McCain's Circular Logic Firing Squad

Trying to argue against statements from the McCain campaign is like entering a circular-logic firing squad. Since on any given issue, they aggressively adopt both sides of the argument and position themselves where it is most expedient (ex. immigration, strikes inside of sovereign countries, talking to adversaries, the Future Combat Systems, etc.).

The most recent example of this is defense spending. The McCain campaign emailed out a statement today attacking Obama for associating with Barney Frank who is for cutting defense spending by 25 percent. Randy Scheunemann in the statement seemed very outraged and demanded clarification on Obama's position - which happens to be pretty clear. Obama is going to cut some weapons programs that have been proven to be ineffective, but which likely costs nowhere near 25 percent. The rub is that there is little difference between McCain and Obama on this issue.

(Warning: you are about to enter the circular logic firing squad.)

McCain has long said he would cut defense spending, this is a position he maintains today. Obama has also said he will cut defense spending. But McCain opposses Obama and therefore attacks Obama today for having the same position that he has. So it is not that McCain was for cutting defense spending before he was against it. It is that McCain is simulataneously both for and against cutting defense spending. So to paraphrase his position: McCain is for cutting spending, but McCain is against Obama cutting defense spending, so when Obama is for cutting, McCain is for increasing (except he's still for cutting). Clear?

So the problem I have is do I:

A. Argue that McCain is being a hypocrite for also calling for cutting defense spending.

or

B. Argue that McCain has hugely unrealistic defense plans that will actually blow the Pentagon budget.

Hmmm. Why chose. I argue, you decide.

Critique A: McCain is a hypocrite who has consistently called for cutting defense spending. McCain this summer pledged to cut defense spending. McCain's top economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin submitted McCain's budget plan to the Washington Post on Bastille Day (Surrendor monkeys) saying that:

Balance the budget requires slowing outlay growth to 2.4 percent. The roughly $470 billion dollars (by 2013) in slower spending growth come from reduced deployments abroad ($150 billion; consistent with success in Iraq/Afghanistan that permits deployments to be cut by half -- hopefully more), slower discretionary spending in non-defense and Pentagon procurements ($160 billion; there are lots of procurements -- airborne laser, Globemaster, Future Combat System -- that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed)

Here is what that ultra-liberal Forbes Magazine wrote in June:

McCain's top economic adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, blithely supposes that cuts in defense spending could make up for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and the subsequent shrinkage in federal revenues. Get that? The national security candidate wants to cut spending on our national security. Wait until the generals and the admirals hear that.

McCain: "I Am Cutting Billions And Billions Out Of Defense Spending Which Are Not Earmarks." During an appearance on ABC's "This Week," McCain said, "I am cutting billions and billions out of defense spending which are not earmarks. The $400 million ship that they had to scrap that was supposed to cost $140 million. The $30 billion, I believe it is, add-on for a system in the Army that's going up $30 billion and we still haven't got any result from it. The $50 million contract to some buddy of Air Force generals. I mean, there are so many billions out there just in defense. [ABC, "This Week," 4/20/08]

Critique B: McCain's defense plans will blow he defense budget. John McCain has pledged to expand the ground forces by about 200,000 over current levels. He also says he will modernize the armed forces by "procuring advanced weapons systems." Yet at the same time, McCain has pledged to control defense spending. This doesn't add up. The CBO estimates that increasing the ground forces to the current goal of about 750,000 will cost about $110 billion over seven years; this is roughly $15 billion per year. Using the same projections, increasing the size of the ground forces by an additional 150,000 over this same period would cost an additional $175 billion or $25 billion per year. The costs would likely be much higher as McCain is proposing a 25 percent increase in the size of the ground forces and attracting that many volunteers will require significant funding. [Foreign Affairs, 11-12/08. John McCain.com 9/10/08. CBO, 4/16/07]

They are really running one of the most incoherent campaigns in history.

Comments

[geedafotus]

In the article he mentions Barney Frank. I wouldn,t believe anything Barney Frank had to say because he along with Chris Dodd were the two that were directly responsibe for most of what we are now having to deal with in the housing meltdown by protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I believe McCain will cut defense spending but not the meat of it only the fat. And I am sure there is plenty of fat, probably billions upon billions. If history has taught us anything at all it is governments around the world can't run government programs, that's a given. The less govenment we have the less government programs we have, that goes with out saying. But we don't want a president that is going to cut our defenses and I think that is exactly what Obama want's to do. Most Democrat preisdents have done just that in the past. So why would a socialist leaning president be any different. He wants to spread the wealth around and that dosen't mean on defense. Who do yo think actually builds defense weapons, the President, the Vice President, Congress? No they don't, those people that have jobs build weapons and get paid and then spend that money which then supports the grocer, the baker, and the candle stick maker and all those that work for them. Remember the government has no money of it's own, only that which it takes from someone who earns it first.

[fedupwithrepublicans]

The sad part about the Military spending is the amount of money going to Defense Contractors in ever increasing amounts for projects that will never be functional. That along with the outsourced money to no-bid contracts for services is where the cuts need to be made.

[lagumbo]

John McCian the so call maverick , has lost his wheels. They maverick has truly become a sidekick.

[Emlyn]

McCain is an old man. He ought to be put out to pasture somewhere. He's too old to be President. He would be too old to be President if he was 25.

[Francis Parker Yockey]

Obama is a black man. He ought to be put out to pasture somewhere. He's too black to be President. He would be too black to be President if he was 25.

How does that sound? Age-ism si, racism, no must be the new liberal mantra.

[lisakaz2]

So you think being self contradictory and confused are qualities you want in a president? Or that about the same to you as being black?

[shanedr]

As Obama has publicly stated he favors increasing the size of the active duty military a big part of this story's argument disappears. As for McCain's logic, he has none. His campaign is based 100% on emotionally conceived bias. Campaigns based upon discrediting the opposition and not about issues are always about hate and other emotions.

[geedafotus]

If you think the McCain campaign bias is 100% conceived then you should read his books if you think Obama isn't a socialist. Obama just said yesterday McCain is trying the make selfishness a virture. We are selfish, that's why we go to work everyday so we can eat and feed our families. Yes I give to charity but I work for my family not someone elses. Nor do I want the governement to take what I earn and give it to someone else. However that's waht Obama wants and that's socialism pure and simple.

[JohnnySacks]

Huh? Wow, you make over $250,000, good for you. Congrats on your xmas ones in the salvation army buckets, you're truly an altruistic savior

[appleknocker]

Why does the author - like so many others who should know better - use the Orwellian euphemism of "defense" for "military"?

[gde]

The authors confuse the words defense and Defense. When a word is capitalized, it often has a much different meaning. In this case, most US Defense spending is spent on offense. Even defensive weapons are used primarily to support offensive operations.

Smedley Butler had it right 75 years ago. War is a racket, and in many cases (specifically the US Marine Corps in his experience) are racketeers: muscle for corporate crime. The only thing that has changed is that those were US corporations, and now many of them are multi-national and sometimes even totally foreign.

[liberalOrgonian]

This kind of inaccurate confusing way of saying nothing.
This is the main reason Obama had to make his 30 min add. McCain continues to spin and twist the plans of Obama. These 30 min gave Americans a chance to hear Obama out without McCain criticism and lies.

[liberalOrgonian]

I have noticed the confusing way John McCain logic works ( or doesn't work). He talks of not spending, then says he wants more nuclear plants, solar, wind etc. He has not explained HOW this will be paid for. Magically, it all will just happen. This article is another example of this un logic. He wants to cut spending, yet will not consider leaving Iraq, will add to Afghanistan, infuse the economy with out spending a dime. At this time he seems to want to wage a class war in America.
I am so tired of hearing how Obama will raise middle class taxes. Bluntly not true. So much of what he has said is not true, I can't believe anything he or Sarah Palin says. They have both lost CREDIABILITY!! How about the "real America" shut these two down, it is clear they both don't have a clue what Americas want. No more Bush, no more McCain and certainly no more Palin!!!
Obama has explained his policies on taxes over and over again, why can't John and Sarah understand Obama's position. Seems like they want to keep lying to the American people. We will not be fooled this time. All this lying is disgraceful.

[samplugin]

The US of A spends $547Billion on defense, more than all the rest of the countries in the world including Russia and China!!

When school districts are compared, they say how much is spent per student, I say , when you compare countries' defense spending, how much per person!!

By the way , what ever happened to the "Base Closures Act"?

Pres Eisenhower warned us of the Military/Industrial Complex, and now our national debt is over $10 Trillion, and going up like a rocket!!

The answer is to cut by 40%!!!!

Larry the Retired Marine

[Mister Wu]

President Eisenhower's orginal speach called it the Congressional-Military-Industrial complex. But his advisers suggested he drop congressional so not to alienate Congress.

[Donab]

Actually, the words were in a different order: Military-Industrial-Congressional complex. This may have been based on the relative importance of each component, or it might reflect only the order of the requirements for weapons systems; between the Military and Industry it is a close call which one generates the Needs versus the Desires, and which one is the bigger driver with Congress.

[MTOrtega]

The financial crisis born in the United States has much of the globe following the United States into economic disarray as it spreads to Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East.

Allen Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics, a consulting and forecasting group said - "The economy has taken a turn for the worse, big time." "The fundamentals around the consumer are all negative, and there are no signs of any help anytime soon, from anywhere." (NYT 10.30.08)

Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute in Washington said - "There"s only a couple of ways that consumers can finance their spending. It"s labor income or nonlabor income, and both are on the mat."

Consumer spending makes up more than 70 percent of United States economy!

Consumer confidence is at its lowest level on record.

- Layoffs are accelerating.
- Hours of workers on payroll are being cut, further diminishing paychecks.
- Housing prices continue to plunge.
- Investment by businesses for hiring people and buying equipment is slipping.
- Unemployment rate could jump from the current 6.1 to 8 percent.

Let"s rid American politics of GOP miscreants.

Let"s give dignity and fair play a chance.

On November 4th vote for Senator Obama.

[geedafotus]

If I read you right it appears you blame the Republicans for the economic meltdown. However it does appear if that's what you think you haven't done your homework. Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac were the cause of the housing meltdown. The Democrats instituted a plan for home ownership to people who couldn't afford homes. Then Barney Frank, a Democrat and Chris Dodd, a Democrat in consert with Fraklin Raines told the banks to make loans and they would buy them as fast as they could make them and sell them to investors through Wall Street. Everyone was sure the Golden Goose created by the Democrats would last forever. Then when it came apart like a house of cards the tax payers have been asked to bail them out to tune of of around 850 Billion and maybe more in the future.

How are we going to get dignity and fair play from the very people that caused the mess in the first place? Can anyone answer that? It won't be from the Democrats and Obama believe me.

[idest]

Wrong again. The majority of sub-prime mortgages were given out by PRIVATE lenders. And just so you're a little bit better informed, the housing crisis IS NOT the financial crisis. Two different beasts.

The financial crisis was brought about by 30 years of Republican efforts at deregulation. Thanks.

[MTOrtega]

McCain is 72.

McCain has had four instances of melanoma.

Melanoma is the most serious type of skin cancer.

Suppose stress lowers his immune response causing a recurrence of his skin cancer?

Will a recurrence of McCain"s skin cancer lead to McCain"s incapacitation?

Lead to McCain"s death?

Hasten Palin"s ascension to the Presidency!

Let"s rid American politics of GOP miscreants.

Let"s give dignity and fair play a chance.

On November 4th vote for Senator Obama.

[yenrav]

Military spending is such a complex problem,. It has it own initiative to maintain itself and grow to thwart or change each potential problem threatening our commerce and/or our safety. We have an active military presence in 149 places outside of the USA and many covert operations as part of our military. We are currently militarized to protect the resources of the world. We tend to not trust the free market to be fair to us in seucring resources in our effort to compete in the world market place with our dollars and diplomacy. Unless our goals for our military is changed to exclusively protect our citizens, our allies, and our country from military threat, , it will continue to grow and become more expensive each day. I think with a kind face and milder demeanor, our record of past benevolence along with our commerce will allow us to compete in the market place while allowing others to manage things in their best interest. We need to learn to share or expertise and wealth and trust others to bear arms in their own defense. Maybe we could maintain a large army for hire, and contract out our weapons for appropriate combat to our allies.

[ecsiwingo]

At a time when Venezuela is building a naval base with the Russians, Cuba has just signed an agreement for air defense. Iran is developing the bomb and China is putting billions into its military. Do you really think this is the time to cut defense spending?

[LewisWalsh]

Yes!!!!!! The current military budget is outrageous. It is simply a clever vehicle by which the national wealth is redistributed upward. There is no rational reason why a country representing 5% of the world's population should be responsible for 50% of the entire world's military expenditures.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?memberId=410810&articleId=281474977380507&nav=Namespace

[Mister Wu]

Expect relations with Venezuela to improve once Bush leaves office. Not that Obama has to do anything, just not try a botch assasination attempt of Chavez. Beside they both probably have read Noam Chomsky.

[MathIsTruth]

Mr. Bergman, I'm sorry, but your article reeks of sexism!

By giving the reader a choice between "A" and "B", you've already delved far deeper into the alphabet than Sarah Palin is capable of comprehending, thus excluding her from participating in this discussion.