Alaska? GTFO. It's because of the population discrepancy, you moron.

seriously? You would give up all the federal funding that makes your lifestyle possible here in Alaska for your imagined ownership (still publicly owned, in case you are confused) of current Federally reserved land in Alaska? I love it... talk about clueless.

fdubzOU, yes, California is less of a burden in terms of federal subsidies than Alaska. Alaska is more of a burden than every, single, one, of the blue states. Just because Alaska produces oil and minerals doesn't make it less of a burden. The oil and minerals benefit the corporations that sell them. The oil taxes cut back on federal subsidies. The federal subsidies are still larger per capita than any other state in the union. By a large margin in fact.

Alaska's first legislature was almost entirely comprised of Democrats. Alaska was expected to be a humongous nanny state in the sense that it could not support itself without federal help and the legislature reflected that. Once oil was produced the legislature made a drastic shift to the right with the influx of conservative interests. Even with the oil though, Alaska is still a huge welfare state. The largest in the union.