In other words, I think your point is, Paul, that in our debate this week, first of all, almost all of the discussion is centered right over in this--it looks like Campbell's tomato soup on my chart here--it's in this section, and it's ignoring all of this which is equal to the entire revenue of the Federal Government. So you can see that you could cut this to zero, and you still aren't going to fix the problem. On the other hand, it doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for savings and cutting everything we can. But you are putting in perspective this whole week. I think that's tremendously helpful, Paul, to do that. And I think, as I recall, there is about $16 billion being taken out of defense which is not as deep a cut as what the non-defense discretionary is getting; is that correct?
W. Todd Akin: “In other words, I think your point is, Paul, that in our debate this week, first of all, almost all of the discussion is…”
On the recordFebruary 14, 2011
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses budget cuts and their implications on federal revenue and defense spending.
Share
More from W. Todd Akin
Mar 6, 2012
If an aircraft costs more to fly but is flown less by more experienced pilots in the Air National Guard component, wouldn't it make fiscal sense to put those aircraft in the Air National Guard rather than the Active Air Force?
Mar 6, 2012
Given that the new defense strategy focuses on only executing 1 major contingency operation, why would it not be prudent to keep at least 38 C-27Js, or more to reduce the assessed risk, in the inventory to meet warfighting requirements…
Mar 6, 2012
The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review concluded that the effective use of the Guard and Reserves will lower overall personnel and operating costs.





