Despite Sequestration, Pentagon Finds $31,000 For Portrait

Sequestration, which was enacted in 2012 after Congress failed to agree on a budget compromise, will cut some $1 trillion from the defense budget over the coming decade. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), said, “Sequestration was set up to be so stupid that no group of rational people would ever let it happen. Yet it’s happening.” Congress, defense contractors, Defense Department employees, and military experts, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee, warned on Tuesday, July 22, 2013, that an additional $52 billion in defense cuts scheduled for October 2013, will completely devastate the U.S. military. Sequestration has already caused all military branches to ground warplanes, cut training, reduce operations, furlough employees, and severely reduce troop levels. Current Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, said that the $52 billion reduction will cause the Air Force to ground one-third of its fighter and bomber squadrons.

Tom Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and a military expert, says:

“There’s no way the world is going to stay the same if the U.S. plays a lesser role in the world. It will be less secure, less prosperous, and less free.”

Yet, despite the budget cuts caused by sequestration, the Pentagon somehow found enough money to pay for a portrait of former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. I guess that illustrates just where the priorities lie. Defending this country: NO! Portrait: YES!

The $31,000 for Panetta’s portrait is, admittedly, a “drop in the bucket” in the Pentagon’s overall FY2014 budget (which is, BTW, 17% of Obama’s proposed FY2014 budget, behind Social Security, Unemployment, and Labor [33%], and Medicare and Health [25%]). The portrait cost is only 4.8E-6% of the entire military budget. But the attitude, the symbology, springing for a portrait now, is rather unseemly.

Let’s see. A life size picture portrait costs less than $150. And a fancy frame, from an exclusive frame shop, goes for less than $150. So, for about $300, we could achieve similar results. In fact, the portrait that accompanies this article, gotten for no cost, could do. But, noooooooooooo, the Pentagon has to spend $31,000 on an oil portrait.

We’re broke, continue to borrow, can’t even support our military. Yet Obama, Kerry, et al., continue to give away millions of dollars we don’t have in foreign aid. Now, the Pentagon finds money for a portrait. Talk about a slap in the face! Talk about bad timing!

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!