Feb 25, 2014|
Tommy talks to Russell Rumbaugh, the Director for Foreign Affairs & Defense and a Senior Associate for the Stimson Center, about proposed military cuts
Tommy talks to Kevin in Metairie about his wife's need for medication to cope with constant, chronic pain.
Tommy talks to WWL-TV reporter Meg Farris about a new report that New Orleans had more drug-related deaths than homicides.
Tommy talks to State Representative Cameron Henry about the current state and the future of TOPS.
Tommy talks to David Howard, Professor in the Dept. of Health Policy and Management at Emory University, about the state of Obamacare going forward.
Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)
Our guest here Russell -- Baugh who is the director of budgeting for foreign affairs and defense and senior associate for the Simpsons senator good morning sir thank you for taking the time. -- Tom -- bit about the Simpson senator if you will because even before we Todd talk about the budget cuts everybody's going to be wander and what's is stamps and senators are we nasal I don't know. Are bright and a glad you talked about working on our then nonprofit. Think tank here in Washington DC what that security at. Agilent practical steps to pragmatic and global solution. -- morning unreal and then secretary of war world. I'd come in terms of shrink in the size of the army. Smaller sports since World War II build up and then some apparent on official there talked about taken a military off for the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001. Historically. Is -- as a defense forces and the amount of spending. Go up and go down as trouble. Presents itself and have we left ourselves vulnerable by downsizing when things seemed peaceful. Well at all right the current budget goes up and down overtime goal early by the start of the ninety Christie's it goes really low. And so to hide in the sixties and seventies and -- -- in the ninety's are in the 2000. -- again today. And now that that although it lower. And it will then in the last ten years or last five or six years it's actually going to be our year. In the previous low so despite a Cold War so we're still going to be spending like 25% more money on the front. Even -- -- lower so sequester -- number. Those inflation adjusted dollars urges -- -- in terms of logistics you know only to open it up and down cycle if troubled those present itself and and we it is mentioned earlier North Korea they should try to. Over on the border with South Korea how long does it take to ramp up. Is that even a consideration because the only alternative would be -- have a -- -- soldiers in North Korea. In south wrong. And of course we cancel out there at our muscles. And has spent a lot redirected a sport that building up -- him. -- -- should know fairly potent for a few years ago commander of US forces in Korea argued. Really decree and to do it on. Whitney's. US error and -- and he. Resources would be our precision strike or Ayatollah intelligence surveillance -- all of that. Knowing what's going on and make south Korean army. But he argued that the greens -- very capable model works and could do it on their own. So there's very cute things we need to ramp up. -- Great illustration as -- and eight brigade in to Iraq in March 2003 is per day we'll talk about bringing -- even people. I'm thirty regard so important for the around the still more. And any. Immediate need. Where you run out of our last update that you wanna go and state lower. That hasn't and then all own and that president explicitly that's forced to blah. Saw the large scale contingency operation. You know everything you just said you know you you can study numbers you can studies scenarios you can study. History but it seems immediate -- You throw that out the window when it comes the politics of this because. If you know you perceived is if you vote against this even though it may might make the most sense in the world. As an elected official there are those who would spin and as this -- weakening our country -- this lady is weakening the country but. Then if you. Also vote against something like that then your opponent in the next election and let's face it for the most part they're always running. And say we know what this guy killed jobs because we had 20000 jobs with military here and then all of a sudden they voted against it and that's how much they care about filling your state here so how is this likely play out politically. -- that specific issues. Quote killing eight and that occurred there. Fighter in the air force that happened to Paul are you stay on the National Guard so there'll be -- -- had its issues but there's always a couple contentious issue. -- dynamic here is. What fifteen but you can talk about him and now. It's gonna actually paper money. View original proposal. The proposal. Four book home in that the deal agreed last December with congress. Raise some of that post a question actually had a quote barely you'd be placed far. There's still accomplishment is always ball flexible. And the president and the -- on -- longer -- that would be enough in the out years or your budget including. More funding that Merck and is currently authorized by law and by the way we all sort of suggest another twenty million dollars for the get your point how much that -- twenty billion dollars this year will cause people from both called members of congress come all the deal. It just trying to point. It just seems like everything is my opinion everything that. Congress does in this and every candidate really in this partisan day in ages based on the fear of what an attack ads can look like in the future and -- I would be perceived as being soft on on defense -- so even if it doesn't make any sense I'm gonna vote for I hope I'm wrong anything you -- and Russell. Did absolutely critical moment in -- that we don't have the final deal for what the future of our country including military and we got a year of debate about. But certainly be back. Any other thing is you know -- real quick before we let you go is that. Some scenarios have been suggested that if we have stated. Promulgate two wars. In different places we're not to be able to do it today and I -- Did you prepare if for two wars -- maintain a level of spending deal open doesn't happen. And as with today's new technology does that mean you don't necessarily respond with -- respond with drones or what have you. That is absolutely you should have been debating two wars and for 25 years the recent debate you -- thing has. Coming out of the Cold War where we can -- our military and didn't own the patent. So Colin Powell -- right that chairman and chief support the idea true war now that we strong logic to it. We don't wanna be held at your age somewhere else you want from -- don't want -- -- globe you're paying attention. Because -- -- -- the the other side of the globe whom ever it is they would know. And they can't really fight two wars at this time so that would make that make us vulnerable in that situation. Well thank you -- point out that. To war deterrent out war isn't the standard things so if even we. We are 50000 troops in at the end and we all 20000 troops in Korea. Is somebody in Asia and pick a fight. -- or are they worried about what you aspired to do what the US navy ships are gonna do what. And those special operations teams are gonna that it due date and -- you've -- -- -- and see large sports are there. It's not clear and bodies there. That the US military. Are real. Just because it's not two wars. And sort of standardized idea war but it does not -- operation -- -- Island new crystal ball forming what prevails here politics or rational thinking. And we're gonna get a clearly you the answer on Cutler in the budget were looking at right now we're gonna see some fairly dramatic cut. We might have to revisit the question again next I appreciate you time and hope we talk to you again. Thanks so -- here.