You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Economy
Defense? Or Obamacare?
2011-08-09
The most significant threat to our national security is the debt-limit deal Congress approved last week. The all-cuts, no tax increases deal was a significant victory for fiscal conservatives. Now it has become clear what the price of that victory was -- deep, destructive cuts in national defense.

The first cuts will reduce defense spending by about $350 billion over the next 10 years. If enacted, these cuts would come on top of the more than $400 billion already cut from defense during Obama's first two years in office -- bringing the total reduction in defense spending to more than $750 billion. This is not cutting defense, it is gutting defense.
Shared sacrifice.
It gets worse. If the "super committee" established under the bill does not reach agreement on a second tranche of spending cuts, the Pentagon will get hit with another $600 billion in automatic cuts. This means the Pentagon could see its budget contract by more than $1.3 trillion.

On paper, the automatic cuts are nearly equally divided between defense and domestic spending. The problem is Democrats succeeded in exempting many of their most cherished programs from the threatened sequester -- everything from refundable tax credits to education, federal highway programs and even airport grants. If Republicans won't accept tax increases when the special committee meets, Democrats can simply walk away and pocket deep defense cuts while protecting most entitlements and many of the discretionary programs they care about. Indeed, some have suggested that the Democrats' default position will be to let the special committee fail and allow the automatic defense cuts to kick in.

But Republicans have a secret weapon: The Democrats failed to exempt Obamacare.

Indeed, with cuts to Obamacare scheduled to automatically take place, the real challenge may be persuading some Republicans not to simply walk away and let the trigger kick in. A sizable number could decide that $600 billion in defense cuts is a price worth paying to defund Obamacare. Therein lies the deeper problem: The fact that Republicans agreed to put $1.36 trillion in defense cuts on the chopping block shows just how much the GOP consensus behind a strong national defense has eroded.

Washington is once again prematurely claiming a "peace dividend" -- except this time without the peace.
Posted by:Bobby

#9  Sorry, Reid not Biden.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2011-08-09 19:54  

#8  The Military is hosed. Biden appointed Kerry, Murry, and Baucus to the Super Commitie.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2011-08-09 19:52  

#7  Yeah, Shakey, but it still falls under pork for some Representative or Senator or Governor, anyone one of which will be bribed bought with some PAC or reelection money. Deal with the reality when the wolves negotiate how they're going to cut up the sheep. The old "I'll protect your program, if you protect mine" or the other "I'll support your funding bill if you support my funding bill" or the "As Chairman of the committee, nothing leaves this room unless my project gets funded" is still in play.

What should determine defense is the definition of the Threat(tm). Once that is specifically defined the rest like force structure and funding follow. The very first place to start in defense cuts is to examine commitments to other parties/nations that can be dropped. That directly impacts force structure. It also means that the politicians are forced to reconcile the ink on the paper with the costs incurred. They can of course lie and do the usual sweep of the hand, but if nothing more it gives ammo to their current and future opponents on the consequences.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-08-09 18:11  

#6  most intelligent and cogent comment you've made today
Posted by: Frank G   2011-08-09 18:09  

#5  
Posted by: Shakey Steve   2011-08-09 16:01  

#4  "Let's be realistic: there are some items in the Defense budget that could be eliminated without harm to the republic's security."

Exhibit A:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/08/08/is-this-company-a-328-billion-mistake/
Posted by: Shakey Steve   2011-08-09 16:00  

#3  What will be cut will be training, maintenance, spare parts, facilities upkeep, ammo replenishment, etc. Been there, seen it, done it.

Those don't buy votes and influence, bring in political donations, or engender long-running, follow-up contracts.

Same reason why there'll be troop RIFs (Reduction in Force). Hopefully there won't be a corresponding increase in the hiring of GS-04s from certain demographics in the D.C. area, like there was under the Clinton administraion.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-08-09 11:10  

#2  I fully agree Steve. However, those are exactly the things that historically are protected by the House, Senate, Executive, Governors, and other special interest groups. With all the waving of hands and high statements like that, no one has done more specification of 'what' they want cut than Obama has proposed as a real budget. It's all smoke and mirrors. What will be cut will be training, maintenance, spare parts, facilities upkeep, ammo replenishment, etc. Been there, seen it, done it.

Again, and again, the military men have seen themselves hurled into war by ambitions, passions, and blunders of civilian governments, almost wholly uninformed as to the limits of their military potentials and almost recklessly indifferent to the military requirements of the wars they let loose. Aware that they may again be thrown by civilians into an unforeseen conflict, perhaps with a foe they have not envisaged, these realistic military men find themselves unable to do anything save demand all the men, guns, and supplies they can possibly wring from the civilians, in the hope that they may be prepared or half prepared for whatever may befall them. In so doing they inevitably find themselves associated with militaristic military men who demand all they can get merely for the sake of having it without reference to ends.

Vagts, Alfred, History of Militarism, rev. 1959, Free Press.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-08-09 08:32  

#1  Let's be realistic: there are some items in the Defense budget that could be eliminated without harm to the republic's security.
Posted by: Steve White   2011-08-09 07:57  

00:00