-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warns that, while the cuts to the defense budget in the debt ceiling deal should pose little problem, the cuts that go into effect if the deficit-reduction recommendations of the so-called super committee are not passed by Congress in December — the “triggers” that Panetta calls the “doomsday mechanism” — “would damage our national defense.”
Phil Klein writes that Republicans are in denial about the likelihood that, because of the triggers, the super committee could force Republicans to choose between tax hikes and draconian defense cuts. In response to Phil’s column, Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Florida) tweeted last night: “One other option, by majorities, void the post-trigger cuts. Who ISN’T going to vote to protect Med & Defense?” (By “Med” he means Medicare — abbreviated to fit Twitter’s 140-character limit — which is also affected by the triggers.)
It’s a really interesting point. Deficit reduction plans cooked up by committees (like the plan presented last year by the Simpson-Bowles commission) tend to be DOA when they hit Congress. It’s just really difficult to put together a plan that can pass both houses, especially when they’re controlled by different parties. The super committee is supposed to be different because of the triggers, which are meant to be so onerous that they force Congress to accept the super committee’s recommendations. But Congress, of course, has the power to change the law. The politics of doing so after making a public commitment to deficit reduction would depend on what the super committee produces (which is in turn dependent on which representatives and senators are on the super committee), but it’s something to watch for in the coming months, particularly given that Panetta’s statement puts the administration firmly against letting the triggers get pulled.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/04/defense-doomsday-and-the-debt
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Rob| 8.5.11 @ 12:04AM
Who has standing to sue the constitutionality of the Super Congress?
W| 8.5.11 @ 12:42PM
See the august 4 American Thinker:
The Budget Control Act Of 2011 Violates Constitutional Order
By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson
David W| 8.5.11 @ 4:14AM
vote them all out and elect true conservatives (regardless of how evil, heartless, devious, compassionless they may be). Only way to save this country... or we could have a giant bake sale... sell some congressional cookies
Zbigniew Mazurak| 8.5.11 @ 5:36AM
"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warns that, while the cuts to the defense budget in the debt ceiling deal should pose little problem, the cuts that go into effect if the deficit-reduction recommendations of the so-called super committee are not passed by Congress in December -- the "triggers" that Panetta calls the "doomsday mechanism" -- "would damage our national defense.""
Actually, even the initial $350 bn cuts ordered by the debt ceiling deal will significantly weaken the US military. Remember, folks, that they will be imposed on top of ALL defense cuts already administered by President Obama.
And yes, Republicans are in denial if they believe that the sequester mechanism won't be triggered. Liberals, including Fareed Zakaria, WANT it to be triggered.
As for the new Committee, the Congress does not need another Committee to determine what kind of spending to cut. It already has a guidance. It's called the United States Constitution. The Constitution says that while defense is a duty of the federal government, along with a few other things, everything else is off-limits to the federal government.
SpiralArchitect| 8.5.11 @ 2:56PM
You should link your blog with your name when you comment on TAS.
Timothy L. Pennell| 8.5.11 @ 6:46AM
WHY do the Democrats always want to CUT Defence? Why do they seem to trust our ENEMIES, more than they do our Armed Forces?
They love to Apologize, and Grovel at the feet of our Adversaries. They loved HITLER and STALIN. They loved AYENDE, in Chile, and the PERONS, in Argentina. They loved the VIET CONG, The SHINING PATH, and FARC. They love CASTRO and MUGABE. They loved the SANDINISTAS in Nicaragua. And they love CHAVEZ, in Venezuela.
Can we question their PATRIOTISM?
They fight every Weapons System that is proposed, unless it's made in THEIR DISTRICT. They fought REAGAN'S rebuilding of our Military. They have DECIMATED the 600 Ship Navy, that he built. Fought, tooth and nail, against a Weapons System that will Protect Us from incoming Ballistic Missiles.
Think about that.
They fought the Stealth Fighter and the Stealth Bomber. They fought against every piece of SMART WEAPONRY that we have in our Arsenal. They fought VEHEMENTLY, against the ABRAMS TANK, and every class of Nuclear Submarine.
Hussein has CUT money for Missile Defence. CUT money for R&D in to New Weapons Systems. Ended NASA. (Unless you count their new "Muslim Outreach" mission) CUT the F-22 Fighter. Reduced the number of the new Joint Strike Fighter.
All because "We don't have the money."
The guy who PISSED AWAY $900 Billion REWARDING HIS FRIENDS, now, wants more. And he's looking to get it from DEFENCE, thus PUNISHING HIS ENEMIES.
And his fellow Democrats couldn't be happier. All of the former USEFUL IDIOTS, who marched in the streets against THEIR OWN COUNTRY, (Courtesy of the numerous SOVIET Front Groups set up by the KGB) demanding SURRENDER in Vietnam, Unilateral Disarmament, and a Dismantling of our Military. All the while, toting their "BETTER RED THAN DEAD" placards, to the delight of their Soviet Masters.
It's been 50 Years, and nothing has changed.
They still HATE their own Country. They still BLAME us, for all of the ills in the world. They still want to DISMANTLE our Military. And they still HATE THE JEWS.
JimH| 8.5.11 @ 8:34AM
You can’t say what the military budget should be until you define what the military needs to do. Defend the homeland and our borders, yes. Defend Europe, Korea, and Japan? Maybe not. What should our level of involvement in the Middle East and the Stans be? How many fights do you want to be able to simultaneously have? Once you’ve decided what you want to be able to do you can then determine what you need to do it; how many troops, tanks, ships, planes etc? You can also consider the organizational structure. Maybe the army should get part of the air force back. It makes sense to put A-10s, Spookies and similar ground support and transport under direct Army command. The Air Force should retain the air superiority and strategic roles. We certainly need a powerful effective navy, but should it be configured as it is now? Do we need all the carriers we have and are planned along with all of the supporting ships needed to go with them? Submariners have a name for such ships; targets. Some hard thinking needs to be done on the military to have it best defend us in the future. Unthinking across the board cuts are not the way.
Occam's Tool| 8.5.11 @ 1:05PM
Mr. Pennell: I love your stuff.
With defense, you spend what you need.
Medicare would be much more useful if it was not mandated for everyone. And much more affordable.
It would also be much more useful if MDs could choose to appropriately balance bill and NOT balance bill.