Less Gov't = More Liberty!

Let's talk!   Talkwithmike2014@yahoo.com

 

NATO

 

From the perspective of the US House of Representatives, NATO is:
  •   NOT providing a sufficient return on investment
  •   Still a matter of foreign relations belonging to the US Senate

As such, my focus is budgetary. Fiscal responsibility will have an impact upon diplomacy and military adventurism.

22 Percent!?!

Amidst 29 member nations, the United States pays 22% of NATO funding. As a percent of GPD (a horrible, socialistic method of funding), we are asked to pay a disproportionately large share of NATO funding. If we were a European nation and a leader within Europe (like Germany), a bigger share may be appropriate. But we are NOT.

As a global partner we are certainly interesting in the wellbeing of Europe. A friendly, and open dialog with all European nations is necessary and wise. A token/junior support of NATO is appropriate. Carrying the heaviest load is NO longer appropriate.

Adjustment

It is time to require the nations of Europe to fund the defense of Europe. It is also time to abdicate NATO seats of leadership.

To support NATO as an interested partner I advocate we reduce NATO funding by 90%, to $ 280,000,000 annually. ... Out of curiosity, from which department/agency budget does NATO funding come from?

 

home

Life, Liberty, Property!

Web Author - Mike Kolls