There are lots of steps required for conservatives to regain the
political upper hand, but here’s the first:
Exempt defense from sequestration. At CFIF, I explain that it’s
both good policy and good politics. On policy, while making clear
that defense should not be exempt from savings, but just from this
huge, meat-cleaver chopping action, I note:
[A]utomatic cuts from domestic spending, which have risen 8
percent, make more sense than automatic cuts from defense, which
already will have fallen by 15 percent (and by much more compared
to the Surge years).
Worse, our defense forces even before
that had borne the brunt of massive reductions since the
Cold War. The number of Navy ships has been halved, from 571 to
282. Active duty military personnel have dropped from more than two
million in 1990 to less than 1.5 million today, even as we face
worldwide terrorist threats much worse than two decades ago. The
Air Force in particular, despite its crucial ability for rapid
force projection, has cut its manpower by an astonishing 40
percent.
On politics, I explain:
The administration can’t argue otherwise. Outgoing Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta is on
record numerous times saying cuts
of sequestration’s magnitude would be an absolute
“disaster” for our national security.
The House’s public argument to Obama would be: “Look, we
disagree on domestic spending, but your administration agrees with
us against defense sequestration, so let’s get that problem off the
table.” What could be more reasonable than that, to avoid part of
the brinksmanship that the public so despises? If Obama refuses, he
automatically looks like the obstinately irrational one –
especially for an area of spending the public tends to favor, and
especially if individual congressmen and media also highlight how
many defense-related civilian jobs will be lost, location by
location, if defense suffers sequestration.
The explanation is more extensive than just those two passages.
Please read the whole thing. Other tactics, and a bigger picture
view, coming soon….
mike 3/505| 1.10.13 @ 12:22PM
Mr H,
Not so fast Sir. although I am a "rabid" supporter of a US Military that ranks first second AND third in world power, there is a HUGE amount of waste in the military. Problem is, when we do cut, we end up cutting us folk at the pointy end of the spear, instead of such wasteful stuff as DOD Department of military environmental concerns....Or the Human Resources Command; Which like Microsoft Windows...does a poor job at its prime function. Windows can't manage memory & HRC can't manage people worth a damn.
Quin Hillyer| 1.10.13 @ 12:32PM
I agree, and wrote, that DoD should not be exempt from savings. But it should not be subject to the huge cuts, and the indiscriminate nature of the cuts, represented by sequestration.
mike 3/505| 1.10.13 @ 12:56PM
I stand firmly rebuked Sir. :-)
JimH| 1.10.13 @ 12:44PM
Any large bureaucracy, particularly a government one will be inherently wasteful. Besides that, we also have hundreds of wannabe generals in Congress micro managing the Pentagon budget by steering procurement contracts for equipment not wanted and requiring the maintenance of bases not needed in their districts. We should define the mission the military is expected to do, ask the Pentagon how much it would cost to accomplish it and negotiate from there while maintaining oversight.
JD| 1.10.13 @ 5:08PM
Indeed, the military functions of government are not exempt from the inefficiencies of scale that plague all of the other things our government tries to do (and should not be trying to do).
That is why we should restrict government only to the functions for which the alternative is worse than these inefficiencies. Such restriction will allow more attention to be paid to the areas still existing, which will reduce inefficiencies.