Cuts can obviously be made without hurting US power, and in fact a great amount of cuts do need to be made. But Mr. Frank is proposing some of the wrong cuts.
Take, for example, the proposal to withdraw from Afghanistan early. Contrary to popular belief, The US presence in Afghanistan is actually doing some good. Studies are showing that security in the formerly violent Helmand province is improving rapidly. An additional two more years of US presence in the country will provide ample time to train the Afghani security forces and police up to the level where they will be able to keep out unwanted foreign influence from Iran and Pakistan, and be able to defeat terrorists. Extra time in Afghanistan will further stabilize the country and increase our leverage over the uncooperative Karzai because we can threaten to plunge the country into chaos. US troops can also continue to spread women's rights and democracy throughout the country while bolstering the central government, all of which are good things. If we pull out before the job is finished, we risk wasting all 11 years of action there.
About overseas bases: 500,000 troops in Germany is absurd, as is most US involvement in Europe. However, we need more and bigger bases in Asia. The Chinese military and political leadership still regards the West, particularly the US, as an enemy, and continues to build up its forces to prepare for a future major war. Economic cooperation is historically shown to not work; the UK and Germany were each others biggest trading partners before both world wars, same for the Union and the Confederacy before the Civil War and the 13 colonies and England, and so on. And then there's the issue of Iran (hellbent on destroying our allies and spreading radical Islam), failed states that breed terror and economic chaos, and various genocidal and oppressive regimes that continue to oppose us (see: Russia, Gaza, Syria, DRC, etc). With our economy in shambles, and our soft power discredited (we can't even convince our "allies" like Pakistan to do what we want, and sanctions against Iran have just hurt the people and consolidated power in the Revolutionary Guards, who control oil exports to China), our only option is to rely on our military to maintain our standing in the world. And no, our forces are not strong enough as is, analyses by RAND corporation and others show that we would lose in a war over the Taiwan strait with China. And we can't ignore the studies by independent groups like GAO that show that the level of cuts Mr. Frank advocates ($900 billion) would make it impossible for the US to fight around the world.

Please stop supporting non-sense polices that would only benefits the Rich.
You cannot fix the problem by STOP SPENDING. It is a BS of starving the beast cowards...sorry crowds and you know it.
As long as we have the supper rich corporation, have the rich Representatives and Senators write one-sided legislations to enslave the masses we will not break out of this recession. We need something really big and out of box quickly. I suggest:
1) Reverse the Bush Tax Cut and then some, for the TOP Rich 5%.
2) Eliminate FICA payroll tax for Corp. and employees (at lease for a few years) for the people who are making under $30K of income.
3) Eliminate ceiling cap for FICA taxable amount (now at $ 109K) and make ALL incomes from all sources taxable for FICA taxable, so everybody pay the same percentage. That should include those bankers’ bonuses and Wall Street high rollers; I mean every conceivable income from every conceivable source must be FICA taxed.
4) Audit (real audit) every Gov. Agency, especially Pentagon and Federal Reserve (a Privet Bankster, and make it a real Federal Reserve Agency) for waste and corruption and so called mismanagements (playing favoritism).
5) Tax ALL Wall Street Transactions (stock, commodity, and even Derivative Instruments) say 1% on both side (Buyers & Sellers).
6) Close all loopholes on the tax codes for the rich and Corporations (is there any other loopholes? we have already stopped giving single Moms welfare.)
7) Create the biggest Depression-era Works Progress Administration for all kind of public infrastructure (hi-tech and low-tech.)
These simple steps would bring JOBS, stability to the Market, and slowly eliminates DEFICIT and will fix funding for Social Security Fund.

I agree with Mr. Frank's article, but there are some glaring gaps in his points that, in my opinion, could lead to the U.S Military stop having hegemony in Asia. While I agree that we no longer have the threat in Asia by the thermonuclear armed Soviet Union, we now face the giant of Asia, China. With new reports coming out about China's rapidly increasing nuclear arsenal, it would be foolhardy to completely disengage from Asia with our military. This would be the equivalent of committing national suicide by giving China free rein throughout Asia. I believe we should move our troops from Europe and strategically place them throughout Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, India, and Indonesia). Obviously it would be politically and economically unfeasible to place every single troop from Europe into Asia, but shoring up the defenses and providing some deterrence for our allies in Asia seems to be the best solution, especially with President Obama's new pivot to Asia in his foreign policy.

Defense spending is the source of all our economic woes? Ballooning entitlement expenditures have nothing to do with it?

Defense spending will need to be cut just like everything else. I like the picture of the F-22, a highly unsubtle way of making one's point, and one that is irrelevant since the last one has already rolled off the production line and the line itself has been closed, never to be re-opened again.

I have to ask, where would you propose that the cuts come from? The politically unfeasible veterans benefits or the crucial modernisation programs necessary for fighting pretty much any other armed conflict other than World War II in Europe?

For example, I don't deny that we haven't faced a credible air threat in a long time, but as I understand it, American power projection is based on the assumption that we will have undisputed air superiority to back up any action we choose to take, which may simply not be the case as nations hostile to the United States choose to invest in technologies precisely tuned to deny this advantage.

I disagree with the school of thought that says what we have now will be sufficient to defeat even "developing" countries in the foreseeable future. Neglecting such issues because they have a low probability of happening does not strike me as good risk management.

I don't think anything needs to be said on why cutting veteran benefits would be committing political suicide. I do feel that it is a better option than denying funds to the people still putting their lives on the line.

But then we cut half a trillion out of defense, with another half trillion on the chopping block.

So we've been there done that.

And according to the Obama Administration, we'll lose 1.5 million jobs due to those cuts, which I think somewhat nullifies Frank's Kenyesian point.

I think defense spending has grown bloated, but I'm not sure how cutting it even further "saves" the global economy when Europe, and their out of control spending, is really driving impending collapse.

Our entitlement spending has skyrocketed in the past few decades. We need to take care of our citizens, but we also must recognize that throwing more money at Social Security, Medicare, etc does little to enhance wealth or job creation.

Defense will account for, what? 17% of the Federal budget after these cuts take effect? Something doesn't add up here.

It's a bit disingenous that Frank didn't at least acknowledge how much defense spending has been cut. Now if he thinks it should be cut more, that's a fair point,.

And then there's Frank's responsibility for the global housing crisis, which got us in the mess in the first place....

Whatever staffer wrote this piece needs a little more practice, I think.

The one thing people who say the US is already losing its ability to fight some supposed large scale war in the future can answer is.....who? Who is this mythological enemy we need to be prepared to fight? The US already spends 45% of global defense spending, the US and its major allies account for 3/4. You know, those major allies, who themselves has some of the largest military budgets in the world, and who we had to give munitions to during the Libya campaign because apparently Britain and France can't handle small scale operations in Afghanistan combined with a No fly zone. And these nations have the 3rd and 4th largest military budgets in the world.

So really, who the heck is our military supposed to be geared to fight. China? Their military is still so far behind ours in terms of equipment and training parity it's hilarious and a non concern.

"Yet my Republican colleagues"

This comment just smacks of partisan politics. The same sort of politics that got us in this mess

"Terrorists are terrible people who should be confronted, but they are not a thermonuclear-armed Soviet empire. Fighting them, though in many ways more complicated, should be less expensive."

That is highly debateable. The fear is that they could become nuclear armed and as a result more dangerous than a defined State acting on the international stage. As for cost it is strung out over decades and only appears less expensive.

"Reducing excessive military spending -- my proposal cuts approximately $900 billion in the next 10 years -- would allow us to provide the short-term economic stimulus needed to continue the progress we are making in breaking out of the recession."

So the plan isn't to save the $900 billion and pay off some of the debt, instead the plan is to spend the money elsewhere? Maybe I read it wrong but that sure sounds like what the Gentleman meant. And that is what upsets most Americans. This sounds more like a gesture to the taxpayers that something is being done but in reality turns out to be a shell game.

"They claim that government spending doesn't create jobs -- unless it is for the military."

Government spending can create jobs and second and third order employment. But the money has to be spent in the right place. Human beings will strive to greatness and achieve more when it comes to grand feats such as the space race or defending ones nation. We heaped money on GM to build a green car and so far that investment has backfired. Why? Because it is hard to get a group of people excited about investing their mental capital into small tasks.

"If America's extensive worldwide military engagements were proving effective at bringing stability to troubled countries, I would feel conflicted in noting that these impose a terrible drain on our economy and interfere with what we need to do to resume economic growth. But in fact, such interventions rarely work. Heavily armed young Americans are an excellent fighting force, but a U.S. military presence is rarely the best way to resolve long-standing ethnic, religious, or other social tensions."

Then stop voting to send us downrange. On the other side of the coin is it in our best interest to let these groups fight it out to the death? Rwanda is a clear case in point. We did not help but we still got the blame. Fact is we act when we have strategic interests and it is the Congress that approves and funds these engagments. Personally I refer to them as wars and so do everyone else that has to fight in them.

"The reductions in the military budget begun after the collapse of the Soviet Union by President George H.W. Bush and continued by Clinton -- along with other spending constraints and tax increases on the wealthy -- resulted in balanced budgets in the late 1990s. No one I have spoken to has ever presented any convincing evidence that there was any damage to U.S. national security because of it."

Actually the world became a more dangerous place. When we had a Soviet Union to oppose us we sent US troops over seas less often. Since the end of the Cold War we have become the policemen of the world. During the Cold War we never had a single attack on US soil. I would argue that this draw down is what led to a poor cadre of leaders during the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. They failed to recognize and prevent an insurgency from springing up in Iraq and they failed to put away the Taliban. We paid dearly for these oversights and were lucky to have leadership in the wings that could come in and reverse the damage that was done.

I agree IN with pretty much everything written in this comment. Articles like these by Mr.... Our major conventional weapons systems are aging, and at some point no amount of refurbishment will save them. Admiral Mullen had previously called for a 300-ship navy to be able to meet his assessment of US security needs. We now will come nowhere near that....Taiwan became a lot friendlier to China after China significantly boosted their force projection capabilities. aeronaves
saude do corpo

Barney,
You're a good pol, but some of your numbers are bad assumtions. $430 billion/yr for the Pentagon? That would bring funding levels to about right AFTER the Cold War ended, early 90's. Wehn we were neck deep in Iraq and Afgahanistan (think mid 2000's) BOTH on budget and off budget defense spending (even with CR's) we were at $ 750 billion/yr. Your budget is way too little for the commitments we have overseas.
We definitely need to draw down in NATO and Western Europe, but the ASIA region is getting problematic. China has purchased a used carrier from Russia, there are (albeit dicey) reports of more nuclear weapons than previously thought, and I'm still concerned about the ascendant neo-piracy in the Malaccan Straights.

A little too much, but we can bargain...

It's absolutely fair, the spending with the defence department is too high

Barney is just using his mouth piece to push the Democratic agenda. Yes, cutting spending is one of the problems but getting revenue streams in the tax rolls that already exist seems like a no-brainer.

Those of you who are yelling at the computer that we must stop spending are almost right, but not totally. We have to stop "wasting". Don't stop spending altogether. There are those in real need that must be given some of the fruit of our labor. That's just the way it has to be.

But lets remember the three "C's" to every problem, the complaint, the cause, and the correction. Our governments always get the first one and the last one but inevitably leave out the middle one; the cause.

Prosperity is a balancing act between revenue and spending. We need both to have a continuing prosperity for everyone. Look at China. They have lots of revenue but no spending (for their people). Hence, they have no prosperity. They have to keep loaning to the US and Europe because without them they will have no revenue.

The US has lots of spending but have chocked off their revenue with an over burden regulatory situation. But the political environment in the US is in such a strangled hold of "us vs. them" that they can't see the forest because of all those darn trees.

But we do need a quick fix but where do we find it. The US can start by looking at its two biggest non-taxed revenue streams that exist within its borders; gambling and drugs.

There has been some talk of legalizing online gambling once again. There are many articles starting to pop up suggesting just that. But that legalization won't come without problems as stated in a nice article at http://pcmenterprises.com/legalize-online-gambling.html

And some states are on the verge of legalizing the drug industry but there has been too much federal resistance for them to get on board and pull the trigger to get the laws enacted.

These are not the cure all fix all remedy that will have everything hunky dory in just a few months or years. Yet, they are a quick fix that will go a long way. Just like a jump start on a diet always helps one's attitude go in the right direction when they see an good weight loss in 20 or 30 days.

So too would a shot in the arm quick fix of revenue from sources that already exist help this country and the world (for that matter) get a good push in the right direction. And there would be side effects of legalizing online gambling and drugs. Yes, there would be terrible side effects like the criminals losing their foothold on the economy by taking all the loot and not paying any taxes.

Wow! It's hard to argue with finding new streams of revenue and ridding yourself of drug lords all at the same time. Go figure!