-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
However ill-advised the social issues truce comments were, conservatives should not be so quick to pounce on Mitch Daniels for being willing to consider cuts in defense spending. I’ve argued elsewhere that while national defense is the most important thing the federal government does, conservatives need to stop treating it like it is not a government program.
It really comes down to how the defense budget is cut. We should not leave the country vulnerable to national security threats or fail to purchase essential weapons systems just to save a few bucks. Defense spending has to be driven by security needs and not just budgetary concerns. But you do have to ask real questions about what we need, whether spending is actually advancing our security, how appropriate certain spending is in light of the threats we currently face as opposed to just leftovers from the Cold War, and what military interventions are genuinely in the national interest. We also need to realize as we do with every other form of government spending that we cannot live in a 100 percent risk-free society. Some level of cost-benefit analysis needs to be applied. And even if we do decide to maintain all our commitments, there is as much waste in the defense budget as anywhere else in Washington.
Cutting defense spending indiscriminately, as has sometimes been done in the past, would be foolish. Defense isn’t as big a contributor to our fiscal crisis as entitlements and is a necessary, constitutionally legitimate function of the federal government. But you also can’t just rule out 25 percent of the federal budget when trying to cut spending. Especially when there is plenty to ask questions about or cut.
View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/10/daniels-and-defense
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The (Real) Great Divide
- What’s in a Name?
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ryan| 11.10.10 @ 2:36PM
I think that it could be one of those issues that when you present Americans with some specifics about what programs need to be cut, they may come to some sort of agreeance, even if fairly conservative.
PattyMor| 11.10.10 @ 2:46PM
The budget and the deficit is so out of wack that we have to consider cuts in just about everything,
including defense. We need to prioritize our needs in defense and cut the rest.
Derek Leaberry| 11.10.10 @ 3:13PM
I agree with the two above posters. Yet many conservatives resist military cuts and this isn't just neo-conservatives who oppose cuts. Although not talked about often, there is a giant military voting bloc within the Republican Party that supports everything military, even John McCain. It may even be the largest voting bloc within the Republican Party. They will be hard to persuade.
Cliff| 11.10.10 @ 3:23PM
The problem is that nobody ever believes anybody when they say they just want to cut "wasteful" things when it comes to the military, particularly because this is the one area I'd much ratehr err on the side of spending too much then too little.
I'd trust someone like McCain or maybe John Bolton or Don Rumsfeld if they could point to cuts/efficiencies etc. But I simply don't believe most people when they say things like that. I'm sure it's possible but you need someone VERY credible to convince me they are right. Alan Simpson ain't cutting it
Margie| 11.10.10 @ 3:42PM
Yep. And especially don't trust anybody in the anti-war, anti-Israel crowd, like Ron Paul who's currently joined together at the hip with Bawney Fwank in cutting the military. If anyone's a RINO, he is.
RINO= I'm Republican when it comes to "fiscal responsibility only.
Heh, we don't need no stinking RINO's.
We do need strong pro- strong defense leaders who have their heads screwed on tight.
Why not talk about all the other HUGE gov. programs that need to be cut and/or completely be done away with before even mentioning cutting the military?
Forget about it.
Bob Miller| 11.10.10 @ 4:27PM
Before a candidate can know what defense areas, if any, to cut, he or she needs to understand our armed forces' proper mission in today's world. I think even the most libertarian among rational Americans would concede that a strong national defense is a primary concern of government.
Tim*| 11.10.10 @ 5:24PM
Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:
"Much of the waste in defense is directly attributable to the appropriations process. The vote delays on the MX missile and the suspension of the B-1 bomber cost this country billions of dollars--dollars that were lost forever as those systems that were set back had to be reprogrammed at higher cost.
"The report also calls for less micromanagement," he said. "Instead of scrutinizing every paper clip, bolt and bullet, Congress should give more thought to our overall defense needs and strategy."
The President particularly praised the commission's recommendation for five-year spending projections and two-year budget cycles for the Pentagon. "We are the only major country in the world that rewrites its defense budget every year," Reagan said.
"The waste that results is immense," he said. "No company in the private sector could survive if it couldn't plan for the future. The effect of funding programs this way is less defense and more cost."
Reagan appointed the commission, headed by former Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard, last June and asked it to propose reforms that would end "horror stories" about $600 toilet seat covers, $400 hammers and fierce interservice rivalries."
Margie| 11.10.10 @ 5:43PM
"Reagan said, “Defense is not a budget issue. You spend what you need.” He reminded his advisor that he had campaigned on the theme of restored national security. His election had signaled to the Soviet Union that this these would become policy, and Congress’s approval of his first budget made it official. “There must be no perception by anyone in the world that we’re backing down one inch on the defense buildup.”
Just for a start, he announced that the US intended to rearm with 100 B-1 bombers, 100 MX multiple-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles, a second generation of Trident subs, and a new, radar-invisible, stealth warplane."
Source: Dutch, by Edmund Morris, p.450 Oct 2, 1981
Occam's Tool| 11.10.10 @ 7:29PM
Margie is, as usual, correct.
Whatever we do, we should make sure that we are defended well:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." ~John Stewart Mill
"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence settled their fates quite nicely. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
Robert A. Heinlein
War is the only acceptable area of government waste. It's always good to have left over artillery shells. For example, our infantry in Normandy suffered greatly because artillery production was rationed in a cost cutting effort:
"Although US artillery was second to none in the war, problems with ammunition supply did hamper efficiency at various periods. This problem reached its nadir during the fall of 1944, when the US artillery in Europe was reduced to strict rationing of ammunition. At one point, the artillery was limited to fewer than twenty 105mm rounds-per-day-per-gun. From 11 October to 7 November 1944, Third Army fired a total of 76,325 rounds of all types (an average of 2,726 per-day), which was less than the number fired on a single day during the Battle of the Bulge. Indeed, at the end of the Battle of the Bulge, ammunition reserves in the ETO were 31 percent of the War Department's planning levels (which were already conceded to be too low). Like the personnel replacement problem, the ammunition shortage was only truly solved by the ending of the war." (Military History Online, but Stephen Ambrose also has tons of examples)
Dead soldier's families will not thank you for parsimony in defense.
Occam's Tool| 11.10.10 @ 7:29PM
I'm sorry: "Dead soldiers'"
Margie| 11.10.10 @ 8:33PM
Bravo & great quotes!
Some of the anti-war anti-Israelites among us are trying desperately to co-opt Ronald Reagan to suit their perverted Leftist leanings in order to call themselves conservatives. What a joke.
Liars and thieves, all.
Tim*| 11.10.10 @ 9:59PM
Our Tea Party is The Ronald Reagan Answer to The Libertarian Party.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
The Tea Party is now inside The Congress & The GOP.
Carpe Diem.
Tim*| 11.10.10 @ 9:47PM
Tell it to Ike.
From The farewell speech of President and Former General of The Army Dwight Eisenhower. Given on 17 January 1961 :
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Aaaaand, dead servicemen of all military branches will not thank you for attempting to draw The U.S. into Combat to carry out The National Interests of a Foreign Nation, Israel
Aaaand don't lecture me about Normandy , The Bulge and The ETO,Israel Firster.
My Dad led his Mech.Recon & Ranger Forces ahead of The 1st Army Spearhead from Normandy, to Paris, to The Bulge, To Germany, to The Link Up with The Russkies in Czechoslovakia.
Tim*| 11.10.10 @ 5:58PM
Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:
" During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we're doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We've made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.
Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That's why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
Margie| 11.10.10 @ 5:59PM
If growing the economy is the real concern of Mitch Daniels or any politician I suggest they consider what Reagan understood instead of making cutting defense the issue:
"Carter had run for the presidency on a platform calling for what the Democrats called “national economic planning.” I’m sure they meant well - liberals usually do - but our economy was one of the great wonders of the world. It didn’t need master planners. It worked because it operated on principles of freedom, millions of free decisions how they wanted to work and live, how they wanted to spend their money, while reaping the rewards of their individual labor."
~Ronald Reagan
C Bowen| 11.10.10 @ 6:44PM
Didn't you think Saddam was a threat? Have you name shame commenting on national security issues?
Margie| 11.10.10 @ 8:12PM
Stuff it, Paul-botter.
Tim*| 11.10.10 @ 9:51PM
Israel Firster Apocalyptic Crank NutBag Lady Victor-Margie gnawed her way out of her restraints again.
Get The Net .
Margie| 11.10.10 @ 11:41PM
God is watching you, liar.
Tim*| 11.11.10 @ 12:14AM
God Know You're A Hypocrite Bigot Bitch. Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.
Sandy| 11.11.10 @ 9:01AM
Tim- Profanity is the language of the ignorant, and you just showed your ignorance.
The problem with you Libtards is that when someone has differing ideas than yours, you resort to mom's basement kinda posting.
Margie| 11.11.10 @ 1:22PM
Allow me to expose Tim*s warped mind once again:
Tim* rejects Israel as he has written here previously, he believes that his "Church" has replaced Israel.
This is called Supersessionism or Replacement Theology.
He rejects what the Bible says, that Israel will be restored and that God will do so when Christ returns.
He rejects the book of Revelation in the Bible.
He picks and chooses which parts of the Bible he wants to believe in order to justify his anti=semitism.
This is why he calls me "apocalyptic", because I DO accept ALL of the Bible, including the last one, the book of Revelation.
So he is a fanatical zombie anti-Israel whack job who really believes he is right and justified in his anti-semitism.
He exposes himself daily.
But one cannot be anti-Israel and be a conservative at the same time. Like oil & vinegar, the 2 don't mix.
Tim*| 11.10.10 @ 6:15PM
"I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
— Ronald Reagan
danny| 11.10.10 @ 7:13PM
having worked in the defense industry for 39 years i fully understand why folks think the defense budget can be cut without compromising our security. if a hammer was needed to be included in the tool box of a certain weapons system that hammer would have to be produced according to a mile long list of specs. the hammer would end up costing $300 to $500 when the very same hammer could be purchased from the local hardware store for $5.98. multiply this by all the tools needed to keep the system running and there you go. millions of dollars of waste. believe me i have seen this scenario played out thousands and thousands of times.
jrs| 11.10.10 @ 9:06PM
While there are a number of ways at looking at defense spending, two come rather quickly to mind. The first has to do with the mission of the military. I take the unpopular by conservatives approach that it needs to be scaled back; that we've wasted too much money on 2 wars where rational people can question the legitimacy of at least one of these wars. For the sake of arguement, let's assume we don't need to scale down the mission of the military. The second has to do w/ the efficiency of the military. It's kind of funny how most conservatives think that almost everything the government does is wrong/inefficient, etc... To a large extent I don't disagree, however when it comes to defense many treat this as the holy grail and off limit. Is really all government inefficient except defense? We know the answer. Whether it's the $500 hammer or any of the countless other often not as quite as egregious mismanagement of resources, there is plenty of room for improvement. So, if this country is in for some belt tightening (which it surely is), the question shouldn't be whether defense cuts should be on the table but how much. The same can be said for about every other area of government.
danny| 11.10.10 @ 7:33PM
despite all the waste involved in rebuilding our military might under president reagan, i am proud of the fact that i had a small part of that undertaking. working 14, 16, 18 hour days to make sure nobody would dare challenge our military might was reward enough for me and i'm sure most of my co-workers, despite the waste and outright fraud that the company i worked for participated in.
Margie| 11.10.10 @ 8:26PM
I knew there was a reason I liked you so much, danny. :^)
Great posts.
Sandy| 11.11.10 @ 9:03AM
Danny- Thank you for your service. Happy Veterans day. Today is your day, enjoy.
danny| 11.11.10 @ 3:36AM
thanks margie. keep pulling tims chain.
Sandy| 11.11.10 @ 9:10AM
Mr. Antle- Here is a link to an article about not cutting our Defense Budget, and why. Seems that you need the lesson.
http://www.americanthinker.com.....udget.html
Daniels comment about cutting the defense budget, even more than the Obama admin. shows a tremendous lack of knowledge on his part. The Defense Budget may just be one of the only constitutional budgets we have in Washington. Daniels would scare the bejeepers out of me on national defense. Sometimes some things shouldn't be seen through the prism of the almighty dollar alone.
Derek Leaberry| 11.11.10 @ 9:16AM
After reading how the military brass has now cowardly rolled over and acceded to the wishes of the homosexuals and the left on homosexuals serving in the military, why not defund the military as it is now institutionally left-wing?
WM| 11.13.10 @ 1:37AM
This is a reasonable column. And in truth, the military has been morphing into just another entitlement competitor. A typical brigade would spend $100 million in aid money in Iraq per deployment. We actually set up a command in Africa - AFRICOM - for some unfathomable reason. It seems designed to be a glorified AmeriCorps for that continent. Cuts can definitely be made.