Mackenzie Eaglen of the conservative American Enterprise Institute and Michael O’Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution make an important point regarding the looming dangers of sequestration, about which much of Washington seems to be in denial. If nothing is done, in January 2013 the Defense Department will have to start chopping another $500 billion or so from its budget–on top of the nearly $500 billion in cuts already being implemented. The results could be catastrophic, and we don’t have until Dec. 31 to head off this disaster. As Eaglen and O’Hanlon note, Congress must act now to avoid the willy-nilly budget cutting that otherwise will occur in less than a year’s time. They warn:
Sequestration will cause its greatest disruptions immediately in early 2013, when mechanistic and severe cuts have to be imposed overnight. The military can adapt to reductions that it sees coming; for all the inefficiencies of the Department of Defense, it is still one of the world’s most competent planning bureaucracies. But this is a whole different kettle of fish: Because spending would have to decline for 2013 based on cuts taking effect only in January, there would be no opportunity to use natural attrition in the force to cut personnel costs, no opportunity to use the natural annual cycle of working with defense industry to restructure contracts and keep alive those weapons programs that are needed and desired, no realistic way to scale back training carefully in a way that saves money yet keeps the military ready.
This could well be the death knell for American military power–or at least a guarantee we will again hit the nadir we last saw in the late 1970s. Congress needs to wake up and act before it’s too late. These cuts will not be averted by wishful thinking; it will require political leadership which, alas, appears to be sorely lacking in Washington at the moment.
I hate to say it, but the Tea Party bears some resonsibility for this. Their fixation on the Debt Ceiling was politically and fiscally stupid. You can even argue that the Debt Ceiling debacle is what shifted the conversation away from spending and Tea Party issues toward "fairness" and Occupy Wall Street Issues. Another large helping of blame goes to John Boehner, who idiotically agreed to the sequestration even though it was structured to hit Republican priorities harder than Democratic ones. Even worse, it put our countries defenses at risk. Of coruse, the majority of the blame goes to Obama, who seems quite happy to impose these cuts. But I expect sabatoge from him.
I'm not sure of the Tea Party's exact position at the time, so cannot say they aren't to blame for the confrontation that resulted (although I seem to think it was Obama who negotiated a deal and then backed out of it at the last moment), but with regard to what the confrontation resulted in, it is Boehner who blew it. He's the one who agreed that if the super committee didn't come up with a compromise, then every single cut the Democrats wanted would be made automatically. I mean, what did he think was going to happen?
Unfortunately he is not very smart.
No Boehner is obviously not very smart. However, I believe that Mark Steyn is right; America is so broke but the people and the elites will slash military spending before they will be forced to cut entitlement spending.