The Hill reports that the defense industry is anxious the fiscal cliff tax deal may increase the likelihood of Pentagon cuts:
The defense industry is worried last week’s budget deal on taxes could damage its negotiating position for the next “fiscal cliff” deadline two months from now, when across-the-board spending cuts would take effect.
The deficit debate is shifting from taxes toward spending cuts and the debt limit, where there will be more of a focus on new cuts to the Pentagon.
While the first fiscal cliff fight over taxes included the threat of massive across-the-board spending cuts, the sequel is going to be nearly all about where to cut spending. The Pentagon is the largest target outside of entitlements. …
Some defense analysts say that the shift in the Republican Party away from national security, with the rise of the Tea Party, was highlighted during the fiscal-cliff negotiations, where taxes trumped defense in importance. …
“Other issues have overtaken national security as being more important,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a defense analyst at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
“I think it does show how the Republican Party is no longer the party of national security, no longer a big-tent party of Reagan Republicans where a strong defense was a central tenet of conservatism.”
Fiscal conservatives argue that defense spending shouldn’t be immune from cuts, and they’re right. There is waste and mismanagement within the Pentagon, just like any other government bureaucracy, and there is undoubtedly room for reduction. What’s unacceptable is arbitrary, across-the-board cuts that would force the military to set priorities based on budget reductions, rather than the other way around. Defense should not be dealt with the same way as health care and entitlements; it’s the most important responsibility of the federal government. If there are specific areas where reductions can be made, that should be determined. But choosing a random number and asking the military to cut that much is not the way to do it.
It will be interesting to see whether this fiscal conservative v. defense hawk debate starts to play out during the Chuck Hagel confirmation hearings. There are senators on the Armed Services Committee who consider themselves fiscal conservatives first and foremost, and then there are others like John McCain and Lindsey Graham who vehemently disagree with Hagel’s support for major Pentagon cuts. The question will be whether any of the fiscal hawks come to Hagel’s defense because of his position on military spending.
My understanding of where most TEA Party folk (and I consider myself one) are on National Defense is pretty much stated comprehensively in Ms. Goodman's second-to-last paragraph above. I don't know why there is any belief that the Tea Party won't support National Defense spending — albeit at the expense of other things. n nDo not confuse the TEA Party with Ron Paul, even if Ron Paul started much of it — the TEA Party is Populist while the PaulBots are Libertarian. (As, I believe, is AEI.) Populism differs from Libertarianism in a variety of ways, but one important one is the realistic knowledge that one has to defend ones self from bullies, that the world is a dangerous place populated by bad people who would like to harm us and our friends, and we have to be prepared to stop them from doing so. n nTo understand the TEA Party, you have to understand *both* the Jacksonian Democracy *and* the "Great Awakening" because Judeo/Christian principles are very much a part of the philosophy of the TEA Party in a way that they are not in Libertarian philosophy. Remember that Andrew Jackson was the first President who was neither landed gentry from the Virginia Tidewater nor a member of Boston's Adams Family — he was the "common man" and his philosophy essentially was "you're no better than I am" — merit rather than inheritance and this is why the Republican establishment is so terrified of the TEA Party. n nAllen West embodies the TEA Party — and he also is quite hawkish on defense. Even though an "Army guy", he was the one raising the issue of our shrinking Navy and the growing Chinese one. Populists tend to want a strong national defense — remember that Teddy Roosevelt and the era of the "Great White Fleet" was in an era of populism. n nI am not justifying Andrew Jackson's treatment of the Native Americans, or of him saying "[SCOTUS Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it" relative to what became known as the "trail of tears" — but in an era where Indian Wars were the national defense issue of the day, Populist Jackson was no Dove. And wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said "Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute?" n nIf it comes down to the TEA Party folk, I can see entitlement cuts long before defense cuts.
Ed's historical review of U.S. military affairs is very well done. But I fear that his last sentence, "If it comes down to the TEA Party folk, I can see entitlement cuts long before defense cuts," probably is hypothetically accurate, but not a realistic forecast. n nThe TEA Party folk won't have enough power to force President Obama to accept maintaining (or, better, expanding) our military forces (especially reversing the rapid decline in the number of Navy ships and the number of Air Force modern aircraft). Remember that the President always wants a smaller U.S. role in world affairs. That viewpoint is consistent with his speeches and actions during his presidency, and his pre-presidential history. n n(My support for the latter idea is in Dinesh D'Souza's "How Obama Thinks", in Forbes magazine, 27 September 2010. An internet search will turn up the article, together with some criticisms of a few factual errors which I think were minor. The article summarizes or foreshadows Mr. D'Souza's book on the same topic; I haven't read the book.)
I am afraid that you are right — the TEA Party folk aren't going to be able to accomplish much before 2014 at the earliest, but I wanted to make the point that I doubt that it will be the TEA Party that is advocating for DOD cutbacks. n nIt is from another era, but the best summation of Tea Party philosophy I can think of remans that "the government exists to keep the roads open and the Russians out" — to plow the roads and defend the country. n
I think we have to cut entitltements, good luck getting Obama to agree to any of them.
What would the Boy President do if the GOP simply shut down the government – and was willing to sustain the shutdown. No one is really going to the National Parks in early March, everyone would love to see the IRS shut down and have to extend the April 15 deadline, and unlike 1994 when Bill Clinton had a monopoly on the media, we now have people like Ms. Goodman — and she is by no means the only one — able to tell the other side of the story. n nI am tending toward an attitude of we can keep the government shut down until 2016 if need be, Mr. President, you give us what WE want or we won't let you play with your toys… n
Ed’s historical review of U.S. military affairs is very well done. But I fear that his last sentence, “If it comes down to the TEA Party folk, I can see entitlement cuts long before defense cuts,” probably is hypothetically accurate, but not realistic forecast.
The TEA Party folk won’t have enough power to force President Obama to accept maintaining (or, better, expanding) our military forces (especially reversing the rapid decline in the number of Navy ships and the number of Air Force modern aircraft). Remember that the President always wants a smaller U.S. role in world affairs. That viewpoint is consistent with his speeches and actions during his presidency, and his pre-presidential history.
(My support for the latter idea is in Dinesh D’Souza’s “How Obama Thinks”, in Forbes magazine, 27 September 2010. An internet search will turn up the article, together with some criticisms of a few factual errors which I think were minor. The article summarizes or foreshadows Mr. D’Souza’s book on the same topic; I haven’t read the book.)