Skip to main content

Congress votes to exempt $55 billion in defense spending from deficit cuts; only Gary Johnson notices

According to its own deficit reduction plan, Congress was to make $55 billion in defense cuts:
The first year of the sequester, however, is implemented in an entirely different fashion. There are no new caps that replace the original BCA limits. Rather, the required dollar amount of cuts to discretionary appropriations ($55 billion in defense and $43 billion in non-defense) will be proportionally implemented across the board to each individual program on January 2, 2013, regardless of the levels that Congress chooses to appropriate for discretionary spending. This is a key and often misunderstood point.
When our Senators and Representatives decided, very quietly, to renege on the mandated defense cuts, only Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson appears to have noticed, issuing this statement (that stands in stark contrast to the silence issuing from President Obama and Governor Romney):
Gary Johnson:  Wondering why
nobody else noticed.
“When the purported conservatives in Congress, the House Republicans, vote to renege on a deal to cut defense spending by $55 billion, how are we supposed to believe that anyone in Washington really means it when they say they want to eliminate deficits? It is clear that the ‘budget deal’ Congress concocted last year was, and is, a charade.
“Maintaining a strong national defense is obviously important. But violating their own budget agreement with the excuse that a 10 percent reduction in military spending would somehow be disastrous is classic Washington. We spend almost as much each year on defense as the rest of the world combined. If Congress can’t figure out how to reduce that spending by $55 billion, we need a new Congress.
“Before last week’s vote in the House, we heard all kinds of pained cries that a $55 billion cut would mean troop strength would have to be reduced, bases would be closed, and that we would have a smaller Navy and Air Force. To that, I say: Exactly. That’s what happens when you reduce spending to rational levels we can afford. We are bankrupt. We simply cannot afford to have hundreds of thousands of troops in places like Europe and Japan, we can’t afford hundreds of bases scattered around the globe, and yes, if the alternative is to keep borrowing from China to pay for them, we are going to have to live with slightly smaller air and naval forces.
“Congress’ refusal to face the reality of unsustainable deficit spending is a far greater and real threat to our national security than an entirely manageable 10% reduction in the Pentagon’s budget.” 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...