The American Spectator

Simon Templar| 8.31.11 @ 12:54PM

Well, the way out of this little conundrum is to stop letting the Left dictate the narrative.
Defense cutting is on the table because the GOP allowed it and allowed the Dems to get away with the false premise and notion that it is a significant part of the overall budget when it has never been.

They have been spinning this bull for fifty years. Stop allowing them to miseducate the public. The list is endless..everything from social security to medicare. The public is illinformed about all of them. Let us not even touch the class warfare myths and taxation myths.

Now, here we go again. The Poser will be giving a speech in September that will outlay his grand plan for the economy that will contain massive spending and insane proposals that will inevitably have to be rejected. He then will campaign on this GOP rejection to 'save the economy' and the GOP will be put in a defensive position. Now, that is what we call controlling the narrative.

Gee, what can we do? Are we as stupid and weak as the Left believes we are?
BEAT HIM AT HIS GAME AND HAVE READY OUR OWN PROPOSAL! ANNOUNCE IT, SELL IT, CAMPAIGN WITH IT, MAIL IT, TALK SHOW PRESENT IT.....
While you are at it, explain to the public how stupid and ridiculous his proposal is.

Antle. I am sure you mean well but do you hear yourself? Not only does your thinking on this matter bow down to their narratives but it is soley reactionary and limited. Why are we limited to tax cutting? Are conservatives one trick ponies? It is always the same drivel, the same old patterns, the same old solutions, the same old game.

I think it is high time we broaden our appeal. If we are truly concerned about this nations survival, then it is going to REQUIRE thinking out of the GOP box. Only bold, creative, honest, and new ideas are going to make the difference between collaspe and survival of this Republic. Take the lead.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.2.11 @ 4:30AM

"Well, the way out of this little conundrum is to stop letting the Left dictate the narrative.
Defense cutting is on the table because the GOP allowed it and allowed the Dems to get away with the false premise and notion that it is a significant part of the overall budget when it has never been."

Exactly. It is President Obama and Congressional Democrats that have painted Republicans into this box by forcing them to choose between defense cuts and tax hikes, knowing that Republicans hate both.

Sean| 8.31.11 @ 1:01PM

Mr. Antle , you may be right that interest and entitlement spending will force a more modest budget. But if you extrapolate from the past both parties have a history of deficit spending. The FED is now debasing the currency at an increasing rate to help the Federal government cope with all this debt. Once the FED wipes out business and middle class savers there won't be much left in this economy.

Simon Templar| 8.31.11 @ 1:19PM

Yes, Sean, they also have a history of fraud, waste, coruption, over regulation, interference in private sector markets, over paid federal workers, a tax code that is insane, spending directed overseas, a health care law that will destroy the economy, and thousands of agencies and departments that have no justification or purpose.

This is what needs to be addressed, this is the central problem, this is the issue. As long as they distract people with entitlements and the politics surrounding them, which certainly do need reform, they need not be forced to deal with the above list.

Sean| 8.31.11 @ 1:28PM

Oh I agree.

Clint| 8.31.11 @ 1:23PM

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."

Simon Templar| 8.31.11 @ 1:33PM

Cutting the defense budget does not solve fraud and abuse within government defense contracts nor address corrupt government and defense contractor negotiations.

Oversight, supervision, government accountability, transparency, and prosecution does. The very same thing that is missing and presents us with the central disease of a gigantic, out of control government that can not even efficiently and effectively manage its social welfare and social security programs.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.2.11 @ 4:35AM

Exactly. That was what Ronald Reagan said in 1986 after the Packard Commission published its report. As Ronald Reagan stated during that speech, CUTTING the defense budget is NOT the solution. The solution is to review the defense budget, line by line, and root out every unnecessary expense - whether it's unneeded equipment, surplus personnel, perks, oversized bureaucracies, or excessive fuel costs. Personally, I have devised my own package of DOD reform proposals, which is available on my blog:
http://zbigniewmazurak.wordpre.....e-edition/

Clint| 8.31.11 @ 1:51PM

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."

Simon Templar| 8.31.11 @ 2:00PM

Yep, he was right. Long term planning was also missing. Another classic characteristic of big government. What ever can be put off till tomorrow and passed onto the next guy is preferable.

Oldefarte| 8.31.11 @ 2:01PM

The historical difference between the two parties is that the Democrats spend tax money on social services [ie welfare], whereas the Republicans spend money on military/intelligence agencies/war. The commonality of these two extremes is contained in the word SPEND. This country simply does not [nor will it ever have in the forseeable future] discretionary funds available for either welfare or guns. The number one and sole issue should be hammered home to both parties [especially Republicans] is that our government will absolutely have to be substantitally reduced, and that incluedes their favored military etc spending as well. We have currently enough weaponry to effectively blow the rest of the world to amitherines and back, and there is no sane reason for increased military spending. In fact, the oppopsite is necessary, and that means tanking/eliminating proposed high tech military hardware [ie supersonic jets, laser guns/munitions/tanks/ships etc]. The Pentagon and its defense contractors are going to have to be put on a Scarsdale-type diet economically speaking. We simply must get this budget defecit/debt seriously reduces to managable levels, or otherwise maybe the taxpayers are going to have to strike and stop paying their governmental taxes until such time as these Republicans really get our message [instead of throwing tea into the Boston Harbor, we're going to have to throw our tax notices/forms in the garbage can]!!!!!!!

Teflon93| 8.31.11 @ 2:44PM

I agree. Conservatives care about limited government, Republicans do not.

Oldefarte| 8.31.11 @ 4:14PM

Yes true, but the ONLY CONSERVATIVES are Republicans [there are no conservatives of even moderates within the Democratic Party]!!!!!

Teflon93| 8.31.11 @ 8:00PM

The Tea Party has a higher proportion of conservatives than does the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party likely does as well.

The Republican Party is not even run by conservatives. Thus the reason for the existence of the Tea and Libertarian parties.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.2.11 @ 4:37AM

We conservatives, including Republicans, want limited government, not "no government at all" or
"a weak defense". Defense is a constitutional DUTY of the federal government.

Like the Hamiltonians said, "A million dollars for defense, not a cent for ransom."

Occam's Tool| 8.31.11 @ 4:51PM

Cut Taxes. Cut Spending on Entitlements. Kill Sharia advocates. Kill Obamacare.

If Perry does these Four, he will be Reagan II. What needs to be done is not easy. But it is VERY simple.

Clint| 8.31.11 @ 6:43PM

Gallup: Ron Paul Polling Only Two Points Behind Barack Obama
August 22, 2011:

The media keeps telling us there is a new top tier in the race for the Republican nomination: Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, and relative newcomer Rick Perry. It’s so nice of them to narrow the field for us six and a half months before the Iowa Caucus, declaring who is electable. What is so hard about letting an election process play itself out organically? (Or covering it honestly?) Ah yes, a lot of political corporatism, cronyism, and bureaucracy to protect.

A newly published Gallup poll shows Ron Paul is only two percentage points behind President Obama, the same gap that separates Mitt Romney from Obama. Representative Paul clearly gets a lot of traction with the American public. It is a sad commentary the media can’t get themselves to admit it.

Herb Tarlek| 8.31.11 @ 10:20PM

It is time for a dramatically new way of doing things. Vote for a republicrat & you will continue with banana republic results. There is only one candidate who consistently has expressed the means to unwind this empire in an organized manner. He is a RINO only because Republican=Democrat. You can call him AntiSemite, kook, insane, or any other name but it does not matter. Because he will win & he will unwind this thing & there is simply nothing that the establishment & the hanger's on can do about it. So we will have a foreign policy change after all.

steve in ohio| 9.1.11 @ 12:47PM

I like alot of Ron Pauls' ideas, but how is he going to win a general election. So far the media has ignored him; when they start to pile on, his negatives will sky rocket. Our society just has too many takers. Also too many Republicans believe the lie that he won't maintain our nation's security.

Herb Tarlek| 9.1.11 @ 1:35PM

The events of the next year will assure a permanent shift in the behavoir of the American voter. The idea of a new way of doing things will acquire critical mass. The media is irrelevant as it is no longer believed. People are starting to think for themselves.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.2.11 @ 6:12AM

Well, you know what's wrong with your article, Jim? That a large part of it is BS that shows how ignorant you are about defense issues.

Firstly, you lump defense spending and GWOT spending together (like most people do) and call all of this "defense spending", even though GWOT spending and Libya spending has nothing to do with defense (i.e. building and maintaining a strong military). Furthermore, despite your pious assurances, Tom Coburn has actually proposed defense cuts that would reduce defense spending to the lowest level since the 1970s, not to the level "before the invasion of Iraq." The core defense budget for this FY is $526 bn. The defense budget for FY2002 was 447.8 bn. Cutting the defense budget by $100 bn per year on average, as Tom Coburn has proposed to do, would mean cutting it to $426 bn, which would mean it would be much smaller than the FY2002 defense budget. Your claim that the pacifist/isolationist tradition of the GOP is much older than the strong military tradition is a blatant lie. The first Republican President was Abraham Lincoln, who raised a large army during the Civil War. You claimed that:

"Here is where Republican penny-pinching could have an enduring influence on the party’s foreign policy. The federal government’s rapidly deteriorating financial condition is putting the expensive foreign policy favored by the neoconservatives and other hawks on a collision course with the anti-tax stance of many fiscal conservatives. This will not change the next time a Republican president takes the oath of office."

But I'm a hawk, and yet I oppose the Afghan, Iraqi, and Libyan wars. That is not a costly policy. You seem to continue to pretend that the only sides of the GOP's foreign policy debate are noninterventionists and neocons. That is not true. As I have repeatedly stated, there is a third side, the Reaganite side, which supports interventions ONLY when they are absolutely necessary.

The claim that:

"during the 1990s conservatism had trended in a libertarian direction. Increasing skepticism about government at home reinforced doubts about Uncle Sam’s capacity for complex nation-building projects abroad."

is a lie. During the 1990s, defense spending was radically reduced, but domestic spending wasn't. During the 1990s, domestic spending - discretionary and nondiscretionary alike - grew significantly.

You wrote that:

"McCain, ever on the watch for isolationism, swallowed hard and supported the deal. So did House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, despite warning, “Our senior military commanders have been unanimous in their concerns that deeper cuts could break the force.”"

But you failed to mention that both of them voted reluctantly for it, and said that they were reluctant to do so. Moreover, both of them have expressed the hope that this will be the end of defense cuts (although it likely won't be).

You also wrote that

"The eventual debt ceiling compromise—which passed the House with more Republican than Democratic votes—caps security spending at $684 billion, about $4.5 billion below the enacted 2011 amount."

But it also mandates that the DOD and other nat-sec agencies must cut their collective budgets by 400 bn bucks during the next decade regardless of whether sequesters kick in or not.

"When the super committee mandated by the debt-ceiling agreement meets, there will be tremendous pressure on Republicans to compromise on either taxes or defense spending. Grover Norquist, who holds 234 House members and 40 senators to an ironclad pledge not to raise taxes, has made clear which he prefers."

True, but it should be noted that Norquist is a single-issue guy and an ideological opponent of a strong defense. He's a terrorist sympathizer and has a Palestinian wife. He's connected to Palestinian terrorists. He wants the US military to be weak so that the US won't be able to defend itself against its enemies. But Norquist did not sign up Republicans to this debt ceiling deal. President Obama did. He has deliberately duped Republicans to sign up to this deal in order to force them to choose between tax hikes or defense cuts, knowing that Republicans hate both. He has now forced Republicans to choose between tax hikes or defense cuts, knowing that Norquist and other Libertarians masquerading as conservatives will hold them accountable for any tax hikes, and that many conservatives oppose defense cuts.

Last but not least, you wrote:

"The only responsible way to cut defense spending is to reassess existing military commitments and adopt stricter criteria for when the use of force is necessary."

That would work only with GWOT spending. It will not work with the core defense budget for the simple reason that it pays for maintaining, feeding, and equipping the US military, and because America's defense needs are big. So even if the US were to adopt a noninterventionist foreign policy and refuse to defend any of its allies (not even Japan, SK, or Britain), it would have to spend ca. 500 bn bucks per year on defense.

So your entire article is a laughable screed, written for a laughable pseudoconservative magazine.

yisong| 10.25.11 @ 10:12PM

Slewing ring : a novel rotary products, also commonly called a slewing bearing slewing bearing, usually by a worm, shell, motor and other components. http://www.1stbearing.com