Gary Varvel is the editorial cartoonist for The Indianapolis Star. His cartoons are nationally syndicated through Creators Syndicate and have appeared on CNN and in Newsweek, The New York Times, USA Today, Washington Times, National Review, World magazine and Sports Illustrated.
© Creators Syndicate, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.
Tom Toles by Tom Toles
ViewsAfrica by CartoonArts International
Comments (28) (Please sign in to comment)
Gary Williams said, 4 months ago
End the wars and cut defense spending by a third would be a very good way to cut spending. also quit pouring money down the Iraq and Afghanistan hole of defense contractors. start there then think about social programs.
Michyle Glen said, 4 months ago
Nope not a spending problem,,,
A SPENDING NIGHTMARE!
Chillbilly
said, 4 months ago
Fighting for our freedom in Iraq was well worth the cost. I feel so much freer. I’ll probably feel even freer after another ten years in Afghanistan or wherever our next freedom march takes us.
ZorroGames Secret Identity said, 4 months ago
Reduce the social programs and rationalize the military budget to something that actually fits our vital national needs for a military!
(This right of the GOP conservative who works for the DOD and IC would like to have the “fiscal scissors” for a day – there is so much to cut that would not reduce military and social needs)
Gracias,
Glenn
ZorroGames Secret Identity said, 4 months ago
Oh, reduce needless laws while we are at it. There are a bunch of those, too!
Gracias,
Glenn
mickey1339
said, 4 months ago
@Gary Williams
“End the wars and cut defense spending by a third”
Your post got me thinking about what that would entail. I’m an analyst, it’s hardwired into my psyche.
Deloitte did a study that showed some interesting numbers I wasn’t aware of. The defense sector employs one million and fifty thousand people (1,050,000). The combined taxes paid by those employees and the corporate taxes by the companies is 37.8 billion dollars for year 2010. So in rough numbers you would be cutting approx. 350,000 jobs and decreasing government tax revenues by 12 billion dollars. Add to that the cost for unemployment for those folks and you add back tens of millions in government expenses.
Obviously this is a broad brush look at such a scenario, but it does illustrate that our solutions do not always achieve the desired effect in practice as we think they will.
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/deloitte_study_2012.pdf
The Wolf In Your Midst said, 4 months ago
@mickey1339
But cuts we make elsewhere will have the same kind of impact (other government employees fired, less spending for materials, etc.), so why should the defense sector be spared?
mickey1339
said, 4 months ago
What I find most disconcerting about this toon is it’s based on several recent comments from Obama in meetings with Bohner and Nancy Pelosi most recently. Both have flatly stated they didn’t think we have a spending problem.
Logic would dictate that we have a 16 trillion dollar deficit and growing. Okay, we didn’t incur the debt by having balanced budgets and controlled spending. It can’t all be blamed on Bush, although he could spend like a drunken sailor just like any other politician. So logic would dictate that we have a spending problem. Obama’s supposed deficit reduction so far is based on accounting projections of money saved by not being at war in Iraq and our future withdrawal from Afghanistan. I’m an accountant and believe me, these numbers are based on the government’s “fund accounting system” which is a nightmare of smoke and mirrors that never quite comes to fruition when exposed to the light of day (or hard analysis).
Cheney made dumb remarks about deficits not mattering. Now we have Obama, Pelosi and Reid are saying we don’t have spending problems and they are totally resistant to acknowledging and identifying programs to be cut.
Before you can start the nightmare process of scaling back government spending there has to be the political will to recognize the problem. The responsibility for doing this belongs to both parties but the President (as any president should) is the leader who should initiate and further this effort.
ARodney said, 4 months ago
O is right. It’s mostly a revenue problem, which will mostly be solved if we can get the economy going again. Which is why, despite their new-found opposition to deficits, the GOP has yet to come up with a single program they’re willing to cut. Oh, except Big Bird, which costs almost nothing.
Tigger
said, 4 months ago
@Gary Williams
Yet you are one of man screaming about The House Republicans cutting Defense Spending
Tigger
said, 4 months ago
@Chillbilly
Our Freedom in Iraq" When did Iraq became our 51st State?
rightisright said, 4 months ago
The problem with this toon is Lord Soetoro’s goal all along was to bring down the United States.
mickey1339
said, 4 months ago
@The Wolf In Your Midst
“why should the defense sector be spared?”
They shouldn’t. My point was people make a general comment about cutting without looking at the consequences. You are correct as far as the consequence of cutting more universally. One consideration of the defense industry is they sell an enormous amount of their hardware to other countries as well as America.
I have seen so many reports from taxpayer advocacy groups and others itemizing duplicity, redundancy and out and out waste of government programs that totals in the billions. It needs to be a major focus going forward, but I doubt it will be. I am a big supporter of Simpson – Bowles plan but as usual, there wasn’t the political will to implement a program that will impact some politicians program, from either side of the political aisle.
tranquil-d
said, 4 months ago
see, there is a cartoon fire that represents spending. what more proof do you need? maybe if the fire alluded to one or more things in particular – maybe the debt from the war in iraq or the bush tax cuts, maybe the Afghan war, military spending in general. That would be funny.
wbr said, 4 months ago
during past 4 yr rev up 11% spending up 22.5%