Joseph Lawler’s lies about defense spending

Recently, Joseph Lawler has published a blog post that glorifies the NTU-PIRG-proposed defense cuts on AmSpec. You see, the pseudoconservative NTU and the liberal PIRG have teamed up to do a list of proposals to “reduce the public debt by $600 by 2015”, and because liberal groups will never accept any proposals to reduce any of the domestic programs that liberals cherish, the two groups have jointly called on the Congress to reduce one spending category that should not be reduced: defense spending.

Even though the US spends only 3.65% of GDP on defense, these two groups believe that this is too much, and even though the current threat environment means the US should increase its defense investments, these two groups’ call to “align military spending with current needs” means drastically reducing defense spending, because they don’t believe the US needs a 3.65% of GDP defense budget; they’d gladly reduce it by half. They’ve proposed to significantly reduce America’s nuclear arsenal (at the same time that China and North Korea are growing theirs), cancelling the JSF program altogether, cancelling the V-22 Osprey program (which the Marines say is a necessary program), cancelling the EFV program (depriving the Marines of next-generation amphibious vehicles), cancelling the orders for remaining F-22s, and cancelling orders for crucial spare parts.

Their proposals are ridiculous, treasonous, and bad.

Joseph Lawler complained that

“Unfortunately, the exercise illustrates better than anything else the difficulty of finding “common ground” solutions to the deficit problem. Over one-half of the cuts are cuts to defense spending. Even if all these cuts are justified and would do nothing to lessen the military preparedness of the country”

But they WOULD weaken the military severely, and NONE of the defense cuts proposed by these 2 liberal groups are justified. NONE.

Why would they weaken the US military severely? Because they are designed to do so. American liberals WANT to weaken the US military.

The author of this ridiculous post cited 2 examples: “For example, about a quarter of the report’s projected savings come from ending wasteful spending on “obsolete spare parts and supplies” for the armed forces and cancelling the F-35 and F-22 fighters jets.”

Such cuts would significantly weaken the US military by depriving it of crucial spare parts (wrongly called obsolete) and by cancelling the orders for all 2445 F-35 jets and all remaining F-22 fighterplanes. This would mean that, for a short time, the USAF, the USN and the USMC would be forced to fly obsolete jets, and afterwards their aircraft fleets would be severely reduced because of a lack of jets to replace the old ones. Not to mention that America’s 8 allies who participate in the JSF program would not see their aircraft and would be alienated this way. The US military is using vintage weapons these days. It needs replacement platforms. The USAF’s fighterplane fleet is composed mostly of obsolete F-15s and F-16s. Former SECAF Michael Wynne has warned that the USAF is “going out of business” because of its obsolete equipment.

The JSF program and the F-22 fighterplanes are absolutely necessary to maintain the aircraft fleet of the US military and to ensure that it will be able to achieve air superiority. That these 2 treasonous liberal organizations have proposed to close them is exemplary evidence that their proposed defense spending cuts are deliberately designed to weaken the US military.

The defense budget ($534 bn) is so small (14.87% of the total federal budget, 3.65% of GDP) that even abolishing the DOD altogether would not even HALVE the annual budget deficit ($1.29 trillion). The ONLY way to balance the budget is to tackle its REAL cause – bloated domestic spending.

Did you guys know where the authors got their “information” on what defense programs to close from?

The misnamed “Sustainable Defense Task Force”, of course! The SDTF is an extremely liberal panel convened by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Ron Wyden (both of whom are strident liberals) comprised of reps of Soros-funded liberal and libertarian activist groups such as the CAP. This panel has proposed cutting defense spending over 10 years by $1 TRILLION, closing dozens of crucial weapon programs, and cutting weapon stocks severely.

The NTU-PIRG pamphlet frequently cites the SDTF as a supposedly authoritative, infallible, credible source. For example, while trying to justify its proposal to cancel the F-35 program, they quote the SDTF as saying that the F-35 program “would provide a
capability that is not warranted considering emerging threats.”

This is a ridiculous statement (which the SDTF did indeed utter). A military capability is not warranted? Only according to liberals and libertarians, because according to them, no military capability is ever warranted. According to them, a strong defense is never warranted. The truth is that the F-35 program is perfectly warranted, considering the real emerging threats (Russia’s Su-30s, Su-33s, Su-35s, Su-35BMs and PAKFAs as well as China’s J-10s and JF-17s).

And at the same time that China and NK are growing their nuclear arsenals and Russia is modernizing its own, and Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, the NTU, the PIRG and the SDTF propose that the US severely reduce its already-inadequate nuclear arsenal (purportedly to save money). Pseudo-military-issues-experts, such as liberal Senators John McCain and ex-Senator Gary Hart, along with America’s Worst Defense Secretary Ever, have been cited as credible sources supporting such a policy (i.e. they’ve been used as figleafs to justify unjustifiable proposals of nuclear arsenal reductions).

Why do liberals continue to call on the Congress to reduce the defense budget? Because:

1) They want the US military to be weak (because of their pacifist ideology);

2) They want to protect their beloved domestic programs (which they support for ideological and electoral reasons) from any reductions, so they’ve found a piggybank called the US Department of Defense.

The US cannot afford to finance BOTH a credible national defense AND a myriad of bloated domestic programs. It must choose: one or the other.

Liberals and libertarians have chosen the latter.

For America’s sake, the Congress should ignore them.



Links to the liberal blogposts and reports:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s