The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Defense Spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Defense Spending. Show all posts

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Rand "I believe in misinformation" Paul Clones Senate Leader Tom Cotton: Increase Defense Spending!

Libertarian and political Chameleon Rand Paul joins others vying for the GOP nomination via politicking on increasing defense spending.  INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING!!!!!

Before we show a Huffington Post piece with Rand Paul pulling an obvious Netanyahu, let's do a quick and familiar review of graphics related to US Defense Spending. As you peruse the follow graphics, ask yourself as set of questions.  

First, do we really need increased defense spending? 

Next, whatever happened to fiscally conservative Republicans? Is GOP mantra showing like a dirty skirt undergarment? Is their mantra mere false prophecy to appeal to millions across the nation who seem to long for war?

A tertiary question. We are re-committed to a war in Afghanistan that has run a full 13 years and has span well beyond its bottom line charter "Get bin Laden."  When will Americans grow weary of entities that directly benefit for war?

One last digression before Rand "I believe in misinformation" Paul. How about a quick look at the running cost of George Bush and Dick Cheney's personal crusade? If you follow this link you will also see the extent to which defense contractors plant the seeds of war as if a farmer sowing a corn field.

Where is the sanity among Republicans clamoring for increased defense spending? I ask for your patience and full consideration of the following graphics. 

Whenever I hear or read a Republican speak of increasing defense spending, I reflect on two sets of data that we should recall and hold at the forefront of our cognitive processes.

military spending

Now, lets see how our tax dollars are spent.

2013 Defense Spending

Obama's 2016 proposed budget and the GOP  proposed  Budget

Now for Paul. 

Rand Paul Channels His Inner Tom Cotton, Calls For Defense Spending Hike

Posted: Updated


WASHINGTON -- The Most Interesting Man in American politics is quickly becoming anything but.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is expected to announce his campaign for president next month, on Wednesday quietly introduced an amendment that would drastically boost defense spending over the next two years. The measure, first spotted by Time, would allocate an additional $190 billion to the Pentagon -- amounting to an approximately 16 percent increase to its budget. To offset the increase in spending, Paul calls for substantial cuts to U.S. foreign aid, the Environmental Protection Agency, and departments of Education, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development.

"It is done in response to others in both chambers who are attempting to add to defense spending -- some way more than Senator Paul's amendment -- without paying for it," Doug Stafford, Paul's senior adviser, explained in a statement. "This amendment is to lay down a marker that if you believe we need more funding for national defense, you should show how you would pay for it. No one should be seeking increased funding for anything by increasing our debt."

The proposal marks a notable reversal for Paul, a libertarian-leaning senator with Tea Party cred who swept into office with promises to slash defense spending. In his first five-year budget, introduced in 2011, Paul called for a draw-down and restructuring of the Department of Defense that would have reduced its budget to $548 billion by fiscal year 2016. "Military funding has often far outpaced not only our most likely enemies, but has often outpaced the entire world’s military spending combined," he wrote at the time. By comparison, his new stance would boost spending to approximately $697 billion in the same year.

The amendment gives Paul a line of defense against potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination -- Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Ted Cruz of Texas -- all defense hawks who have accused the Kentucky Republican of advocating for a less muscular foreign policy. But in so doing, Paul dropped any pretense of being a new brand of Republican, one dedicated to reforming the bloated defense establishment, as he presented himself early on. It puts him more in line with some of the more hawkish members of his party, like freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who suggested spending upwards of $900 billion on defense annually.
Read more 
How pathetic are the GOP fiscal conservatives? Each GOP wanna be president is aware of the spending data.The end-of-day question is, why lobby for fiscal expenditures that so hurt the US economy when increased defense spending beyond current ratios will not make the United States more safe? If you need assistance in answering the question you are probably a strong candidate for a GOP vote in 2016.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Tom Cotton Goes "Hitler" In First Senate Speech; Cruz

Ted Cruz and the nascent Tom Cotton continue their preaching to conservatives about issues that are so far and away "non-issues." Both Cruz and Cotton should be ashamed to climb up on a stage with an oral cavities full of lies. They remind of Cruz's father who all too often prancing around a stage spewing rhetoric like a Nazi Minister of Communications. Cotton recently invoked The Third Reich during a speech on the senate floor. He and Cruz continue to assuage the high cost of unnecessary defense spending while spewing fear: Cruz, "Your world is on fire."  The junior Senators espouse such spending to garner favor from the defense industry without concern for the dangers inherent in "war by spending."

Embedded image permalink

During his first speech on the Senate floor the "defense contractor's dream" and Israel Emergency Committee donation recipient fulfilled his role with ever-present fear politics from the Right

This 1:42 minute segment from Huffington Post shows what we can expect from Tom Cotton. He has filled a Senate seat for far less than six months and he saber rattles as blatantly as any Senator in recent US history. I believe the de facto Senate leader mentioned Adolf Hitler within the first few seconds of his speech. 
"The world is growing ever more dangerous, and our defense spending is wholly inadequate to confront the danger," Cotton said.
Let's take a look. Even considering Putin's alleged increased defense spending, the following chart depicts a problem for Cotton.

The "Big Spenders" for 2012/2013.

If the horizontal chart doesn't work for you, try this one from 2014:

Is this an example of why elected official like Cotton can snuggle up to defense contractors without reprisal from voters? Fox News delivers:

Pure Poppycock February 12, 2013.....

And, the accompanying video and the linked piece. (Key reading points)
Hemmer explained that, "We just wanted to give viewers at home an idea about what countries are doing over the past four years and the coming four years from here," and that for the current year on defense spending, "China goes up, Russia goes up, and the U.S. remains flat when compared to these other two countries." In the next four years, Hemmer claimed, "on the percentage they will contribute on their defense budget, China is about 300 percent increase, Russia's not too far behind, [and] the United States is not only flat, but it's trailing now as we move toward the year 2015." The graph segued into a discussion with Fox military analyst Major General Robert Scales on how cuts to the U.S. defense budget will harm our military capacity.
 MediaMatters video 
Fox's chart, focused exclusively on growth in defense spending across a specific period of time compared to 2004 budgets, suggests China and Russia are far out-scaling the U.S. on defense spending. But date constraints and percentage change in budgets are meaningless outside the context of actual expenditure. Hemmer conveniently disregarded the actual dollar amount the U.S. spends on defense compared to China and Russia. 
The U.S. spends more on defense than the next 12 top-spending countries combined. PolitiFact examined data by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), both "considered to be leading authorities on worldwide military spending numbers," and determined that, "In 2011 -- the most recent year available -- the United States led the world in military spending at $711 billion ... The next top 12 spending nations accounted for a combined total of $670.9 billion." IISS data discovered that the U.S spends $252.6 billion more on defense than the next top nine nations
Oh, the fallacy of it all.  While the vast majority of military spending funds Maintenance and Operations, US wars also take a major bite from military spending budgets.

If we factor-in the real prospect of a Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton war with Iran, we are taken to a place he US showed avoid like a Republican in the White House. 

A quick look at one US market indicator from Bush's final years through Obama's first four years, clearly shows why demagogues like Cotton, Cruz et al present a clear and present danger.

Do not fail to recall the Bush economy collapsed based on perpetrating two wars while cutting taxes coupled with an artificial and fraud laced sub-prime bubble.

A Republican in the White House with a Congress as it exist today?


Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Dick Cheney Wants More Defense Spending And Less Assistance To Americans

 Photo: Liz Cheney is right. The Republican Party has zero solutions to the dry serious challenges facing America and the world.

Thanks to Democratic Underground.

While speaking at a Politico “playbook lunch” Cheney along with his wife, Lynne, and daughter, Liz gave Politico reporter Mike Allen a jingoist mouthful that should have induced a major sphincter contraction across the breadth of GOP leadership.

We are well past wonderment of why media grants Dick Cheney so much air-time, press and attention. He is the embodiment of all that is wrong in our nation. And, if we have experienced a US war criminal during the nation's 400 year history, it would be Cheney (as several Bush Administration war-hawks). Yet, the revenue focus of US media facilitates wrench the last Tyrannosaurus breathe from the crumbling war monger.  

Cheney's remarks and exhortation to forego programs for the needy and infrastructure programs is typically conservative, and an outright guttural thought.

Cheney with family in tow spewed pure militaristic garbage to  Mike Allen .
Cheney ripped Obama for having "dramatically reduced the military," and also called cuts at the Pentagon "outrageous.  
He also made a call for the next president to rebuild the military.
“Turn around the whole trend with the United State military,” Cheney said. “That ought to be our top priority for spending. Not food stamps, not highways, or anything else. Your number one responsibility as president is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. He’s the commander-in-chief and he’s absolutely devastating the United States military today.”

More Defense spending linked here.

Barack Obama is a constitutional scholar. His knowledge of the US Constitution and its crafters undoubtedly far exceed the single militaristic focus and conservative paradigm of Dick Cheney.

As you can imagine, Cheney's dogma and rhetoric chase me off to "Chart Land." First, know the Heritage Foundation has a plethora of chart and graphs as an archive from which conservatives can feed their paranoia. Herewith are a couple of examples of such.

In December 2012 The Daily Signal agonized over the imminent Federal Budget "Sequester." You will notice Heritage didn't bother to label Bush defense spending.

How about these Heritage charts with a slam against so-called "entitlement spending." 

Defense's Share of Federal Spending and Economy has been Declining
The substantial decline in the defense share of the budget largely reflects the dramatic growth of entitlement spending. Entitlements now account for around 65 percent of all federal spending and a record 18 percent of GDP.[11] The three largest entitlements—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—eclipsed defense spending in 1976 and have been growing ever since. If future taxes are held at the historical average, these three entitlements will consume all tax revenues by 2052, leaving no money for the government’s primary constitutional obligation: providing for the common defense.[12]
Entitlement Spending is Encroaching on the Defense Budget
A Heritage "Mother of Defense Spending Chart" with a focus on Obama defense cuts.

US Defense Budget History

Yes, defense spending is decreasing since World War II. The salient point is how much defense spending is necessary to ensure total destruction of an adversary or group of adversaries. Another consideration, is US defense spending inclusive of adequate INTEL expenditures to conduct cyber warfare and enact counter measures against.

While Russia is according to Jane's is increasing its defense/military spending, Americans should come to accept Russia is not a globe superpower. It is a regional power and stands a far second from China.  All said, the following sets of graphics illustrate to the absolute fallacy of the Tyrannosaurs Cheney's rhetoric and the mind-bending and fear filled quest by Heritage to disparage the Obama Administration.  

The International Business Times February 2014
2013 Defense Budgets, Top 20
As you can see from the chart below, the U.S. continues to be in the lead, by far, on defense spending. It spent 2.7 times more than China and Russia combined and it spent nearly 11 percent more than the 17 other countries combined.
U.S. Defense Spending compared to rest of world

In January of this tear, Nelsnewday published a piece with contrasting comparison of US defense spending and spending on budgets that provide assistance to less fortunate Americans.

We offer an excerpt from the piece for comparative perspective on US defense spending as a portion of international budgets.  Forty-eight of the world's military spending!
The military gets more than half of the budget–$573 billion for defense spending and $525 billion for non-defense discretionary spending. At 48 percent of the world’s military spending, the U.S. military budget is equal to the next ten countriesmilitary budgets combined. 
Now for a quick look at US Federal spending, via National Priorities.  

Mandatory spending is largely made up of earned-benefit or entitlement programs, and the spending for those programs is determined by eligibility rules rather than the appropriations process. For example, Congress decides to create a program like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. It then sets criteria for determining who is eligible to receive benefits from the program. The amount of money spent on SNAP each year is then determined by how many people are eligible and apply for benefits.

Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget that goes through the annual appropriations process each year. In other words, Congress directly sets the level of spending on discretionary programs. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year.
This chart shows where the projected $2.56 trillion in mandatory spending will go in fiscal year 2015.
President's Proposed Mandatory Spending

Dick Cheney shows why the Bush Administration was the most jingoist administration in modern US History. We expect no less for Heritage. As the nascent quip goes, if Obama came out in favor of the necessity of unobstructed human breathing and airways, Heritage would posit for mass self strangulation.

The more relevant question is why does media continue to give airtime to a former vice president who left office with approval ratings in the guttier and who literally hid from the public for many years. If Cheney was such a credible vice president, why the need to hide from the public? Moreover, what has changed relative to Cheney that entices media interviews, joking (quick response questions) and images of his twisted oral cavity?


Sunday, March 2, 2014

Dick Cheney: Irrelevant, But He And Fox News Don't Yet Know It

It isn't unusual for Right-wing zealots and war-mongers like Dick Cheney to rise to any occasion (self perceived opportunity) for a bit of Obama Derangement Bashing. Yet, Cheney's insanity of late is a bit unusual. His use of SNAP benefits for political rhetoric is shameful. Fox News and Cheney joined this week to take political shots at the Obama Administration while ignoring the benefit of SNAP benefits for segments of the population that include military families.

Cheney has again come-out of obscurity to lead the insanity after Secretary of Defense Hagel mentioned Obama Administration intent to trim the nation's defense budget. MSNBC's Ari Melber filling-in for Melissa Harris-Perry broadcast a segment befitting Cheney's penchant for speaking out after sensing the 'red meat' opportunity.  

We offer a few visual perspectives of Dick Cheney as fallacy. The following represent a few points for clear delineation.

Dick Cheney....
.... was as active as anyone in the fabrication of WMD to facilitate the charge into Iraq. a former CEO of Halliburton (and an inevitable high-level benefactor of the billions you and I spent to perpetrate that war). 
.... was without doubt an conspirator in the first time eve outing of a US CIA agent as retribution against her husband (who would not support lies about Uranium foe WMD form Niger: Joe Wilson). 
.... never spoke out once about GOP cuts to the SNAP program while lower rank military families in the thousands derive life-sustaining benefit from Food Stamps.
Media Matters illustrates the insanity of Dick Cheney and the network that allows him to call-in for spewing anti-Obama drivel while using food stamps as a prop.

February 12th, 2013 excerpt
The U.S. spends more on defense than the next 12 top-spending countries combined. PolitiFact examined data by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), both "considered to be leading authorities on worldwide military spending numbers," and determined that, "In 2011 -- the most recent year available -- the United States led the world in military spending at $711 billion ... The next top 12 spending nations accounted for a combined total of $670.9 billion." IISS data discovered that the U.S spends $252.6 billion more on defense than the next top nine nations.
SIPRI also found that U.S. military spending accounted for 41 percent of the world's total military spending in 2011. The U.S.'s expenditure is about five times more than the second-highest spender, China, which accounted for 8.2 percent of the world total. Russia's military spending is in third place with 4.1 percent. 
The United States' defense spending compared to the rest of the world looks something like this, from George Washington University's School of Media Public Affairs:
Now for a quick visuals that place defense spending in perspective.

Defense Spending as a percent of US Discretionary Spending (2013)

A closer look at how our tax dollars are used to fund the military industrial complex.


How about a little something from the Daily Kos Pie chart showing defense spending by country, 2010. US is by far the largest at $698 billion followed by China at $119 billion. 
Click here for interactive chart. 

Cheney and the spoils of war

Ari Melber

Dick Cheney's national approval rating only slightly higher than the ratings of the US Congress. Yet for sake of propaganda Fox News provides the Cheney a platform. 

Thursday, January 23, 2014

"If Your Paycheck Could Talk!"

A stark reality! And, actual military needs that do not match the 2014 military budgets.

How often have you heard this? "....we cannot afford it.!"  

It is as common to GOP mantra as their over use of the dog dog whistle "voter fraud" (when there is no voter fraud). Once I asked a dentist if he believed we should have universal care, he muttered "yes," and much more clearly asked, "But, how are we going to pay for it."

Let's post a bit of perspective right-up-front. Perspective from 2011.

military spending

Do we as a nation really have to spend as indicated above?

Yes of course, we are pointing our fingers at defense spending. After all, liberals work to develop this page. Well, not all conservatives have history of hawkishness which contributes to our military industrial complex and the bar chart posted above.  There are, or we should say have been high-level republicans who have spoken-out.  We exaggerate, there has been one very high-level republican who spoke-out against militarism rooted in revenues for corporate entities and lobbying money to members of congress.  Take a look and listen (2:31 minutes). You will find no other Republicans who has or will speak accordingly. In fact, you will find democrats who also support the data posted above.

National Priorities Project posted animated video on how federal spending is influenced its various components. Components that show military or defense spending as appearing excessive and over-blown rot he level of defense over-kill. 

Attribution via Upworthy: "This little ditty was made by the folks at National Priorities Project. Many more videos can be found on their YouTube channel.

Are we via the GOP members of Congress, cutting Supplemental Nutrition and assistance Programs (SNAP). Programs that feed less fortunate Americans, children, in some cases our elderly and active military families? 

Are we not fighting battles related to the Affordable Care Act with barrages of GOP mantra about costs? Costs factored against insuring millions and ridding the nation of draconian insurance policies, is a non-issue. Humanity should rule. Yet, "humanity" does  not rule with the GOP, despite facing data as depicted above.

Aren't we as a nation living in a Transportation Jurassic Era regarding rapid transit when compared against other nations.

Costs!  A critical factor in everyday life, but take a few minutes and listen to an NPR segment broadcast during morning drive time (today): Linked. You will be astounded how consideration of people and customers took a back set to cost to corporations (which are passed on to us as customers) contributed to the Target's hack-attack over this recently past holiday season.  Cost!  Again, the example doesn't relate to federal government spending, but "costs" are driving the US into Jurassic periods that in the long-term hurt average citizens. 

We cannot afford continental rapid transit, we cannot afford to modernize our credit card charging systems, we cannot afford, we cannot afford.  

We approach our review of defense spending as delineated above. How about a look at how Fox News presents the issue to its viewers? 

Of course, we recognize that our deficits and national spending are in areas of serious concern. We are paying for federal malfeasance reaped upon the nation since the early 1980s.  If you will take a few more minutes and locate any data related to how we got into the fiscal mess we now languish through, you will clearly see it has been very one-sided politically.

People should seriously wake-up and recognize the GOP is dangerous to the nation.

"....we cannot afford it!" ...."Can we afford it."

We posit, we cannot afford to not afford it!


Saturday, February 9, 2013

The Sequester: Federal Government Post George W. Bush

It seems objections to "paying our national debts" via raising the debt ceiling became unacceptable once President Obama took office.  Now, that beckons questions as to why?

Recognizing the Federal Deficit at $16 trillion in 2013 Vs. the following reference to 2011 $14 trillion, we find the follwoing graphic relevant and expedient in locating. 

It is noteworthy to point out Obama's deficit increases are distributed between fighting off an economic depression, healthcare reform and a 'surge' in Afghanistan (foolish decision).

Which US President is "king' of Debt Ceiling increases through 2011? Remember, the 'sequester' was hatched in the fall of 2011. 

As we come closer to yet another artificial deadline in the nation's battles over the deficit, we thought it might be good to find as basic an explanation of the "mess" as we can locate.

Govloop dot com provides such an opportunity.  Emily Jarvis keyed a piece easily readable in three minutes. The piece is also accompanied by an audio embed.

Be honest. You have heard us all talking/worrying/complaining about the potential for sequestration since August of 2011, but do you actually know how it would work? I, for one, only had a loose understanding of the process. 

Todd Harrison is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He gave Chris Dorobek on the DorobekINSIDER a detailed breakdown of sequestration and its impact government wide.

Harrison's Take

First Off: A History Lesson 
Back in July/August of 2011 when we were approaching the debt ceiling, Congress came together for some last minute negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. That agreement was called the Budget Control Act of 2011. The Act formed the Super Committee tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions. But, the Act also created a binding way to force the cuts in the case the Super Committee failed -- that binding resolution was sequestration.

Sequestration was created from an old 1985 law that Congress amended to make sequestration legal. 
Not surprisingly the Super Committee failed. So that leaves us with the January 2nd deadline for all agencies to cut their accounts across the government not just at the Defense Department. 

How Sequestration Actually Works 
Agencies must calculate the amount of cuts required overall. That's roughly $109 billon that they have to find in savings by fiscal 2013. Half of that (roughly $55 billon) will be taken from DoD.
The cuts have to be applied as a uniform percentage cut across all accounts down at the project level. That amounts to a roughly 10% cut on all projects.
There is one exception, the President has the option to exempt military personnel accounts. President Obama has indicated that he will do that. 

White House Sequestration Plan 
Congress started to get nervous with what the cuts would actually look like, so they passed a new law to force the White House outline in a transparent way what sequestration will look like. 
In a 300 page document the White House went line by line through the budget to show what would by cut and by how much. 

Across the Board Cuts 
Across the board cuts are a cop out. But the real problem, is cuts can have some unintended consequences. Imagine your family budget. You budget so much money every month for rent, food, car and insurance. Imagine if you had to cut each of those areas by 10%. Some things like your grocery bill you can cut fairly easily. But your rent for example you just can't cut by 10%. That would mean moving and breaking your lease.
This is the same problem for the DoD.
Take the 200 tomahawk cruise missiles the DoD buys each year from the contractor Raytheon. The contractor is set up to build at that production rate. So if the DoD comes to Raytheon and says I've got to cut 10%, I can only buy 180 units. The government is going to have to break the current contract and negotiate a new deal. Raytheon is going to need to adjust it's production so maybe they have to lay off some people or change the price per unit. So really with that 10% cut you are paying more for each missile. So in the end you don't end up with 180 missiles you end up with fewer for the the 10% cut. 
Some Program Just Can't Be Cut 
For example the Defense Health Program is the military help system. It is not covered under the military personnel exemption so by law it will have to cut its services by 10%. That means about $3 billon will have to come out of the budget. But they system provides health benefits to 10 million active and retired military personnel. It's not possible for them to make the cuts. So they will have to go to Congress and submit a re-programming request and hope for Congressional approval. 

Will Sequestration Happen? 
It may depend on the election outcome.
If Congress/White House maintain the status quo: Its reasonable that there would be an incentive for lawmakers to work out a compromise in the lame duck session.
If there is a significant change in control in either branch: there may be incentive for the party that is going to gain power to delay things and not work out a compromise until they take power. But sequestration goes into effect on the 2nd of January, the President gets sworn in on the 4, and Congress not until the 20th, so in that case sequestration could go into effect.
A last minute compromise is also possible where they delay starting sequestration until April. Pass the ball down the field a little bit to take the pressure off.
Either way, we won't know until the last minute. 
How Should You Prepare? 
Plan for uncertainty. But that's hard because a 10% cut is a big uncertainty.

Agencies should be looking at funding sources and how they would be affected, they should start to develop contingency plans. This is especially important for civilian employees because they will be the first to be affected. So if sequestration happens, furloughs will also happen to reduce funding in all accounts. Contractors have a little more time to deal with sequestration. The impact will be delayed because they depend on the outlays for funding. Sequestration acts on budget authority (how much money an agency actually has). Contractors probably won't feel a huge delay for 3 years. But uncertainty makes it almost impossible for contractors to hire new employees or build new factories. 
Cuts No Matter What  
No matter if sequestration happens are not the government needs to understand that cuts are coming. It's two fold. First we are facing a record federal deficit. Second, we have very low revenues.
The President has proposed reducing the war budget and reducing the DoD's base budget slightly, and then keeping it stagnant for a few years. 

But if you really want to see major deficit reduction you need to look at Medicare and Social Security. Currently the DoD accounts for 15% of the budget, Medicare 14% and Social Security 22%. But the Social Security and Medicare percentages will continue to grow with the babyboomers expected to retire over the next 10 years. We are facing a big deficit no matter what unless we reform those two elements 
We understand US Politics, and we understand the nature of US politics since the late 1970s and early 1980s.  For the informed, we know GOP mantra about fiscal conservatism is nothing more than the party's egregious use of a southern strategy as a campaign tool in national elections.  As tragic as anything political in 2012/13, 47% of voters fell for GOP mantra, political acuity (even with horrid candidates), and mind altering propaganda from highly compensation media demagogues.  We do not understand how people who consider themselves conservatives have little to no influence over forcing their obstructionist representatives to "See the light". The "light" of potential progress in ridding ourselves of the vestiges of the Bush financial record.  How can so many Americans avoid empirical data, and avoid post election observation (post 2010) as factors that influence their votes.

I find so many conservatives expended inordinate energy and cognitive processes following right-wing social biases, bigotry and divisiveness. 

They watch their politicians write and propose legislation after legislation related to abortion while not taking a moment to rial about jobs.  They fully support GOP efforts to cut Human Services programs without one iota of contemplation of future personal need.  And they do so without pressing for reduction defense spending and raising taxes on the nation's wealthy.

The Federal Deficit is fed by expenditures that costume 57% of the nation's discretionary spending.

The GOP lives and breathes defense spending. Yet, for some reason post 2009 after supporting Bush for eight years, they obstruct at paying debts they helped to accumulate.

Additional Sequester basics source: 2012: