Posted on 11/26/2011 7:09:07 PM PST by rabscuttle385
These days, virtually all Republicans call themselves conservatives and claim to be dedicated to cutting spending, balancing budgets, reducing debts and limiting government. Most of them are liars. The failure of the super committee this week was but the latest reminder.
The super committee was supposed to figure out how to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If it failed, the result was supposed to be $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts over the next decade, with about $600 billion of that coming from the defense budget. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said any such cuts would be devastating to our military. Many prominent Republicans agreed with Panetta. Mitt Romney said: We cannot put Americas safety in jeopardy by virtue of the failure of this committee. Michele Bachmann echoed that sentiment: We cant do that to our brave men and women who are on the ground fighting for us.
When conservative Republicans say they want to cut the Department of Education, the Department of Energy or anything else, liberal Democrats shriek that Republicans will devastate education, energy and any other part of our government that does not remain 100% intact. Conservatives rightly recognize this as a liberal scare tactic designed to prevent anyone from downsizing a federal government that so desperately needs downsizing. What separates liberals from conservatives is that whereas liberals love big government and will tell any lie to protect it, conservatives hate big government and will cut it at every opportunity they get or at least this has long been perceived as the divide in American politics.
I stress the word perceived, because when it comes to Pentagon spending, too many Republicans still behave exactly like liberal Democrats.
The truth is that we dont need to spend as much on defense as were spending now. Were spending more on defense than at any time since World War II and almost as much as every other nation combined. Senator Tom Coburn has suggested that if we are going to start cutting, the Pentagon is the most logical place to start precisely because it is the most wasteful. But even more importantly, these devastating automatic cuts that are supposed to happen arent really cuts. As Senator Rand Paul explained on CNN the day the super committee failed:
This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because were only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23% over 10 years. If we [make these cuts], it will still go up 16%.
Paul is describing the classic liberal narrative that if proposed spending increases are in any way diminished, this constitutes a cut. Rush Limbaugh reminded his listeners of the fallacy of such thinking on his program Monday:
There will be no spending cuts. There are no spending cuts in sequestration or anything else. You know how the current services baseline budget works. The current services baseline budget projects an increase of lets say 23%, just to pick a number, okay? Well, it is, its the same thing every year. Whens the last time the budget went down in anything? It doesnt happen So if somethings supposed to go up, spending go up 23%, and its only gonna go up 16%, they wail and moan about a 7% cut.
Added Limbaugh:
Defense spending is going up even with sequestration You understand the current services baseline budgeting, and even you are shocked to realize now that there is no real cut from a baseline of zero in defense spending.
Last year, Sen. Rand Paul introduced a plan that would have balanced the budget in five years and reduced the debt by $4 trillion. At the time, the budget cuts it called for far exceeded those of any other Republican proposal. He was only able to arrive at such a large number by including Pentagon reductions.
Pauls proposal won the support of Senator Jim DeMint and Senator Mike Lee, but it failed in the Senate, 7-90. Why did the overwhelming majority of Republican senators oppose Pauls plan? Dont they agree with Paul, DeMint and Lee that we have to cut spending and balance the budget? What gives? Heres how Republican Senator Lindsey Graham explained his (and his partys) opposition: Im not going to vote for any budget that reduces defense spending by over 40 percent.
Pauls plan cut defense spending by only 6%. So where did Graham get 40%? You guessed it: He defined decreases in the rate of spending increases as cuts. The same old liberal trick.
In Grahams defense, his view on defense spending seems to be the dominant one in the Republican Party today. The problem is theres simply no way to actually do what every Republican loves to talk about limiting government, balancing budgets, cutting waste without reducing defense spending. After entitlement spending, defense spending is the second largest part of our budget. You could feasibly gut the entire entitlement system and not touch Pentagon spending, but what politician is going to tell Americas seniors they must do without so Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and God-knows-where-else can have more?
As of this writing, Sen. Graham is drafting legislation to protect our military from the devastating automatic cuts supposedly coming down the pike due to the super committees failure.
If my fellow conservatives want to know why the GOP has failed to cut government spending, look at Lindsey Graham. Then take a look at all of the other Republicans who agree with him.
Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here.
Lindsey Graham is a traitorous little weasel who needs to be expelled in 2014.
False. Entitlements are the biggest segment of the budget. Discretionary domestic spending went up 8.2 percent a year under bush and it's going up even faster under Obama. We can make significant cuts just by restoring it to 2001 levels.
Of course, I'm radical enough to want to eliminate at least 9 Federal departments, so you know where I'm coming from.
Mr. Hunter.
There are THREE (3) branches of Government.
Executive (President)
Judicial (Supremes)
Legislative (House and Senate)
REPUBLICANS control 1/4 of this group.
The Republicans could believe in the tooth fairy, but it wouldn’t matter unless a majority of the other 3/4ths agreed.
That is why THIS election is so critical.
Yep eliminating at least 9 would go a long way in solving our problems.
Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Energy, Education. Homeland Security is very abusive and at the very least needs to be cut back severely, if not outright eliminated. Veterans Affairs can be folded into Defense. That would be a very good start on actually cutting government.
The Paul plan would be an excellent start. Not bad for teh first year while we’re weeding out the government.
Make it 10.
My #1 target for the cut list is EPA!!!!
EPA has to go in the first wave. And most of what’s left needs to be cut about 10 percent. As Sen. Paul has noted, every agency is bloated with middle management types, Deputy Assistant Undersecretaries and the like. Cut out most of those people.
If we took defense spending back to 2007 levels then added 1.5% for inflation since then, defense spending would have to be cut $135 billion this fiscal year. Not spending on veterans, just spending on military defense.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2013USb_13s1li111mcn_31t
Defense is one of the ONLY things the federal government should be doing. Social welfare spending should be drastically reduced or entirely sent to the states to deal with. Non-defense discretionary funding should be cut nearly in half. The defense department should remain strong and well funded as defending the nation is one of the few missions the federal government does that is actually legitimate.
Of course, I'm radical enough to want to eliminate at least 9 Federal departments, so you know where I'm coming from.
Ahh, but what matters is can you name them in a debate ;)
But seriously, I pretty much agree. I'd do away with 5 federal departments as a start to include Commerce, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy and Education. I'd demote the EPA from cabinet rank to a sub-department within the Interior (where Energy would go as well). It's temping to wrap Veterans Affairs into Defense, but I'd rather keep those two separate since the VA has nothing to do with wartime capabilities and would artificially inflate defense leaving it more prone to cuts because it would look so big. I'd be open to moving Agriculture and Transportation into the Interior as well, but don't know enough about the subject to say for sure.
If we can find ways to reduce defense spending that don’t harm readiness and our military strength, I’m for that. If we can cut the military bureaucracy, cut the cost of procuring goods, that sort of thing, I don’t have a problem with that. But when people talk about “cutting defense spending”, they usually mean cutting manpower, equipment, weapons systems,. and the like.
“The powers not granted to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” — Amendment X.
Thus, social welfare is a state and local responsibility, if it’s a government function at all, definitely not a Federal power.
The first step is to eliminate the duplicative agencies and block-grant the programs. We change the standards to favor the intact family rather than support its breakup. And we begin restoring the power to the states adn communities.
Seems to me that if we are getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other wars, we should be able to cut defense...
This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because were only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23% over 10 years. If we [make these cuts], it will still go up 16%.
What Rand Paul fails to factor in is the rate of inflation. If inflation goes up only a modest 2% a year for those same ten years... then the total US military's purchasing power is reduced 4%. (likewise, a 3% yearly inflation rate means that the purchasing power of the US military will shrink 14%, 4% inflation = 24% reduction)
And currently, our inflation rate is over 3%.
Which means our military will have to either shrink... or be less well equipped to accommodate.
---
The only real way to cut spending is not to focus on dollars, but to focus on what the government *DOESN'T* need to do. Find those things our government shouldn't do... or shouldn't do as much as it currently does... and then, when you eliminate the program, the budgetary savings comes as a corollary.
To try and cut funding without cutting government programs or military missions is a fool's errand.
Excuses.
Our Founders created a government where any one of those three branches can stop the government from doing anything.
They spun out the Department of Veteran’s Affair so that it could be saved from any military budget cuts.
With the military facing $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade (the $400 billion first agreed upon 3 months ago and the upcoming $600 billion from the failed supercommittee), guess what would be a very tempting target for the Pentagon to cut if the VA fell under the military budget?
That is incorrect.
Our problem tomorrow will be entitlement spending. Our problem today is discretionary spending including defense.
I would eliminate the LCS, P-8A and the F-35B today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.