On Senate Floor, Perdue Addresses National Debt and Need to Better Fund National Defense

Georgia Sen. David Perdue addresses the Senate on global security and the need for a national defense
Georgia Sen. David Perdue addresses the Senate on global security and the need for a national defense
Noting that providing for a common defense is one of six reasons the original colonies came together to form the United States, yet, due to dysfunction and partisan politics, Congress has not been able to come together to properly fund the nation’s foreign policy, Georgia Senator David Perduce delivered a nine minute speech on the Senate floor this afternoon, calling for attention to reduce the nation’s debt load in order to properly address the situation.

“Washington is too often focused on the crisis of the day instead of getting at the true underlying problems and solving them,” Perdue said. “It shouldn’t take a tragedy like this for Washington to pay attention. The latest terror attacks only underscore that we are facing a global security crisis of increasing magnitude. And this is inextricably linked to our own national debt crisis.”

Perdue pointed out that the nation has spent $21.5 trillion over the past six years, and has borrowed $8 trillion of it. “That’s a tragedy of proportion we’ve never seen in America before,” said Perdue. The senator noted that when unfunded liabilities of approximately $100 trillion are added in, the total amounts to about $1 million per American household. And he noted that if interest rates were to rise to the 30 year average of 5.5%, the interest on the debt would amount to over $1 trillion annually, more than twice what is currently spent on national defense.

Listen to the entire speech below:

10 comments

  1. Andrew C. Pope says:

    I’m not going to subject myself to 9 minutes of droning, but the headline seems to imply that Sen. Perdue wants to cut the national debt and increase defense spending. Is that correct? If so, what kind of non-defense cuts is he proposing that will 1) offset desired increases in defense spending and 2) reduce overall federal spending?

    • Jon Richards says:

      While the senator didn’t get into specifics, he recognized the need to go through the process of debating and passing the 12 individual spending bills covering the different areas of government, rather than just throwing everything together in an omnibus, which appears to be the direction we’re heading now.

      Presumably by debating spending within each of the bills, you could do a better job of funding essential services and directing money to higher priority items like defense.

      • John Konop says:

        Jon,

        The math is fairly simple 91 percent of the budget is entitlments, defense and interest. They are also the fastest growing part of the budget. If you are not taking about the above the 3, no rational person who understands math would be asking for more defense spending in serious conversation about the national debt.

      • Andrew C. Pope says:

        The omnibus process is a pain, but the “let’s go spending bill by spending bill” approach is one that Republicans solely because they know they can pass the defense spending bill and then pick major fights over other areas, leading them to get all of what they want without having to surrender much, if anything, to the Democrats.

        I mean it’s the reason Obama used the veto a while back. I think that, in this era of “us v. them” politics, the omnibus approach is the only thing keeping everyone from going insane.

  2. Dave Bearse says:

    Borrowing $8 trillion at a time of severe recession is hardly “a tragedy of proportion we’ve never seen in America before.” It pales in comparison to “good times” GOP President Bush more than doubling the deficit in part with tax cuts to the rich.” But whatever.

  3. Will Durant says:

    Ironic that many of those who vilify political correctness have no issue with the bold euphemism that is the Department of Defense.

    We merely spend more on our military and line items attributed to the military than the next 10 countries on list combined. This doesn’t even include some of our foreign “aid” supplied in the currency of munitions.

    Utilizing a terrorist attack to justify even more military spending, even in totally unrelated areas is so 2002.

    Say what you will about Putin but Russia will spend much less money with their carpet bombing which will prove much more effective in the end. To quote Uncle Billy, “War is Hell”. The Rooskies understand this concept.

    Perdue looks good in front of cameras. Color me uninspired.

  4. Scott65 says:

    So, Perdue, who has no clue how monetary policy or sovereign debt owed in your own currency work (not unlike many who post here), thinks that debt, which he has completely wrong should be the priority?
    He is a real mental lightweight. Someone needs to sit him down and explain how the Federal debt is not like business debt, state debt, or a family budget, because I really dont think he understands that its vastly different (at least until the government allows individuals to create their own money out of thin air)

Comments are closed.