Saving 10% would be meaningful, wouldn’t you say? Especially since it’s unnecessary, accrues no good to the average taxpaying citizen.

We’re onto something here, TB, working together for a smaller, less expensive government. Let’s stay with it.

Right now, national defense is 18.5 percent of the budget. Human resources (social spending of various kinds) is 67.4 percent. Everything else–energy, national resources and environment, commerce, transportation, science and space, agriculture, justice, and all the rest–is around 10 percent.

In the 1980s, defense was 26 to 28 percent of the budget, and human resources was about 50 percent.

In the 1960s, defense was about 45 percent of the budget, and human resources was just breaking 30 percent.

See the trends? It ain’t the military breaking the bank.

Defense spending also does not have between 40 and 60 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities hanging over it.

I have no doubt there’s a lot of fat that can be cut off military spending, but the massive wealth redistribution culture has to be dealt with eventually.

Wouldn’t it be easier to start with a bloated “defense” department than with kids lunches? Why not start with “defense”? Wouldn’t solve the entire problem, but then neither does cutting school lunches.

Tell me – why not start with the defense department?

Defense is not where most Federal money goes. I’ve explained this to you multiple times, using several approaches, including large colorful diagrams.

Eliminate the cumulative cost of both wars since 2001, eleven years of war, and you would pay off the current Federal deficit for one year. One. I’ve explained that multiple times, too.

You still won’t get it, but I’m posting this again for the benefit of others who might.