With all the talk on both sides of the aisle about the need to cut spending, you might think that any proposal for budget cuts by a major department head would be met with applause and gratitude. Think again. When Defense Secretary, Robert Gates proposed $78 billion in cuts to unwanted, wasteful procurements, there were screams of woe on both sides of the aisle. Lets take a look at what Gates did, lets watch a video with Rachel Maddow with Michael Isikoff, featuring Eisenhower’s famous speech on the subject, and lets look at how the defense contractors do it.

…The savings would be made by cutting the military ground force by up to 47,000 starting in 2015, increasing healthcare premiums for troops and other measures. 2015 is the year when the Afghan government has said it will be able to handle the bulk of security responsibilities on its own. Acknowledging that the military could not be immune from sacrifices that other parts of the public sector will be expected to make, Mr Gates told Congressman how he proposed to save money in a bid to pre-empt demand for even deeper cuts from so-called "deficit hawks" in Congress. After briefing members of Congress on his plans, Mr Gates said that he hoped that “what had been a culture of endless money will become a culture of savings and restraint". The White House had asked for savings of $150 billion. His proposed cuts included a $14 billion order for 573 amphibious landing craft for the US marines, which, like many other projects, has gone way over budget, and a surface-launched missile system…

Inserted from <The Telegraph>

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Even progressive Senator Sherrod Brown is opposing these cuts, because his constituents will lose manufacturing jobs if the cuts go through. What the interview does not cover is that virtually everyone’s will.

The defense contractors have cemented their hegemony far more than just buying members of congress. Every major piece of hardware our military uses is manufactured in the most inefficient way possible to guarantee political clout. Almost every state in the country manufactures a part of virtually every weapons system. It would be far more economical to manufacture a weapons system in one place, saving the fuel and manpower costs of shipping pieces hither and yon all over the nation, but this decentralized system insures that no politician can vote against any weapons system without putting constituents out of work.