What the Coalition to Provide for the Common Defense should do

As stated previously, a pro-strong-defense coalition of groups and individuals has been formed: the Coalition to Provide for the Common Defense. It includes many retired military officers (including two former service chiefs), the leaders of conservative advocacy organizations, and the executives of several conservative think tanks.

This coalition has one goal: to advocate a strong defense policy, including (but not limited to) the robust funding needed to build it.

So what should the Coalition do exactly? What message should it voice through the Internet, the media, and on Capitol Hill?

Many facts need to be pointed out to the public and the Congress. The most important ones are that:

1) The US military is worn out as a consequence of a decade of war. Many of its weapons are obsolete (designed and produced during the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s) and in need of replacement (e.g. warships, fighters, bombers, cargoplanes, gunships, APCs) or at least modernization (tanks, IFVs, attack helicopters).

2) Yet, defense spending is at a record low and continues to be singled out for cuts. Defense spending amounts to 3.49% of GDP, the smallest such proportion since before WW2 if you exclude the late 1990s. Total military spending amounts to 4.4% of GDP, and is lower than it was throughout the entire Cold War except FY1948 and FY1949. Total military spending amounts to less than 19% of the total federal budget; the core defense budget ($513 bn) amounts to less than 15% of it.

3) Defense has never enjoyed “protected status” and has never been a “sacred cow”. It has never been “off the table”. During the late 1940s, after WW2, the Truman Administration made draconian cuts to the defense budget and the defense structure, and its second Defense Secretary, Louis A. Johnson, even tried to abolish the Navy and the Marine Corps altogether. During the 1950s, after the Korean War, the Eisenhower dramatically cut defense spending, by $14 bn in then-year-dollars from FY1953 to FY1954 alone. During the 1970s, during and after the Vietnam War, the US military was rendered impotent and unable to defend the US. Defense spending shrank to 4.6% of GDP, and the military, worn out after 11 years of war, was unable to even rescue American hostages from Iran. During the late 1980s, as a result of large budget deficits and the 1987 stock market crash, Congress cut defense spending after FY1987. The defense cuts continued under Presidents Bush and Clinton until the late 1990s, when defense spending bottomed out at 3.0% of GDP, the lowest level since FY1940. Even under President Bush, defense spending was not sacrosanct – Congress cut or closed many weapon programs, and in 2005 President Bush even threatened to veto the planned FY2006 defense buddget if the Congress would pass a larger defense budget than what he requested. Since President Obama took office, over 50 weapon programs have been closed or cut and over $400 bn has been cut from defense accounts, and the debt ceiling legislation has ordered the DOD to cut a further $350 bn from its budgets during the next 10 FYs in real terms.

4) Although many politicians (Republicans and Democrats alike) treat defense spending as if it was just another line item in the federal budget, the Constitution actually says that defense is a duty of the federal government, in Art. IV, Sec. 4: The Preamble to the Constitution says that one of the reasons why the Constitution was written, and the federal government established, in the first place was the need to “provide for the common defence”. As Heritage Foundation analyst Ernest Istook has observed, defense is prioritized like no other function of the federal government by the Constitution: of the Congress’ 18 enumerated prerogatives, 9 (i.e. 50%) deal with military issues: providing for the common defense, raising and supporting armies, providing and maintaing a Navy, raising and disciplining the militia, declaring war, etc. The federal government (including the Congress) is OBLIGED to protect each state against invasion and provide for the common defense, which logically means it must also appropriate a sum of money adequate for that to be possible. Defense  is therefore a Constitutional duty of the federal government, not just another line item in the federal budget.

Ross Kaminsky’s ridiculous article about the FairTax

A ridiculous article about the FairTax by Ross Kaminsky has recently been published in the by-now-utterly-discredited American Spectator magazine.

This article is utter garbage, written of course by the already utterly discredited Ross Kaminsky. The only excuse that can be made for him is that other idiots (such as James Antle, Quin Hillyer, and Aaron Goldstein) have already irrevocably and utterly discredited AmSpec, so Kaminsky cannot discredit AmSpec any further. Nonetheless, this article is BS.

I shall first discuss the FairTax, and then Herman Cain’s policy on the FairTax.

Here’s THE TRUTH about the FairTax Act (which Kaminsky either knows nothing about or is deliberately lying about):

1) The FairTax is NOT a VAT. It’s a proposed national sales tax, which would be levied only at the retail store level, and only on new goods. VAT is levied at all stages of the manufacturing/retail chain.

2) The FairTax DOES NOT, repeat, DOES NOT contain any deductions, credits, or exemptions for anyone and DOES have different rates for different products. Its rate is the same for all products: 23%. Anything other than that is not the FairTax and should not be called the FairTax.

3) The FairTax Act (H.R. 25) contains a provision which says explicitly that if the 16th Amendment is not repealed within 7 years after the FairTax is signed into law, the FairTax Act sunsets AUTOMATICALLY.

4) The FairTax Act would replace (and not coexist with) ALL, repeat, ALL current federal taxes – from the CGT to the gasoline tax.

5) The FairTax would NOT create a black market, because under the FT, prices would stay roughly the same as they are today. The current hidden taxes embedded in the price of everything Americans buy would be replaced by this transparent tax, which would show the American people exactly how much they pay in federal taxes.

6) This would lead the American people to DEMAND lower taxes and lower spending.

7) The FairTax would tax those who currently work illegally and don’t pay taxes – prostitutes, drug dealers, and illegal aliens.

8) Credible economic analysis has shown that the FairTax would produce an economic boom and bring back $1 trillion that’s currently parked offshore back to the US.

9) Here’s a tricky question that, by itself, debunks this entire litany of lies written by Kaminsky: if the FairTax would really allow politicians to greatly increase taxes on the American people and to use double taxation, WHY ON EARTH HAVEN’T THEY PASSED IT ALREADY? If it was the case, I’m sure the RINOs and the Dems on Capitol Hill would’ve already teamed up to get it passed quickly and send it to Obama for his signature. They never miss an opportunity to raise taxes on the American people, so why would RINOs and Democrats oppose the FairTax? Because it’s nothing of the sort that Kaminsky claims it is.

As for Herman Cain’s policy on the FairTax, it needs to be underlined that HE NO LONGER SUPPORTS THE FAIRTAX. Why? I don’t know. I guess some Establishment Republicans have visited him and have used some scare tactic on him. Maybe they’ve threatened to have the GOP’s whale donors withhold donations to Cain unless he would back off the FairTax. Maybe they’ve used some other scare tactic on him. Whichever, it’s clear that they’ve managed to scare Cain so badly that he has dumped the FairTax.

If Cain had steel for a spine, instead of a limp noodle, he would’ve continued to support the FairTax. But he no longer does. He now promotes the 9-9-9 plan (i.e. double taxation) as his solution, not the FairTax.

His supporters claim that for him the 9-9-9 plan is only a “transitional step”. Kaminsky seems to have bought this lie, for whatever reason. But Cain means it as a FINAL step, not a transitional step. He no longer mentions the FairTax in any debates or interviews. He mentioned it twice during the first debate, but since the second debate, he has NEVER even ALLUDED to the FairTax during any debate or interview, while explaining his 9-9-9 plan in detail many times. During the last debate, Herman Cain never even ALLUDED to the FairTax and continued to promote his 9-9-9 plan, while Gary Johnson mentioned it twice and defended it as fair.

His supporters claim that he doesn’t have enough time during debates to even mention the FairTax.

But that’s garbage. If Ron Paul can badmouth America’s foreign policy and its honorable military in every answer he gives, regardless of what question is he answering, then surely Cain can find at least 2 seconds during each debate to utter the phrase “Fair Tax”.

Like I said, Herman Cain no longer supports the FairTax.

Last, but not least, I’d like to note that this is by far the most ridiculous, pathetic, and idiotic article I’ve ever seen published on AmSpec. It’s even dumber than Antle’s anti-defense screeds. AmSpec should remove this article quickly and sever its ties to Ross Kaminsky.