The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Beinart on the Tea Party's Foreign Policy

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Beinart on the Tea Party's Foreign Policy

By W. James Antle, III on 1.4.11 @ 1:36PM

Via Daniel Larison, I see this from Peter Beinart:

Tea Partiers say their movement is a response to the way government power, and government debt, grew under both Bush and Obama. But if they looked seriously at the reasons for that growth under Bush, they would see that much of what they're upset about is the military and homeland security spending justified by his expansive "war on terror." Anyone genuinely worried about debt can't ignore the fact that defense constitutes a majority of federal discretionary spending. And anyone devoted to a strict interpretation of the Constitution can't ignore the fact that America is still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Pakistan, Yemen and lots of other places, without formal congressional declarations of war, although that is what the Constitution requires.

The Republican foreign policy apparatus in Washington, which is in large measure funded by defense contractors, has declared preemptive war on the idea that military spending should be part of deficit-reduction discussion. But before going along, the Tea Partiers should think about how they'd like to be remembered by history. If they don't extend their constitutional vision to foreign policy, they'll be abandoning any serious chance of cutting the deficit and reducing the size of government. They'll become indistinguishable from other conservative Republicans, just the latest in a long line on the right to put a globalist foreign policy over a minimalist state.

While I agree with a good bit of this, Beinart is wrong in some particulars. First, there were significant increases in domestic spending under Bush. Non-defense discretionary spending rose faster in his first term than under all eight years of Bill Clinton and Bush signed what was then the biggest new entitlement since the Great Society Moreover, the reason the increases in defense and homeland security added to the debt was because there were no offsetting cuts in domestic spending. The federal government instead borrowed money to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, the defense of the country is a legitimate constitutional function of the federal government in a way that most of the domestic programs the Tea Party opposes are not. That doesn't mean that everything in the Pentagon budget is legitimately national defense or that there aren't serious fiscal implications to embracing a foreign policy dependent on preventive war. But because protecting the homeland is a constitutional necessity, such spending has to be evaluated on national security grounds as well as the overall price tag.

Finally, Beinart was one of the people who wanted simultaneous increases in defense and domestic spending at the time those decisions were made. For the author of this book to now argue that other people's fiscal rectitude should be judged by their willingness to put the war on terror in scare quotes is a little hard to take.

View all comments (35) | Leave a comment

Rogue Elephant| 1.4.11 @ 2:20PM

Right you are. All government spending is "discretionary" in that prior Congressional spending commitments are not binding on later Congresses. Congress does not wash its hands of responsibility for overall spending simply by pretending that some spending is "discretionary" (while other spending is not).

Further, it is "non-discretionary" spending (namely Medicare) that threatens federal bankruptcy. (It is also Medicare end-of-life spending that distorts overall U.S. healthcare expenditures.)

Nevertheless, while national defense is certainly an ultimate priority, one can certainly question overall defense spending. Likewise, one can insist that the rest of the world carry a greater share of international security.

Teflon93| 1.4.11 @ 2:46PM

Don't be stupid! Don't accept liberal premises!

Beinart and other libs like to pretend that entitlement spending somehow cannot be touched---"non-discretionary". This is complete B.S. The government is funded year-to-year. Defense is a constant need; Medicare is not. Why then is Defense "discretionary"?

It's only because liberal Democrats want to cut defense---always. It's the only government cut they support.

Forget this "non-discretionary" nonsense---we need to make REAL spending cuts across the entire budget. We're out of money!

ken (Old Texican)| 1.4.11 @ 3:05PM

Antle,
Be careful. Your isolationist streak is showing...again.
Please don't be stupid.

Red Phillips| 1.4.11 @ 10:48PM

"Be careful?"

What is that supposed to mean. You going to rat him out to the boss for entertaining wrongthink?

Ken can't stand it that some of this magazine's commentators, like Antle or Bandow, don't toe the hawkish interventionist line. Ken would love to believe that it is just cranky people in the comments section who who don't share his enthusiasm for "Pax Americana," but the existence of people like Antle, Bandow and McCain at a conservative magazine frightens him.

Conservatism is slipping away from you Ken. That is what you should fear, not the Venezuelan menace.

WJ| 1.4.11 @ 3:29PM

The defense budget not only has to be cut, it will be cut. Without a doubt. All of the wailing about our obligations to police the world can't produce blood from a turnip (or money from an exhausted taxpayer).

A total reduction across the board is inevitable. Our ridiculous little foreign wars will be done then. The welfare state will be cut also.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 12:10PM

It doesn't have to be cut, although it likely will be reduced.
The US doesn't have any obligations to police the world, only to defend itself. However, a strong defense is not free. Currently, America's defense budget constitutes just 3.65% of GDP.

Your claims that "A total reduction across the board is inevitable" is likely to be proven false, because when there's a budget deficit, defense spending is usually the only thing that gets significantly reduced.

PattyMor| 1.4.11 @ 3:35PM

I say some defense could be cut. Let's start with the base in Bosnia. I don't see a strategic need for it. Let the Euros get involved if they think its so important and its on their doorstep. In the same vein, let's pull out of NATO. This has become nothing but the U.S. funding the defense of the Euros. Let them eat their own cake.

Then there are probably weapons programs that are funded solely because they are in some senators or reps districts.

On the other hand, let's really fund NASA and get rid the stupid "outreach" to the Muslims. They have all the petrodollars to comfort themselves with.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 12:44PM

The topline defense budget figure should not be reduced.

However, the entire defense budget should be thoroughly reexamined. Procurement costs, HC costs, personnel costs, O&M costs - everything.

There are no "weapons programs that are funded solely because they are in some senators or reps districts" - the last such programs were closed in FY2010, and the remaining weapon programs are necessary to defend the US. But their costs need to be curbed, and President Reagan has shown that it can be done.

But weapons spending is only a small part of the DOD's budget. The biggest part is O&M costs, which include everything from flying aircraft to mowing the grass. Let's allow the grass to grow for a few years, reduce fuel costs significantly, and retire obsolete aircraft (to save the money currently spent to maintain them) and replace them with new aircraft.

Personnel costs also need to be curbed, and unneeded bases - in the US and around the world - should be closed. America's global military commitments need to be reconsidered. American troopers should be withdrawn from countries where they don't need to be stationed. HC costs, which have tripled since FY2001, should be significantly reduced.

martin j smith| 1.4.11 @ 3:47PM

One definite obligation of the Constitution is the protection of the Nation against enemies foreign and domestic. Well we have Russia,China, and all of their friends and relatives such as Iran,Venezuela,North Korea. And naturaslly there is terrorism which Russia and China bear some responsibility for putting arms in Radical group's hands. Now to fulfill this obligation where to we cut and when do we decide the governments actually fulfilling of this obligation ?
And how much of the money that Obama spent is actually of a poltiical nature having nothing to do with anything related to improving our economy.?

Red Phillips| 1.4.11 @ 10:56PM

Ha ha! Above I mentioned the Venezuelan menace as a way to poke fun at the fearmongers. Here MJS actually brings up the potential Venezuelan terror. You uber-hawk fearmongers are impossible to caricature. You caricature yourself with every silly post.

Deborah D| 1.5.11 @ 9:05AM

So Venezuela getting all buddy-buddy with Iran doesn't give you any pause whatsoever? Well who is the caricature here? What is it with lefties and the dictator Chavez? Oh, that's right per one of your ilk, Mark Lloyd: "In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. " Yeah, "democratic" -- in that Chavez (like Obama) took over private companies and has silenced the media (which O is trying to do via FCC's Internet takeover). So whatever any leftist dictator does is okay with you even if he acquires nukes from Iran? You'll trust him? You think he'll leave our country alone because Obama and the Dems love him? Hahaha!!!

Red Phillips| 1.5.11 @ 12:55PM

Deborah D, I am not a leftist. I highly suspect that I am significantly more conservative/right-wing than you. I am a conservative non-interventionists because non-interventionism is the inherently conservative/particularist position. Global crusading is an inherently revolutionary/universalist position.

Red Phillips| 1.5.11 @ 1:08PM

Also Deborah, if I were a liberal would I be praising the fact that paleo/libertarian symathetic people like Antle, Bandow and McCain are writing for a flagship conservative magazine? Would I even recognize the distinction? And would I be crowing to Ken that conservatism is slipping away from him in a more non-interventionist direction? Perhaps you should read what I wrote more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 1:23PM

Conservatism and non-interventionism are mutually exclusive. NI assumes not intervening abroad, no matter how bad the world is becoming, and dramatically reducing the military. Those policies failed during Jefferson's time, and they would fail today if tried today.

Whatever the case, NI is a policy not fit for today's world. Those who favor it are incapable of understanding that the world has radically changed since the 19th century (heh, since the Cold War!). The US can't afford to stick its head in the sand, nor to disarm itself.

That does not, repeat, DOES NOT mean that the US should make every world conflict its own affair. The US should be very careful which conflicts it joins; should try to exhaust all non-military means before starting a war; and should wage war only if absolutely necessary. However, it is sometimes necessary to intervene abroad. Not just advisable, but even necessary.

That being said, though, the US needs to reconsider its entire FP. It should not allow foreign countries to free-ride, and it should not make every world conflict its own.

M | 1.7.11 @ 4:06PM

Terrorism is an immigration - not a foreign policy - issue.

Deborah D| 1.5.11 @ 4:15PM

Maybe you should read what I wrote more carefully -- no answer about Iran/Venezuela. That was my main point. You're laughing at people mentioning Venezuela, so I was laughing at you. I didn't read your earlier post. I was responding to this one in which you sounded just like every other leftist troll on this site. So maybe you should be a little less demeaning in your responses to people if you don't want them to think you're a flaming leftist.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 12:23PM

Venezuela is a communist, FARC-supporting, well armed state which has S-300 SAMs, Strela MANPADs, and Su-3o fighterplanes as well as plans to obtain nukes.

Clint| 1.4.11 @ 6:38PM

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."

Teflon93| 1.4.11 @ 7:35PM

Defense is the only part of the federal government to ever receive TRUE spending cuts.

Why not cut everything else FIRST?

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 12:48PM

Because strident liberals like Barney Frank, Ron Wyden, Peter Beinart and Daniel Larison ideologically oppose a strong defense; and also because they wish to protect their beloved socialist domestic programs (entitlement programs, the Edu Dept., the DHUD, the DOT, etc.).

So they want the Congress to significantly reduce defense spending - to finance a bloated welfare state. For the same reason, defense spending was radically reduced during the 1970s and the 1990s - because politicians were refusing to reduce domestic spending.

Red Phillips| 1.5.11 @ 1:01PM

ZM, if you really think Daniel Larison, who writes for the American CONSERVATIVE, is a "strident liberal" who supports a "bloated welfare state" then you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Daniel Larison is a non-interventionist paleocon with a (perhaps growing) foreign policy realism streak. Please get your facts straigh before you spout off.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 1:18PM

Ah, so he's a pseudoconservative libertarian kook. Understood. That's just a slight difference - libertarians and liberals are of the same grain, they just disagree on fiscal issues. They both support a weak defense, appeasement, isolationism, and moral degrengolade.

The fact that Larison writes for that POS mag, by itself, utterly discredits him.

Larison supports a bloated welfare state and wants defense cuts to fund that welfare state. He doesn't support any reductions of the welfare state - the ONLY department whose budget he said should be reduced is the DOD.

Larison is an idiot who believes that the US should re-adopt the utterly discredited Jeffersonian FP of isolationism and pacifism. This policy didn't work well during Jefferson's time, and wouldn't work well now. Jefferson, by disarming the US and appeasing Britain, made the War of 1812 inevitable, by emboldening British aggressors to continue to assail American ships, thus forcing his successor, James Madison, to ask the Congress to declare war on Britain.

Red Phillips| 1.5.11 @ 2:22PM

ZM, you really need to stop talking because the more you talk the more you reveal your ignorance. Before you spout off about someone it is YOUR responsibility to understand where they are coming from. Larison is not a libertarian. He is a paleocon. He used to be more overtly paleocon than he often seems now, but I suspect his underlying paleoconservatism remains even if he keeps it somewhat under wraps. Larison does not support a welfare state. (So he is to be faulted for being both a libertarian AND supporting a welfare state? That would be quite a trick. You really need some political philosophy 101.)

I suspect like the author of this post and me, he believes the Constitution should be followed as originally intended including confined to its specifically enumerated powers. He has criticized the GOP for believeing their own rhetoric that the people genuinely want large spending cuts. Unfortunately he is probably correct. The people want less taxes but more government services. But that is not an endorsement of more spending. It is a commentary on political reality.

Please do your homework next time.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 3:48PM

Larison has NEVER criticized the welfare state and has NEVER called for any significant reductions of domestic spending. The only thing he has targeted for spending cuts is the Pentagon.

Thus, he has betrayed his real beliefs.

I believe that the federal government should be strictly confined to the limits dictated by the US Constitution. However, a strong military, even one with a 3.65% of GDP or 3.75% of GDP or even 20% of GDP defense budget would be perfectly within such limits. The US Constitution authorizes, and indeed commands, the federal government to do whatever is necessary to protect the country. Washington, Jay, Hamilton, John Adams and (since the start of the War of 1812) James Madison all agreed on the need for a strong defense. During the late 1790s, a popular slogan was "one million dollars for defense, not a cent for ransom". This slogan is just as suitable today.

If the federal government is to be reduced to the limits ordained by the Constitution, America will be able to afford even an annual $534 bn defense budget. Total annual federal revenue was over $2 trillion during FY2010. Enough to pay for 3 Pentagons. It is not enough, however, to pay for the bloated welfare state.

Red Phillips| 1.5.11 @ 4:28PM

ZM, at the Constitutional Convention the delegates debated heartily whether or not to even have a standing army with Madison (you know, that guy who wrote most of the thing) being the most prominent member of the no standing army side. It is asinine to suggest that any of the Founder's, even those on the pro-standing army side, envisioned the US military as world police force. So to say X Founder supported a "strong defense" is meaningless (and disingenuous) in the context you mean it. That whether to have a standing army was debated is proof positive that the Founder's did not envision nor does the Constitution authorize the US military as global police force.

More later.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 5:02PM

Firstly, there is a difference between a "strong defense" and "the US military as a world police force". I support the former, but not the latter, despite your false accusations.

The Founding Fathers did not envision the US military as a global police, but most of them, including GW, John Jay, John Adams the Elder and (after the War of 1812) James Madison did support a strong defense. John Jay wrote explicitly that providing for the defense of the country "seems to be the first" duty of the government. GW said that "To be prepared for war is the most effective way to keep the peace." The Federalists kept shouting, throughout the 1790s, "A million dollars for defense, not a cent for ransom." As for James Madison, yes, he did initially oppose a standing army. I know it; I've read his writings. But, like I said, he favored it AFTER THE WAR OF 1812 ERUPTED. He led the country into a war with Britain with a tiny standing army, and saw the dismal results. He learned from his mistakes - unlike you. He later supported a strong military.

The Constitution does not explicitly authorize, nor prohibit, the US military as a global police force. (It would be a lousy idea to police the world, I believe.) But it does order, and indeed OBLIGATE, the federal government to provide for a strong defense. And it's no wonder why - it wasn't the pretty speeches at the 2nd Continental Congress, nor the DOI, that made the US an independent country. GW's Continental Army did.

"More later."

Don't bother.

Red Phillips| 1.5.11 @ 2:34PM

I find it interesting that you apparently think someone is not a conservative because he seeks to "re-adopt" what you admit to being the older more primordial policy? Instead the true conservative embraces the more modern policy? So conservatives are trying to conserve modernity I guess? That sounds about as sensible as your alleged libertarian welfare state supporter.

Also, I suspect the true liberals who comment on Larison's blog would be surprised to find out that this prominent convert to Eastern Orthodoxy supports "moral degrengolade."

Please get a clue.

Clint| 1.4.11 @ 10:09PM

"U.S. military programs will not necessarily be exempt from sharp spending cuts Republicans in the House of Representatives plan to put forward in coming months, incoming House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Tuesday.

House Republicans have previously said defense and domestic security programs would be exempt from their efforts to trim $100 billion from the U.S. budget.

But speaking on the day before his party takes control of the House, Cantor did not rule out defense cuts. "Everything is going to have to be on the table," he told reporters."

ブランドコピー| 1.5.11 @ 2:15AM

nice

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 12:08PM

"But if they looked seriously at the reasons for that growth under Bush, they would see that much of what they're upset about is the military and homeland security spending justified by his expansive "war on terror." Anyone genuinely worried about debt can't ignore the fact that defense constitutes a majority of federal discretionary spending. And anyone devoted to a strict interpretation of the Constitution can't ignore the fact that America is still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Pakistan, Yemen and lots of other places, without formal congressional declarations of war, although that is what the Constitution requires.

The Republican foreign policy apparatus in Washington, which is in large measure funded by defense contractors, has declared preemptive war on the idea that military spending should be part of deficit-reduction discussion. But before going along, the Tea Partiers should think about how they'd like to be remembered by history. If they don't extend their constitutional vision to foreign policy, they'll be abandoning any serious chance of cutting the deficit and reducing the size of government."

Utter gibberish, except the requirement of a declaration of war. Firstly, defense spending does not constitute a majority of discretionary federal annual spending - merely 37.5% ($534 bn /$1421 bn), and neither does total military spending - it constitutes merely 46.72% ($664 bn/$1421 bn). (FY2010 data.) Sizeable amounts, to be sure, but not the majority or even anything similar. Moreover, defense spending is NOT oversized, given that defense is the #1 DUTY of the federal government. Moreover, defense spending is NOT the cause of America's fiscal woes. So what that strident liberal Peter Beinart claimed is a lie, not a fact.

Secondly, the majority of the problems Tea Partiers have with the federal government is not about military issues, but rather the fact that during the last 97 years, the federal government has grown beyond the limits authorized by the Constitution, has become a huge dysfunctional bureaucracy, and has started meddling with issues reserved for the states.

Thirdly, both the Iraqi War and the Afghan War were authorized by Congressional Authorizations, by HUGE BIPARTISAN MAJORITIES.

Fourthly, the US military is not waging war in Iraq (not any longer), Yemen nor "many other places", although in Yemen, a limited number of commandos and drones are helping the Yemeni government defeat terrorists - which is an absolutely necessary mission.

The Republican foreign policy apparatus is NOT funded "in large measure" by defense corporations. Most establishment Republicans, including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, OPPOSE a strong defense and have endorsed the New START treaty. As for the claim that Republicans have declared war on proposals of defense cuts - I wish that was the case, but it isn't. As the above quote of Eric Cantor shows, Republicans have agreed to put defense spending on the table. And as historical experience shows, defense will likely be the ONLY department of the government that will be significantly reduced.

If Tea Partiers don't endorse defense cuts, they won't be indistinguishable from Republicans. They will be remembered as people who set priorities, defended those priorities, and sacrificed unimportant departments. As for a conservative foreign policy - a truly conservative FP calls for a strong military, not a weak one.

Peter Beinart is yet another biased strident liberal. No intelligent person would give him any credit and if he doesn't know that, he's mentally deficient.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 12:22PM

"Finally, Beinart was one of the people who wanted simultaneous increases in defense and domestic spending at the time those decisions were made."

True. In 2000, many pundits and politicians recognized that defense spending was way too low, and proposed to increase annual defense spending by up to $100 bn (in 2000 dollars). Even so, America's defense spending still constitutes only 3.65% of GDP - much less than what it was during all fiscal years of the last 7 decades, except FY1948, FYs 1996-2002 and FYs 2007-2008.

Leinert and Beinart have also endorsed a Jeffersonian foreign policy (i.e. pacifism + a weak military + isolationism + appeasement of America's enemies). Jeffersonian FP utterly failed already when it was first tried - by weakening the military and appeasing Britain, Jefferson endangered the US and made the War of 1812 inevitable - and it would be even more disastrous if tried today.

Leinert wrote of "Bush's excesses". What were those excesses? The liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan from bloody dictatorships? Ignoring the French and the Germans?

Red Phillips| 1.5.11 @ 2:47PM

ZM, are you a spoof? You argue your case so badly that I wonder if you are intentionally trying to discredit it. Do you really think it helps your case to describe the foreign policy you don't like as Jeffersonian? Conservative non-interventionist claim non-interventionism is the inherently conservative policy BECAUSE it was Jefferson's (and Washington's and JQ Adam's) foreign policy.

When conservative non-interventionists describe interventionism as Wilsonian that is because it is both an accurate description and it invokes the name of someone conservatives don't like.

So conservatives are supposed to believe that real conservatives support the foreign policy of Wilson over the foreign policy of the Founders?

Keep arguing. You are making my case for me.

Red Phillips| 1.5.11 @ 3:02PM

BTW, where is "The liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan from bloody dictatorships" specified in the Constitution as the responsibility of the US military? I've looked and can't find it. Maybe you can help me. What Article and Section is it in?

You say above that the US should not make every conflict its own, but with your choice of words you implicitly concede that Iraq and Afghanistan were not about protecting America but some humanitarian mission to topple dictators. Interventionists' rhetoric, even from people who supposedly eschew global crusading for crusading's sake, invariably trends in this direct because the various interventions can not be justified on the basis of protecting America alone.

Please get back to me with that Article and Section when you find it. Thanks.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.5.11 @ 3:41PM

"The liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan from bloody dictatorships" is not ordered by the COnstitution. Nor is it prohibited by it. The liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan made the world (and the US) safer and also made the world more democratic.

Afghanistan is the country that was a safe haven for terrorists - until President Bush invaded it, thus ending America's decades-old foreign policy of ignoring countries that harbor terrorists. Hundreds of AQ terrorists have been killed or captured (including KSM) while the rest have been driven to caves.

In the case of Iraq: Saddam Hussein had refused to comply with a UN requirement to dismantle Scuds, and had acquired yellowcake which could've been enriched and used to make nuclear warheads. He also had chemical weapons and used him on his neighbors as well as his own people. He invaded two countries and threatened to invade another one (SA). He was a madman who could not be trusted.

Was this crusade against Saddam necessary? Debatable. Was it justified? Yes. Was it wise, from 20/20 hindsight? Debatable.

That being said though, going forward, the US should wage war only if absolutely necessary, and only if nonmilitary means have been fully exhausted - in line with the Weinberger Doctrine and the Powell doctrine.

Noninterventionism is not a conservative foreign policy. It isn't a wise one, either - it spectacularly failed during Jefferson's time. Jefferson deluded himself that he could convince Britain to behave properly by diplomatic and economic means - and he failed. Britain only stiffened its policy of impressment and its searches of American merchant ships. Thus, war with Britain became inevitable. These days, only a kook like Ron Paul would recommend a Jeffersonian FP.

ironboltbruce| 1.6.11 @ 9:29PM

Who's kidding who here? Call it what you like, "nondefense discretionary spending" or "discretionary non-defense spending" is only 15% of the federal budget. And the pledge of the Kleptocracy's bought-and-paid-for Corporate Congress to reduce that slice by 20% equates to only an immaterial 3% shrinkage of the total spending pie. Are the American Sheeple so clueless that they think a 3% budget reduction will have any impact whatsoever on our snowballing national debt, which when combined with Uncle Sam's "unfunded obligations" is already a number too large to comprehend even by Bushbama's new Bankster Chief of Staff?!?