The American Spectator

PattyMor| 11.11.11 @ 5:33PM

Well you could have seen this coming from the get go. So why do the Republicans negotiate such crummy deals? Is it that they don't care if defense gets slashed, they're too weak to oppose the spending, they're in agreement with massive tax increases, or they're just plain inept. My guess is that they are just too corrupt to care much about the Consitituion or care about the people who will ultimately pay the burden of more taxes. They are too willing to go along, to get along. In the end, with this kind of leadership, the United States is doomed as a free Nation. The Tea Party handed John Boehner the Speakership and he has done nothing but stab us in the back. And then mumble on about being 1/2 of 1/3 of the government. When the plain fact is that he is 100% of the spending. Without his spending bill, nothing gets spent. So I lay the blame squarely on his lack of fortitude and leadership.

Dai Alanye| 11.12.11 @ 10:54AM

Boehner is probably doing the best he can under present conditions, recalling that Gingrich ran himself on a rock when he tried to take on Clinton over similar issues.

For now Republicans control not 1/2 but much less of the government. Against control of the House, the Dems can claim the Senate, Presidency, Federal Bureaucracy and often the Supreme Court. Unless Obama pulls off a miracle, perhaps by using Hellfires on Chavez, Ahmadinajad and the Castros during October 2012, following the next election Republicans will own more of the government and be able to acomplish more. Events are working in our favor.

Tea Partiers, many of whom have previously given only superficial attention to politics, seem unaware of how difficult it is to accomplish anything significant under the huge committee system that is our government. From a realistic viewpoint, the best Boehner can presently hope for is to limit the damage Obama and Harry Reid do. We need the Senate or the Presidency, and preferably both.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.15.11 @ 4:36AM

This article is utter garbage and if AmSpec wants to retain whatever few shreds of credibility it might retain, it will delete it and immediately lay off Kevin Glass.

"Regardless, we conservatives typically apologize for bloated military spending, because we think that national defense is a more legitimate function of government than the provision of a social safety net. Nevertheless, the deficit-cutting "Supercommittee" was set up so that, if they cannot come to a compromise plan, spending gets cut across the board, including significant defense-spending cuts."

Garbage! Firstly, don't you dare to call yourself a conservative or say "we conservatives". You are not one of us. You are not a conservative. You are an anti-defense libertarian who doesn't care one iota about defense. One cannot be for defense cuts and still be a conservative. Secondly, America's military budget is NOT bloated. Last year, it amounted to less than 19% of the total military budget and just 4.7% of GDP; the core defense budget amounted to just 3.49% of GDP, the smallest proportion since FY1940 if the late Clinton years are excluded. The total military budget for FY2012 as passed by the SAC (the full Senate has yet to take it up) would amount to just 3.50% of GDP and less than 19% of the total federal budget - $645 bn. If the House version is passed, it will amount to slightly more - $662 bn - but that will still be only about 3.5% of GDP and 19% of the total federal budget - historically low figures.

Thirdly, to say that we conservatives believe that "national defense is a more legitimate function of government than the provision of a social safety net" would be a huge understatement. National defense IS a Constitutionally legitimate function of government, and even its #1 Constitutional DUTY. It's not an option. It's a duty, as stated in Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution. This was also the belief of George Washington, John Jay, and Adam Smith. The Constitution even prioritizes defense above all other functions of the federal government. On the other hand, a "social safety net" is NOT a legitimate Constitutional function of government at all. It's completely unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The Constitution does not authorize a federal "social safety net".

Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.15.11 @ 10:16AM

“The failure of the Supercommittee to come up with a compromise plan is likely to lead to pretty deep defense cuts - something that both Leon Panetta and Republicans will have to deal with.”

That’s ridiculous, wrong, and downright treasonous and irresponsible. Go bite your own poison pill and leave defense alone. Cutting defense by $1.065 trillion over a decade – which is $106.5 billion PER YEAR – would gut the military. As Secretary Panetta has warned, it would force him to completely eliminate one leg of the nuclear triad immediately (the ICBM leg) and, over time, a second one (the SSBN leg, because the sequester would also force him to eliminate the next-gen SSBN program). It would also completely cancel the F-35 program, all orders for new Army helicopters, all orders for new drones (like the ones that have killed numerous terrorists, including Al-Awlaki), end all other Army procurement programs, cut the Army to its smallest since since 1940 and the Marines to 145,000 men, cut the Navy to its smallest size since 1915, and eliminate 35% of the Air Force’s fighters and 2/3 of its bombers, dramatically weakening the last leg of the nuclear triad – the bomber leg, leaving it with just 54 bombers, including 20 B-2s and 34 B-52s. It would be, as Secretary Panetta has rightly said, a doomsday mechanism. It is wrong, treasonous, reckless, and irresponsible to accept these cuts, let alone to cheer them. These cuts must be prevented at all costs.