The Agenda: Defense cuts could hit locally, Episcopal bishop wins fight over name

How would bus strike affect local schools?

Posted by Sam Spence on Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Airmen gather outside a C-17 Globemaster at Charleston AFB - US DEPT. OF DEFENSE

Defense cuts could hit businesses, local communities
Defense budget cuts at the national level will force adjustments by businesses and localities like those in the Charleston area that have depended on revenue generated by the nation's two wars.
Sources: USA Today

Charleston Episcopal bishop will continue operating under original name
A circuit court judge has extended an order to allow the Right Rev. Mark Lawrence to continue operating under the name, seal and mark of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina Thursday in a suit brought by the national Episcopal Church.
Sources: The State

Advertisement

Haley insurance commissioner nominee facing scrutiny from lawmakers
Lawmakers are standing firm on questioning Gov. Nkki Haley's nominee to head the insurance department, post he's held on an interim basis, over questions about his time as a insurance industry lobbyist.
Sources: Post and Courier
Related: Stavrinakis op-ed: Farmer wrong guy for insurance department

Limehouse, Moffly kick off 1st District campaigns
Charleston state Rep. Chip Limehouse and local school board member Elizabeth Moffly kicked off their campaigns for the 1st District at a forum in Beaufort Thursday with talk of small government and slashing government assistance programs like food stamps and welfare.
Sources: Hilton Head Island Packet

How would a bus strike affect Charleston-area schools?
The Post and Courier looks at the numbers behind area schools to see how a Charleston bus drivers strike would affect the local community.
Sources: Post and Courier
Related: Teamsters rep says progress being made in negotiations (Live 5)

Brian Hicks: Is Johns Island Beach Co. development the right 'deal' for county?
"I want Charleston County taxpayers to buy me a 2014 Corvette. This is a great deal for you. Really. Just hear me out. See, I can't afford to spend $60,000-plus on a Chevy. But the benefits to the county are so great, everyone should just chip in — and not ask too many pesky questions. All the county has to do is sign for the loan, and then use the revenue this car brings into the community to repay it."
Sources: Post and Courier

State health officials work to strike sodas from food stamp-eligibility
Looking to cut down on the obesity level of South Carolina children, state Department of Health and Environmental Control officials have floated the idea of banning sugary sodas from being bought using food stamps.
Sources: The State

Comments (17)

Showing 1-17 of 17

Cut welfare for the poor (but not defense contractors!)

Cut welfare for the poor (but fight for the cola industry's right to get some of that money!)

Keep South Carolina Anti-Union (by privatizing the school bus system and allowing a union to form!)

Cut government spending (again, by privatizing the school bus system - which oddly has had the effect of spending increasing, year after year, at a pace that seems higher than school systems that haven't privatized!)

Ah, conservatives. They've got all the GREAT ideas.

report 3 of 10 people like this.   
Posted by mat catastrophe on February 1, 2013 at 1:13 PM

The US military is one of the most costly socialist programs on the planet. Every soldier's food, clothing, transportation and job security is funded by taxpayer dollars. So I really have a hard time comprehending why these folks railing against socialism are so pro military.

report 2 of 6 people like this.   
Posted by Ron Liberte on February 1, 2013 at 6:14 PM

The Men and Women of the Military have pledged their very lives to defense of the nation. We can do no less than give them all the support they need.
National defense expenditures are 19 percent of the Federal Budget
The set of programs euphemistically called entitlements. are 62 percent of the national budget.

report 4 of 5 people like this.   
Posted by artrogue on February 2, 2013 at 10:33 AM

God, what a jingoistic load of shit.

report 2 of 5 people like this.   
Posted by mat catastrophe on February 2, 2013 at 1:28 PM

It is how i feel. You can call it what you want, that is your opinion and option.

report 2 of 3 people like this.   
Posted by artrogue on February 2, 2013 at 7:42 PM

I'm glad you're supporting socialism, artrogue. Perhaps there is hope for you.

report 1 of 2 people like this.   
Posted by Ron Liberte on February 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Really not sure what your point is. We need defense. We pay for it.


As long as i'm wasting my time, replying to your post.
I'll use the time wisely and urge everyone to visit this site and
support any way they can.

http://www.wwphighcap.org/

report 1 of 2 people like this.   
Posted by artrogue on February 3, 2013 at 10:10 AM

If we were spending billions on actual people who are in the service, that would be one thing. We aren't. It's money spent on specious projects, often ones even the military brass have said are useless at this point in history.

The real story is that we are not spending on the men and women in uniform. They're scooped up out of high school, promised the moon, then sent off to the desert for far longer than one tour to be used as bullet catchers for the oil companies. If they die, they're given a burial; if they're wounded, they're lucky no to wind up in a critically underfunded VA facility; and if they're neither, they're dumped back into America with a raging case of PTSD and no job prospects.

So don't wrap up defense spending in some kind of shiny "Support the Troops" bullshit. It's the same money and power game that Eisenhower warned about.

report 6 of 8 people like this.   
Posted by mat catastrophe on February 3, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Mat, that just might be the best post you've ever written.

report 3 of 5 people like this.   
Posted by Paulius on February 3, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Its not bullshit to support the troops. My comment was nothing but pure honesty and how i feel.
Could be i think your just wrapping your dislike of the military in some bullshit compassion for our service people.
So don't feel like you can tell me what I can or can't post. :)

The defense dept is certainly an area that needs trememdous oversight and cutting in many areas. I've posted before about my first hand knowledge of the waste.
We are spending billions on the men and women and we will continue too.

You might wanna look into more of Eisenhower a little more before you go posting his warning. I think you might find that's the only thing you and he would agree about.
In 1954, Ike articulated the domino theory in his outlook towards communism in Southeast Asia and also in Central America; he believed that if the communists were allowed to prevail in Vietnam, this would cause a succession of countries to fall to communism, from Laos through Malaysia and Indonesia ultimately to India. Likewise, the fall of Guatemala would end with the fall of neighboring Mexico.
That year the loss of North Vietnam to the communists and the rejection of his proposed European Defense Community (EDC) were serious defeats, but he remained optimistic in his opposition to the spread of communism, saying "Long faces don't win wars".As he had threatened the French in their rejection of EDC, he afterwards moved to restore Germany, as a full NATO partner.
His foreign policy was also marked by "the brave new world of CIA-led coups and assassinations." With Eisenhower's leadership and Dulles' direction, CIA activities increased, to resist the spread of communism in poorer countries;the CIA in part deposed the leaders of Iran in Operation Ajax, of Guatemala through Operation Pbsuccess, and possibly the newly independent Republic of the Congo (LĂ©opoldville).
In 1954 Ike wanted to increase surveillance inside the Soviet Union. With Dulles' recommendation, he authorized the deployment of thirty Lockheed U-2's at a cost of $35 million.
The Eisenhower administration also planned the Bay of Pigs Invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba, which John F. Kennedy was left to carry out."

report 1 of 2 people like this.   
Posted by artrogue on February 5, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Furloughed workers, reduced combat readiness, shrunken naval operations and cuts to Air Force flying hours and weapons maintenance.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta listed those consequences as he provided a stark warning on Wednesday about the effects of impending budget cuts on the military unless Congress acts to avert them.
The result, he said, would be "the most serious readiness crisis" faced by the armed services in over a decade.

report 1 of 2 people like this.   
Posted by artrogue on February 6, 2013 at 6:46 PM

So, then the US military will only be bigger than the next five combined instead of the next six?

report 3 of 4 people like this.   
Posted by TROLLSLAYER on February 6, 2013 at 11:26 PM

We might not be able to defend ourselves from the Spanish Armada.

report 1 of 3 people like this.   
Posted by mat catastrophe on February 7, 2013 at 7:40 AM

"So, then the US military will only be bigger than the next five combined instead of the next six?"

In the dick measuring contest that is military prowess, that's quite an emasculating setback.

report 1 of 2 people like this.   
Posted by Ron Liberte on February 7, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Maybe the Chinese Armada ?
A recent U.S. Naval Institute conference featured an extraordinarily blunt assessment of China's maritime strategy and ambitions from U.S. Navy Captain James Fanell, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and Information Operations for U.S. Pacific Fleet.
The moderator describes Fanell as the "top intelligence officer" in the Pacific Fleet, which means he is likely advising some of the U.S. military's senior decision-makers on China's military strategy and capability.
Fanell's language is, well, bracing.
He calls China "hegemonic" and says it displays "aggression"; he claims China "bullies adversaries" and that it has become a "mistrusted principal threat."
Btw, I'm sure i don't have to mention it to you 3, but Leon Panetta is the outgoing secretary of defense. A staunch democrat and liberal. He is hardly what someone would call a warhawk, so we should take what he says about "the most serious readiness crisis" faced by the armed services in over a decade as an important warning.

report 1 of 2 people like this.   
Posted by artrogue on February 7, 2013 at 5:54 PM

China would be one of those next five or six of which I referred.

report 1 of 1 people like this.   
Posted by TROLLSLAYER on February 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM

So where should we be in defense spending? Should we spend less than any country that might pose a threat?
The intelligence on China shows they have increased spending in recent years. Yes we are still way beyond them in spending. We are also broke and borrowing from them.
Will we be abandoning allies in the south pacific? Can tawian stand up to a potent chinese navy and threat without US help? Will Japan continue to see more and more threats?

report   
Posted by artrogue on February 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Showing 1-17 of 17

Add a comment