|
Heritage Foundation on Homeland Security
|
|
|
Trump's hiring freeze just shifts resources to DVA and DoD
It's not hard to find federal programs that are duplicative or ineffective. The president's executive order requires all agency heads to submit plans for reorganizing their operations. Their proposals are to "include recommendations to eliminate
unnecessary agencies and programs." That all sounds great, but what does it actually mean?Well, for starters, it means the previous federal hiring freeze is no more. But it doesn't mean programs and departments are free to hire willy-nilly.
Instead, they've been instructed to follow a smart-hiring plan, consistent with the President's America First Budget Blueprint.
A few agencies, like the Defense Department and Veterans Affairs, will beef up staff. Most, however, will have to pare
down employment. All federal employees can expect to see resources shift from low- or no-priority programs to higher-priority ones. Many may be asked to do something new or different with the goal of optimizing employees' skills and time.
Source: Heritage Action 2017 voting recommendation on hiring freeze
, May 9, 2017
Increase to $14B per year for missile defense
Recommendations on missile defense:- Commit to funding the overall ballistic missile defense program at an average of $14 billion per year. To protect Americans effectively against rogue attacks in the near future, a rigorous program of testing,
development, and deployment of missile defenses must be implemented. Adequate funding must be dedicated to these systems.
- Deploy layered missile defenses as soon as possible. We need defenses that intercept missiles during all three stages of flight:
boost, mid-course, and terminal. A multi-tiered missile defense system reduces the burden on each capability, thus reducing the technical requirements and costs of each layer and increasing the likelihood that we can destroy hostile missiles
before they reach our atmosphere.
- Pursue a space-based defensive component. A system of 1,000 space-based interceptors would cost less than $20 billion to build, launch, and operate over a 20-year period.
Source: 2012 campaign website CandidateBriefing.com
, Nov 1, 2012
Obama military budget is too small to defend vital interests
Since World War II, the definition of U.S. vital national interests has remained relatively constant. This has led to a widely accepted set of security commitments that the government has made to the American people and U.S. friends and allies around
the world. These commitments include:- Safeguarding U.S. national security;
- Preventing a major power threat to Europe, East Asia, or the Persian Gulf;
- Maintaining access to foreign trade;
-
Protecting Americans against threats to their lives and well-being; and
- Maintaining access to resources.
The Obama Administration's proposed defense budget, within both the five-year and 10-year time frames,
is simply too small to field a military that is capable of effectively defending these vital national interests and fulfilling the accompanying security commitments.
Source: Heritage research report by Baker Spring
, Mar 1, 2012
OpEd: Pushes to increase defense budget; majority oppose it
There's a little scam going on here. The same people who are drilling into your head that the federal government is your enemy are also saying we have to strengthen it--but only that part of the government that pours money into their pockets.
So the Heritage Foundation, the right wing foundation that, more or less, sets the budget and agenda for the right wing, wants to increase the Pentagon budget--against the will of the population.
The population is opposed to that by about 6 to 1, but the Heritage Foundation wants it because they know something that you're not supposed to know.
That secret is that the system is primarily functioning, and has been for 50 years, to transfer funds from the general public to advanced sectors in high-technology industries.
Source: Dialogues, by Gov. Jerry Brown, p.219
, Feb 12, 1996
Page last updated: Apr 30, 2021