Over the last few months, we've seen some serious -- and potentially groundbreaking -- fractures in the old consensus over defense spending. In particular, we've seen the rise of rank-and-file conservatives who have been more willing to connect their deficit grievances with the bloated Pentagon budget. Indeed, I saw this firsthand when I interviewed top-tier Republican congressional candidate Ryan Frazier on AM760 -- a veteran, he said that we need to look seriously at defense spending cuts.
Now, though, the blowback is starting. As the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports:
In an op-ed to be published in the Wall Street Journal, the heads of the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Foreign Policy Initiative warn that there will not be "long-term prosperity" if the US military is "hollowed out" and can't defend the country.
Although the op-ed, written by FPI's Bill Kristol, AEI's Arthur C. Brooks and Heritage's Edward Fuelner, sets up the Obama administration as its foil, the real purpose to nudge Tea Party conservatives back into line on defense spending, according to a Republican strategist who is working on the program.
Ambinder quotes a D.C. Republican strategist saying that "The goal is to make sure we're not boxed on by both sides" -- ie. by liberals and conservative critics of Pentagon waste.
This, of course, is why this new scrutiny of defense spending is so important -- precisely because it has the potential to attract a powerful transpartisan coalition of both anti-militarist liberals and deficit hawk conservatives. The Establishment Republicans in Washington -- who, mind you, represent no mass audience but do represent huge amounts of money -- realize this potential threat to their military-industrial sugar daddies. And so they are starting to fight back.
But the battle has already started -- and it is a battle progressives and honest conservatives can win.
Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota
http://handthatfeedsyou.blogspot.com/2010/10/kristols-phony-journalism.html
Thank you for writing about this and I live to see rational debate on this topic.
They want Americans to work for slave wages while the Pentagon still buys $100,000 toilet seats.
1st, That cutting the military budget would be tantamount to treason. (Killing is therefore so important we should give unquestionable sums of money, w/o any oversight or control)
and 2nd, That preserving life does not require the same amount of attention/funding?
It just re-enforces the idea that these people are 2 steps away from fascism. And despite all the yelling about tyranny and loss of freedom, these people would love to have a government consisting exclusively of force, and law. They want to conquer the world to maintain our unsustainable lifestyles as Americans, and frankly don't care what blowback that may cause for future Americans. Such is the story of most American history. We are greedy people, and it is not surprising that we have never not been at war since 1773 (arguably much earlier)
I would add to what you have stated here inarut but how can I when you've completely covered every base?
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-grand-old-warbirds-with-a-guilty-past-2095499.html
I recently watched former Secretary State George Schulz opining that we need do everything we can to stop a nuclear Iran. I think know what that would mean. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/10/06/3029667.htm
Translation: Please don't end the welfare for war profiteers state.
This presumes that there is no waste in the Pentagon budget. Does anyone believe it?
The real thing is that these same people want us so anxious (in the psychological sense) over the deficit that we're supposed to accept cuts in Social Security. If the deficit was that bad, wouldn't they be able to stay on message?
shorter version = deficit spending for defense is okay.
[...]
O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone -- posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
Source: Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004
Guess which department of the government was spending that? That is correct-the *military.*
Conservative traditionally meant to embrace the tried and true - to do what works best and avoid or be wary of the untested or unproven.
Until that traditional definition is once again embraced, the term should be accepted as less than complimentary or respectful.
Is this really a necessary expense. especially when we are faced with a financial crisisAT HOME and unheard of since THE GREAT DEPRESSION? Could not these FUNDS be SPENT and or SAVED, HERE AT HOME?
Do WE HAVE A MONEY TREE? THAT NO ONE SHARED WITH THE REST OF US?
That is just for STARTERS!!