Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen: National Debt is the single biggest threat to national security

[Oldskool]

http://www.executivegov.com/2010/08/...curity-threat/

The national debt is the single biggest threat to national security, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Tax payers will be paying around $600 billion in interest on the national debt by 2012, the chairman told students and local leaders in Detroit.

“That’s one year’s worth of defense budget,” he said, adding that the Pentagon needs to cut back on spending.

“We’re going to have to do that if it’s going to survive at all,” Mullen said, “and do it in a way that is predictable.”

He also called on the defense industry to hire veterans and become more robust in the future.

“I need the defense industry, in particular, to be robust,” he said. “My procurement budget is over $100 billion, [and] I need to be able to leverage that as much as possible with those [companies] who reach out [to veterans].”

Mullen highlighted the unity of purpose between the government and industry as well, in working to solve national security issues.

“I have found that universally, [private-sector workers] care every bit as much about our country, are every bit as patriotic and wanting to make a difference … as those who wear the uniform and are in harm’s way,” he said.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Isnt the cart before the horse here... i mean, military spending is a huge reason we have a national deficit.

[Oldskool]

Isnt the cart before the horse here... i mean, military spending is a huge reason we have a national deficit.

Second paragraph.

adding that the Pentagon needs to cut back on spending

18.74% of the budget is too much to be spending on defense and he knows it.

[Hubbs]

Isnt the cart before the horse here... i mean, military spending is a huge reason we have a national deficit.

He said we have to cut back on military spending. Which we do.

Interest on the national debt will soon be the single largest item of the budget, by the way. Just interest. Not including one cent of paying down principal.

Good times, good times.

[Larry]

IMO, he's correct.

That said, though, should the CJCS actually be expressing an opinion on this subject?

[Buford]

Personally, I think Mini-Vans and Cable News are the biggest threat.

[Redskins Diehard]

How in the world does "cart before the horse" fit in here?

[Redskins Diehard]

IMO, he's correct.

That said, though, should the CJCS actually be expressing an opinion on this subject?

On what the greatest threat to national security is? Why wouldn't he? I mean, he could be completely wrong but I think threats to security are certainly acceptable topics. Now if he said "the ridiculous spending by the Democratic controlled congress and approved by the Democratic president" were the biggest threat then I think he would certainly be out of line...even if correct.

[Stillers6SB]

http://www.executivegov.com/2010/08/...curity-threat/

The national debt is the single biggest threat to national security, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Tax payers will be paying around $600 billion in interest on the national debt by 2012, the chairman told students and local leaders in Detroit.


“That’s one year’s worth of defense budget,” he said, adding that the Pentagon needs to cut back on spending.

The interest on the debt in proportion to GDP is less than when Reagan left office.

FY 1988 budget included interest payment of 4.24% of GDP.

It grew as large as 4.77% in FY 1991.

Interest expense for FY 2009 had dropped to 2.69%.

http://cl1p.net/gdpstats/

Even with the Admiral's projected $600Bn interest expense for FY 2012, it would equate to about 4%

The sky is not falling; the Admiral should just cut the defense spending (closer to $800 Billion this year) and leave the economics to others.

[Oldskool]

The interest on the debt in proportion to GDP is less than when Reagan left office.

Greater interest on a smaller debt is better than lesser interest on a greater debt versus GDP. That's simple mathematics there.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So stop opposing Gate's defense spending cuts!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...enerals27.html

[Larry]

On what the greatest threat to national security is? Why wouldn't he? I mean, he could be completely wrong but I think threats to security are certainly acceptable topics. Now if he said "the ridiculous spending by the Democratic controlled congress and approved by the Democratic president" were the biggest threat then I think he would certainly be out of line...even if correct.

So, if he says that the greatest threat to national security is, say, gay marriage, then that makes it part of his job description to be formulating the national policy on gay marriage?

How about if he says it's global warming? Trade with China? Income concentration? People who don't have health care? The anti-science agenda in our public schools? The Dallas Cowboys?

[Stillers6SB]

Greater interest on a smaller debt is better than lesser interest on a greater debt versus GDP. That's simple mathematics there.

Agreed. Your point is that the interest on the debt is low now. It's likely to stay very low for the foreseeable future.




Check out the 2 eras with huge growth in the debt. The first started with Reagan (ironic since he campaigned against what he called Carter's giant debt) and ran to 1994. The next era of growth started in 2007 with the recession.

I don't remember any Admirals complaining about the soaring debt during Reagan's terms.

[Fergasun]

This is ridiculous. No one has ever been hurt or killed by debt. Any injury from debt is purely speculative and derivative. Our country went through the Great Depression and survived.

I'm annoyed by everyone complaining about the debt now. Hey, dummies, the chance to do something about it was 10-20 years ago! In late 2008 our national debt limit was something like $13T and recently I think we just blew through something like $13T? That is insane.

But a threat to national security? What a load of garbage. Does this mean now that the President can take over Congressional spending because its a "national security" issue?

[Redskins Diehard]

So, if he says that the greatest threat to national security is, say, gay marriage, then that makes it part of his job description to be formulating the national policy on gay marriage?

How about if he says it's global warming? Trade with China? Income concentration? People who don't have health care? The anti-science agenda in our public schools? The Dallas Cowboys?

If he says the greatest threat is gay marriage then he should be fired for incompetence. The same with the rest of the ridiculous examples you put forth. I don't know how you can think that it is inappropriate for the CJCS to share his opinion on what the greatest threat to national security is. If he answer is stupid then he should be dealt with accordingly, the same as if he was ignorant of any other issue that his office has significant responsibility for.