PDA

View Full Version : Running the government on 8¢



eg8r
01-21-2011, 10:39 AM
Wow, when the question was asked on the board before where would the lefties cut spending the only thing they could fixate on was defense spending. Well according to the GAO that is being very short-sighted.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today, the United States spends roughly 76 cents of every federal tax dollar on just four things: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the $14 trillion debt. </div></div>Do you honestly think there is no where within Medicare or Medicaid that could use some cuts? Politicians already steal from SS as it is so let's leave it alone for now and go for the biggie items like Medicare and Medicaid.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Barring serious efforts to curb the growth in the country's debt, by 2020 Washington could be spending 92 cents of every tax dollar on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest alone. That would leave just 8 cents to pay for everything else.</div></div>Surely the bulk of this increase is hinged on the increase in interest due to the debt rising at alarming rates but our Healthcare bill reccently passed is definitely not helping our debt problem. Still, why not attack Medicare and Medicaid. Is there really zero waste in those two organizations at all?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the abstract, she noted, "Everybody wants a small government. Everybody would like low taxes. And they'd like government to do everything that they think government should do. But the arithmetic can be a problem." </div></div>This exactly why we are not a democracy. Once everyone figures out how to get their hands in the candy jar they will all be taking what they want. Our Constitution outlines what the Government is responsible for and 3 of our top 4 expenditures are not included in the Constitution.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/21/news/economy/spending_taxes_debt/?npt=NP1

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-21-2011, 12:42 PM
Which is why the attempt and claim that the whole thing can be fixed by reducing discretionary spending (the parts of the government's spending that are not on autopilot, like the 4 things you mention), is absurd.

The fact is we could zero out the entire discretionary domestic budget, wiping out everything the government does outside of these 4 things and defense, and still have a massive deficit.

So it's a fools game to try to handle this thing in the non-defense discretionary spending side, and those who claim that's possible are stone-cold lying to the people.

OF COURSE, we need to rein in long-term spending trends across the board. That's what Obamacare actually does, with its $500 billion less in 10 year projected spending on Medicare, and the effort was demagogued by the GOP to the seniors.

pooltchr
01-21-2011, 12:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That's what Obamacare actually does, with its $500 billion less in 10 year projected spending on Medicare, and the effort was demagogued by the GOP to the seniors. </div></div>

Well, considering that they based the whole budget on 10 years of revenue to cover 7 years of services, I think those numbers are somewhat questionable.

They also double dipped the numbers, using money saved to cover other costs, but still claiming it as savings.

The government has a history of missing the mark on cost projections for everything they do...and always underestimating the actual costs.

Obamacare is going to cost this country a fortune in the long run.

Look at the whole thing with a critical eye, and don't just accept what the government tells you as being factual....it rarely is!

Steve

eg8r
01-21-2011, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact is we could zero out the entire discretionary domestic budget, wiping out everything the government does outside of these 4 things and defense, and still have a massive deficit.
</div></div>True, but that would only make sense if the extra 24 cents were never used to pay down debt.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So it's a fools game to try to handle this thing in the non-defense discretionary spending side, and those who claim that's possible are stone-cold lying to the people.
</div></div>Defense/non-defense doesn't matter since it is not the big hitter. Reducing all government spending across the board, especially in 3 of the top 4 programs would give us a chance at starting to pay down the debt quicker than we are currently doing. At first that will only slow the interest increase but if attacked with the true intent of paying down debt then it could be achieved.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's what Obamacare actually does, with its $500 billion less in 10 year projected spending on Medicare, and the effort was demagogued by the GOP to the seniors. </div></div>Could you please provide an example or two where the Government projected some savings and we actually hit that number or did better? Based on a century of examples, the $500 Billion will never come close and the number will fall so short that it will probably end up costing that much.

eg8r

Chopstick
01-21-2011, 02:18 PM
<span style="color: #000099">Ok. How about this? Abolish the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. There's $200 billion right there. Repeal TARP and the Stimulus. Return all unused funds to the treasury. There's a few hundred billion more. Audit the Fed and abolish it. There's a few trillion more.

Split off Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security from the federal government. Make them stand alone organizations and make it illegal for congress to have access to their money.

These problems do have solutions. We just have to start doing the right things instead of dumping money down a sinkhole.</span>

sack316
01-21-2011, 04:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
OF COURSE, we need to rein in long-term spending trends across the board. That's what Obamacare actually does, with its $500 billion less in 10 year projected spending on Medicare, and the effort was demagogued by the GOP to the seniors. </div></div>

I hope you do realize why many are a bit queasy over government projections on costs. Based on government projections, the thought of cutting $500 billion in Medicare spending would have been absurd because the program would never cost that much to run anyway. The original estimate for 1990 was $12 billion adjusted for inflation. The actual cost was nearly nine times that amount.

Look through history and there are countless numbers of cost overruns when it comes to government projections on its programs. That's not to say the programs are "bad", as many are indeed necessary and important to our citizens... especially the elderly. But one must also understand why myself and many others cringe a bit about taking government projections at face value.

Sack

Sev
01-21-2011, 06:05 PM
I have an entire list of solutions on this site that they ignore.

Soflasnapper
01-21-2011, 08:25 PM
Well, considering that they based the whole budget on 10 years of revenue to cover 7 years of services, I think those numbers are somewhat questionable.

They also double dipped the numbers, using money saved to cover other costs, but still claiming it as savings.

These are clever talking points, easy to say, and although they are false, ultimately, harder to explain why they're false.

This is what the public discourse is up against-- clever, sophistic arguments that do their job of persuasion, however false they are. The poor public is left to their own resources and time constraints to determine the truth, and they typically don't know math or accounting, so they're vulnerable in the extreme to such tactics.

None of the major taxes that go to fund Ocare come into play in the first 3 years to any signficant degree. So that talking point proves wrong, if you look at the scheduling of when the taxes take place. (Don't take my word on this, it is easily looked up.) If there were such a gimmick in the first 10 years, then the second 10 years projection would show it. But CBO scores the deficit reduction as HIGHER in the second 10 years.

As for the alleged double scoring, this is a bit more sophisticated a misrepresentation, but also is one.

Yes, gaining large scale cuts in the projections of scheduled Medicare payments does both things-- it reduces the deficit projections, AND it adds to the solvency of the program. That isn't double COUNTING, but a double effect from the same root cause.

Frankly, everything and the kitchen sink have been thrown against the wall against this thing, in case something might stick. But when the opponents resort to such tactics, one must begin to suspect that things aren't as bad as claimed, or why don't the critics stick to the facts instead of making things up.

I don't mean you or average people in the above complaint. We all repeat what is being said, and kind of assume people wouldn't say it if it weren't true. But if all is fair in love and war, that goes in spades for politics.

Soflasnapper
01-21-2011, 08:34 PM
Defense/non-defense doesn't matter since it is not the big hitter. Reducing all government spending across the board, especially in 3 of the top 4 programs would give us a chance at starting to pay down the debt quicker than we are currently doing. At first that will only slow the interest increase but if attacked with the true intent of paying down debt then it could be achieved.

Defense is about $600 billion by itself, without the war cost, which is another $200 billions or so. David Stockman, Reagan's OMB director, said of the then-$280 billion dollar budget for defense that even then it contained about $80 billion in waste, fraud and abuse. That is the obvious place to find a large amount of savings, and it's already begun, to spastic opposition.

Obama canceled the hideously over-priced, no-mission left, F-22, as the Pentagon wanted, but paid-off Congresspeople opposed. Obama also canceled the unwise deployment of SDI missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. Maybe we don't really need our military personnel stationed in 106 nations in the world, beginning with Germany, W. Europe in general, S. Korea, Okinawa, etc.

Don't leave the biggest piece of discretionary spending off the table.

Sev
01-21-2011, 11:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, considering that they based the whole budget on 10 years of revenue to cover 7 years of services, I think those numbers are somewhat questionable.

They also double dipped the numbers, using money saved to cover other costs, but still claiming it as savings.

These are clever talking points, easy to say, and although they are false, ultimately, harder to explain why they're false.

This is what the public discourse is up against-- clever, sophistic arguments that do their job of persuasion, however false they are. The poor public is left to their own resources and time constraints to determine the truth, and they typically don't know math or accounting, so they're vulnerable in the extreme to such tactics.

None of the major taxes that go to fund Ocare come into play in the first 3 years to any signficant degree. So that talking point proves wrong, if you look at the scheduling of when the taxes take place. (Don't take my word on this, it is easily looked up.) If there were such a gimmick in the first 10 years, then the second 10 years projection would show it. But CBO scores the deficit reduction as HIGHER in the second 10 years.

As for the alleged double scoring, this is a bit more sophisticated a misrepresentation, but also is one.

Yes, gaining large scale cuts in the projections of scheduled Medicare payments does both things-- it reduces the deficit projections, AND it adds to the solvency of the program. That isn't double COUNTING, but a double effect from the same root cause.

Frankly, everything and the kitchen sink have been thrown against the wall against this thing, in case something might stick. But when the opponents resort to such tactics, one must begin to suspect that things aren't as bad as claimed, or why don't the critics stick to the facts instead of making things up.

I don't mean you or average people in the above complaint. We all repeat what is being said, and kind of assume people wouldn't say it if it weren't true. But if all is fair in love and war, that goes in spades for politics. </div></div>

Expect to see the CBO numbers to change in the near future. The CBO can only project based on the numbers it is fed.

Qtec
01-22-2011, 01:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OF COURSE, we need to rein in long-term spending trends across the board. <u>That's what Obamacare actually does,</u> with its $500 billion less in 10 year projected spending on Medicare, <u>and the effort was demagogued by the GOP to the seniors.</u> </div></div>

.....and now they want to repeal it before it has even taken effect.

My solution to the deficit?

Get out of Iraq.
Get out of Afghanistan.
Stop sending plane loads of cash to Afghanistan.
Raise taxes on the top 20%.
Cut defense spending drastically.
Close corporate tax loopholes.
Bring in a Public Option.

Easy.



China has shown that in this century, real power will come through economic strength, not military.

Q

LWW
01-22-2011, 03:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OF COURSE, we need to rein in long-term spending trends across the board. That's what Obamacare actually does, with its $500 billion less in 10 year projected spending on Medicare, and the effort was demagogued by the GOP to the seniors. </div></div>

You are aware that this claim is completely bogus aren't you?

LWW

Qtec
01-22-2011, 04:05 AM
Denial.

Q

LWW
01-22-2011, 04:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Denial.

Q </div></div>

Confessing you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

BRAVO!

LWW

Chopstick
01-22-2011, 08:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
China has shown that in this century, real power will come through economic strength, not military.

Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #000099">Really? A 465% increase in military spending. The worlds largest standing army? Thirty new nuclear subs in the last decade? A new VTOL stealth plane? The second most powerful military overall and growing rapidly?

The greatest disparity between rich and poor in the history of the world?</span>

Sev
01-22-2011, 09:59 AM
Q now has his fingers in his ears.

eg8r
01-22-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Defense is about $600 billion by itself, without the war cost, which is another $200 billions or so. David Stockman, Reagan's OMB director, said of the then-$280 billion dollar budget for defense that even then it contained about $80 billion in waste, fraud and abuse. That is the obvious place to find a large amount of savings, and it's already begun, to spastic opposition.
</div></div>If we don't defend ourselves then what is the point of no debt? I know you are not referring to not spending any money so my suggestion would be to quit funding the retrofit of all our old crap and start funding new intiatives.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama canceled the hideously over-priced, no-mission left, F-22, as the Pentagon wanted, but paid-off Congresspeople opposed.</div></div>Quite a common misconception to appease the left but he really only cut future spending on the program. The no-mission left statement I disagree with also. What happens if we did get into a war with North Korea which allied itself with China. Do you think our same combat protocols in Iraq would work in China and Korea? I find it highly doubtful considering the time it would take to deploy and fight. China would already have their own stealth aircraft in the air firing on our naval fleets. To think there is no reason to continue air superiority is definitely unsupported.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe we don't really need our military personnel stationed in 106 nations in the world, beginning with Germany, W. Europe in general, S. Korea, Okinawa, etc.
</div></div>I think this is a great idea. There is no reason to have these huge bases all over Europe and Asia. Those would be big budget cuts and bring our troops home. If those countries decide not to be allies in a time of war then we deal with it then. I agree there are plenty of places within the defense budget to cut spending but chopping off new and innovating programs in support of 30 year old programs makes no sense.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-22-2011, 02:47 PM
If we don't defend ourselves then what is the point of no debt? I know you are not referring to not spending any money so my suggestion would be to quit funding the retrofit of all our old crap and start funding new intiatives.

We supposedly broke the back of the Soviet Union by amping up the arms spending beyond what they could match. (Not true, IMO, but widely believed, and we DID DOUBLE our nominal level of spending under Reagan, so it's colorably possible.) If that is so, maybe a reasonable strategy, but then it would the height of stupidity to break the back of our economy by continuing to make (so-called) defense spending still higher until we went broke ourselves.

What is the threat/mission, exactly? Back when we were facing a world-threatening menace of over 300 million people, from the richest resourced country in the world, dedicated to oppose us everywhere, and with the largest military that quantitatively dwarfed us in many respects (not qualitatively), including some 20,000 nukes aimed at us, and including some supposed need to rebuild our defenses, we spent under $300 billion a year, about $286 billion at its peak.

After the USSR collapsed, costing the Russians their eastern European vassal states, that country was broke, their economy collapsed and the Cold War ended, but somehow as of that time, we had to double nominal defense spending again, against a rag-tag band of stateless malcontents numbering under 10,000, with no army, navy, air force or nukes, no great national resource base to draw from, and nothing but small arms?

No, that makes no sense, except as a sop to the arms industry, to keep the MIC flush with profits. The F-22's job was to maintain the ability to penetrate the incomparable Russian ground-to-air defenses with manned aircraft, as we always wanted to do in the Cold War in case it turned hot.

Well, I guess maybe it isn't a bad capability to maintain, except it was ridiculously expensive and ultimately unnecessary, given hyperaccurate cruise missile delivery systems available at a far lower cost (probably NO additional cost, as we have them already paid for and in inventory).

eg8r
01-22-2011, 03:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The F-22's job was to maintain the ability to penetrate the incomparable Russian ground-to-air defenses with manned aircraft, as we always wanted to do in the Cold War in case it turned hot.
</div></div>Where did you read this?

Cruise missiles? Really? In another post of yours you are wanting to close overseas bases. Where do you think you are going to launch your cruise missle from and actually hit China or North Korea? Not land so I guess that leaves subs because without our bases you kill the chance at getting too many aircraft into enemy territory unless you get the their approval to set up a temporary base to launch from.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-22-2011, 03:58 PM
We have submarine launched cruise missiles, we have submarine launched ballistic missiles, and 'stand-off' aircraft that haven't penetrated foreign country air space can launch cruise missiles from the safety of international air space without needing to run the gauntlet of surface to air missile protection.

And maybe 12 or so aircraft carrier groups to get close enough on the seas.

As for the mission of the F-22 to be a manned penetration bomber, I read that all over the coverage of the canceling of the purchase to a fraction of what had been contracted for and contemplated.

eg8r
01-22-2011, 04:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have submarine launched cruise missiles, we have submarine launched ballistic missiles, and 'stand-off' aircraft that haven't penetrated foreign country air space can launch cruise missiles from the safety of international air space without needing to run the gauntlet of surface to air missile protection.

And maybe 12 or so aircraft carrier groups to get close enough on the seas.
</div></div>Yep, I mentioned subs. Launch one or maybe two and that sub is done, that crew will be dead. Yes plenty of planes can launch it but again, remember you already told us you wanted to close those bases that will get you close enough to make those planes effective. As far as flying into international airspace close enough, what if China's new plane is as good as they say? How close do you think our fighters or bombers are going to get? If the F22 was such a collosal waste of time and money why did the Chinese spend all that time and money copying what they think it is capable of doing? Imitation the best form of flattery?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for the mission of the F-22 to be a manned penetration bomber, I read that all over the coverage of the canceling of the purchase to a fraction of what had been contracted for and contemplated.</div></div>Sorry I should have been more clear, where did you hear about it being built to penetrate Russian terrority bypassing ground to air installations? The cold war is over, Russia is not our only enemy anymore and the plane is so much more than just a get in and get out bomber. Also, the "F" stands for Fighter not bomber. That designation starts with a "B". I had the fantastic opportunity of working less than 300 feet of the F22 line. I had a great opportunity to listen to a speech by a few of the original design engineers. I worked on the F35 project which is the baby brother of the F22. What I have learned through direct first hand experience suggests everything you said about the F22 is way way off mark. If you are going to listen to the media for your information about our warfighters and their equipment and technology you are at a serious disadvantage.

eg8r

Qtec
01-22-2011, 09:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Obama told reporters that he hoped to speak to Mr. Hu about China’s human rights record, but said, <span style="color: #990000">“To be honest, we’ve got as much leverage with China as a guy who’s three months late on his car payments has with the repo man.”</span> </div></div>


They can afford to spend money on the military, the USA can't. That's the whole point.
The USA won the cold war by eventually <u>outspending</u> the USSR.

Another 20 yrs of Republican rule and the the future POTUS will be <u>renting</u> the WH from the Chinese.

Q

Qtec
01-22-2011, 09:33 PM
Why would China want a war?

Q

Sev
01-23-2011, 10:13 AM
Watch and see what happens when we default on what we owe them.

eg8r
01-23-2011, 12:00 PM
Why do you argue with a strawman and change subject?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-23-2011, 03:03 PM
eg8r, you are right, and I was wrong about the F-22 being a penetration plane designed to defeat the Russian air space defense.

(Amazing what one finds when one looks instead of being so sure of oneself. Advice to myself.)

Among the things I also found was the Rand Corporation's study that concluded the F-22 would be of little use to defend Taiwan from China, since China's improved MRBMs would simply take out their bases, and also target where the in-flight refueling tanker planes were based. (So your point about not having closer bases is mooted. Having closer bases to allow these kind of planes to be in range only makes them easy targets.)

That the F-22 has the worst safety record of any plane the AF currently flies. That each hour of flight time requires over 30 hours of maintenance. That the stealth abilities are sometimes ruined by rain. And that it costs four times as much as the highly capable plane it was to replace, which itself offers entire air superiority over anything else out there.

Sev
01-23-2011, 03:15 PM
The F-22 was not a good design concept. Its one reason why Washington needs outside professionals with an understanding of weaponry to keep an eye on defense contractors. Of course who is going keep an eye on them is the question.

eg8r
01-24-2011, 02:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Among the things I also found was the Rand Corporation's study that concluded the F-22 would be of little use to defend Taiwan from China, since China's improved MRBMs would simply take out their bases, and also target where the in-flight refueling tanker planes were based. (So your point about not having closer bases is mooted. Having closer bases to allow these kind of planes to be in range only makes them easy targets.)
</div></div>It is definitely not moot. Should Taiwan decide to do something they certainly will not be wimpy about it and call for help "after" China is pummeling them. Only the US waits to be attacked. The rest of the world is proactive and we are reactive. Moot, absolutely not.

I will check on the rest and see what some of the engineers think.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-24-2011, 10:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Among the things I also found was the Rand Corporation's study that concluded the F-22 would be of little use to defend Taiwan from China, since China's improved MRBMs would simply take out their bases, and also target where the in-flight refueling tanker planes were based. (So your point about not having closer bases is mooted. Having closer bases to allow these kind of planes to be in range only makes them easy targets.)
</div></div>It is definitely not moot. Should Taiwan decide to do something they certainly will not be wimpy about it and call for help "after" China is pummeling them. Only the US waits to be attacked. The rest of the world is proactive and we are reactive. Moot, absolutely not.

I will check on the rest and see what some of the engineers think.

eg8r </div></div>

If their mission could be accomplished in one sortie, maybe it could still work out, I suppose. But is that even possible?

Sev
01-25-2011, 08:40 AM
ICBM's work best.

eg8r
01-25-2011, 01:01 PM
LOL, probably not 100%. Anyways, I am all for closing many overseas bases and since the Government has already paid for the initial contract of these planes and only canceled future procurement it leaves a lot of room to continue designing the next best thing.

Cuts in defense always seem to be on the newest programs and it just does not make sense. All you are doing is limiting the ability to move forward. There is a reason why Iraq sucks in all these wars and that is because they have all old crap. If we continue cutting spending on new programs we will end up in the same place.

eg8r

eg8r
01-25-2011, 01:02 PM
The issue with those are the tree huggers who have a heart attack at the simple mention of nuclear weapons. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Sev
01-25-2011, 01:12 PM
Neutron bombs are green.

Soflasnapper
01-25-2011, 02:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Cuts in defense always seem to be on the newest programs and it just does not make sense. All you are doing is limiting the ability to move forward. There is a reason why Iraq sucks in all these wars and that is because they have all old crap. If we continue cutting spending on new programs we will end up in the same place.

eg8r </div></div>

Former SecDef Melvin Laird let the cat out of the bag on that question. He explained that over and over again, the military would come in and complain that our air superiority (or whatever area of military prowess) was dangerously marginal, that other parties were able to challenge us, and that therefore we needed huge new expenditures into the latest generation of technology to regain our edge.

Then, he said, a few years later they'd come back and say of that time period, although we had COMPLETE and unquestioned supremacy in that area then (i.e., admitting their scare tactics were lies when they hysterically had said the sky was falling, and our enemies about to catch us in capability).

Now, we have a new wrinkle, in that we specifically allow other countries to buy our next-to-greatest or most recent technologies, and then they say our own weaponry is threatening our superiority and we need to go to the next generation. Because they lobbied to have the arms industry able to export these weapons.

Rumsfeld made public remarks that we were facing an internal enemy, and that is was a matter of life and death--the arms industry, and specifically that the Pentagon could not account for spending totaling $2.1 trillion dollars. That was the day before 9/11, on which day the auditors and accountants looking into these lost, stolen or diverted funds and materiel were killed in the Pentagon hit. And you know what? So far as I know, Rumsfeld never talked of this huge scandal ever again.