Based on some comments from the earlier post, I dug this out tonight. you can go HERE and view the breakouts by state and town of the stimulus bill, courtesy of Stimulus Watch.

I must have missed this one on the news… Yeah, right…

About a week ago, there was a fairly large protest outside the high school in Mesa Arizona where Obama went to pitch his mortgage bailout package. The MSM has purposefully ignored the protest but it’s in the Internet blogs and on talk radio. And at Stickerpatch, they have photos up that were taken of the protest.

h/t Mikey

And from the WSJ today…

Declining Defense, The Wall Street Journal, 2 March 2009

Obama’s budget does cut one federal department. For all of his lavish new spending plans, President Obama is making one major exception: defense. His fiscal 2010 budget telegraphs that Pentagon spending is going to be under pressure in the years going forward.The White House proposes to spend $533.7 billion on the Pentagon, a 4% increase over 2009. Include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would be another $130 billion (or a total of $664 billion), and overall defense spending would be around 4.2% of GDP, the same as 2007.

However, that 4% funding increase for the Pentagon trails the 6.7% overall rise in the 2010 budget — and defense received almost nothing extra in the recent stimulus bill. The Joint Chiefs requested $584billion for 2010 and have suggested a spending floor of 4% of GDP. Both pleas fell on deaf ears. The White House budget puts baseline defense spending at 3.7% of GDP, not including Iraq and Afghanistan.

The budget summary pleads “scarce resources” for the defense shortfall, which is preposterous given the domestic spending blowout.

(bold and italics mine- This is PURE BS!!!)

More ominously, Mr. Obama’s budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years — to $614 billion in 2011, and staying more or less flat for a half decade. This means that relative both to the economy and especially to domestic priorities, defense spending is earmarked to decline. Some of this assumes less spending on Iraq, which is realistic, but it also has to take account of Mr. Obama’s surge in Afghanistan. That war won’t be cheap either.The danger is that Mr. Obama may be signaling a return to the defense mistakes of the 1990s.

Yep, we’re sure as hell going down that road again!!!

Bill Clinton slashed defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000, from 4.8% in 1992. We learned on 9/11 that 3% isn’t nearly enough to maintain our commitments and fight a war on terror –and President Bush spent his two terms getting back to more realistic outlays for a global superpower.

American defense needs are, if anything, even more daunting today. Given challenges in the Mideast and new dangers from Iran, an erratic Russia, a rising China, and potential threats in outer space and cyberspace, the U.S. should be in the midst of a concerted military modernization. Mr. Obama’s budget isn’t adequate to meet those challenges.

That means Secretary of Defense Robert Gates faces some hard choices when he finishes his strategic review this spring. An early glimpse will come soon when the Pentagon must decide whether to continue to purchase more Lockheed F-22 Raptors.

Barney Fwank wants the money for HIS programs, NOT Defense… Besides he wants to “pay back” the Southern Republicans for their lack of support…

The Air Force is set to buy 183 of the next generation fighters, though it wanted 750, which would be enough to give the U.S. air supremacy over battlefields over the next three decades. Now the fighter may be prematurely mothballed.Weapons programs, such as missile defense or the Army’s Future Combat Systems, are also in danger. Others have been ridiculously delayed.The Air Force flies refueling tankers from the Eisenhower era. Mr.Obama’s own 30-something Marine One helicopter is prone to break down and technologically out of date.The Pentagon shouldn’t get a blank check, though much of its procurement waste results from the demands made by Congress.

Mr. Gates has also rightly focused on the immediate priority of irregular warfare and counterinsurgency. But history also teaches that a nation that downplays potential threats — such as from China in outer space– is likely to find itself ill-prepared when they arrive.The U.S. ability to project power abroad has been crucial to maintaining a relatively peaceful world, but we have been living off the fruits of our Cold War investments for too long. We can’t afford another lost defense decade.

We can’t but if the Lightbringer gets in for 8 years, no telling what shape our Defense Department will be in- Probably worse than under Carter, which was the lowest since WWII. Also, it’s interesting that not once did the WSJ refer to the Lightbringer as President.

Combine this with his speech the other day at LeJeune where they cut away from the Marines faces because they were getting pissed, to only showing their backs, and the fact that Freedom and Victory were never mentioned (I don’t believe), this does NOT bode well for us… sigh…