Large cut proposed for US military music

Discussion in 'Trumpet Discussion' started by rowuk, Jul 18, 2011.

  1. Puckish

    Puckish Piano User

    257
    123
    Jan 10, 2011
    "Oh, and if a moderator wants to post something in the even remotely in political area and the owner of the site approves it... done deal ... and if some active member has issue with that.. well I guess that's okay too. The value of this site is in both moderators and members... "

    I would agree if that was the way things unfolded, historically, on this and "that other" site . . . but it's not. If a moderator expresses a political opinion on this site (worse on TH) the worst he is going to get is grousing from a courageous few who disagree with him, followed by defense from fellow moderators, and folks who agree with him, of the type "if you don't like it here you can start your own website" or "it's a privately owned site - get used to it". If I expressed an opinion of the sort Rowuk did (by the way, I agree with what he said) I would be summarily banished from the site and my post would be deleted (leaving the post to which I objected in place and unchallenged). Disagreement with moderators is simply not tolerated and the punishment for doing so is heavy handed in the extreme.

    I, pretty much, always agree with Rowuk's observations and I admire his musical skills and accomplishments and his ability to put into words the difficult to describe processes of becoming a better trumpet player. I would never lobby to have anything he has said removed or edited out. But don't try and indicate that decisions of that kind are not, often, done in a heavy handed and one-sided manner. They are.
     
  2. rowuk

    rowuk Moderator Staff Member

    Age:
    61
    16,616
    7,965
    Jun 18, 2006
    Germany
    House votes to cut spending for military bands - The Washington Post

    (Please note that the Senate has not yet voted on this!)

    From the Washington Post
    =============================================================

    House votes to cut spending for military bands

    By Walter Pincus, Published: July 7

    The House has voted to limit spending on military bands next year to $200 million, reducing by $125 million what the Pentagon originally planned to spend.

    It would be the first time that spending on the military's 154 bands has been reduced by Congress. To take effect, however, the reduction must be approved by the Senate, which has yet to take up the fiscal 2012 Defense Appropriations Bill.

    Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), who sponsored the measure to reduce funding, said that "the Pentagon doesn't need any more band aid."

    "Is this House really capable of gutting investments in women's health care but allowing a $5 million increase in funding for military bands?" she said.

    Former defense secretary Robert M. Gates first directed public attention to the issue of spending on military bands, noting that more money was spent on Pentagon band members than on the State Department's Foreign Service Officers. But Gates never formally proposed reducing spending on the bands.

    In defending a proposal to set funding at $325 million, Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.), co-chairman of the congressional Army Caucus, said the bands and their many ensembles help in recruiting and "uphold pride and morale through music at funerals, welcome- home celebrations, concerts, ceremonies and other esprit-de-corps events."

    McCollum said that military bands are important and that everyone enjoys listening to them, "but in a time of fiscal crisis, $200 million must be enough for ceremonial music, concerts, choir performance and country music jam sessions."

    The measure to reduce funding passed on a 226 to 199 vote.
     
    jdangel38 likes this.
  3. jdangel38

    jdangel38 Pianissimo User

    71
    1
    Jun 9, 2011
    I agree 100%. There are no massive lobbying groups asking congress to preserve Military bands, but their definitely are others urging to save much larger and far more worthless pork spending of every kind; and thats not even including plain old defense spending.

    And as for people who are worried about bringing politics into this, there is no way to seperate the two. You cannot have spending cuts without congressional votes and involement, it just wont happen any other way.
    If the Military bands were run by civilian boards who allocated resources and funding as needed, that would be one thing. But it's not done that way.

    Military Bands are Musical Ambassadors All over the world as well here in the USA. Yes they provide musical support for all imaginable military functions and ceremonies, but they are also representatives for the USA in every venue they play for. Music is a universal language understood by all, you dont need to speak Farsi or Russian or Hindi or Tagalog to be able to enjoy a military march, or even the soundtrack from a famous movie.

    Frankly, the reason the bands are currently under this attack is because they are a very public source of revenue use, and everyone in congress seems to be scrambling to cut the most noticable things possible to gain attention for themselves.
     
  4. Bixel

    Bixel Pianissimo User

    142
    1
    Jan 1, 2010
    Germany
    This is what music has in common with a weapon.

    :-(
    .
     
  5. rowuk

    rowuk Moderator Staff Member

    Age:
    61
    16,616
    7,965
    Jun 18, 2006
    Germany
    A very astute observation!
     
  6. Bixel

    Bixel Pianissimo User

    142
    1
    Jan 1, 2010
    Germany
    Like gbdeamer, I'm not interested in your approval of my comments.
    Other users may have thought it, it was you though who wrote it.

    I'll call you Daddy (if this is obtains your approval).

    Let's recur to the subject!

    :-P
    .
     
  7. rowuk

    rowuk Moderator Staff Member

    Age:
    61
    16,616
    7,965
    Jun 18, 2006
    Germany
    You are most welcome! (I think):evil:

    Daddy is OK. I have 4 grown children and am used to it.
     

Share This Page