James Antle never ceases to lie on behalf of Mitch Daniels


It seems James Antle is a fan of Mitch Daniels. No surprise – both of them are strident liberals masquerading as conservatives.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/10/mitch-the-knife/1

Antle has been propagating the lie that Mitch Daniels has balanced Indiania’s state budget and that now, the Hoosier state has a budget surplus. It doesn’t. As of today, Indiana has a $1 bn yearly budget deficit.

Antle has been trying to portray Mitch Daniels as an economic conservative, which he isn’t. Daniels is a fierce AGW proponent who has proposed such ludicrous schemes as pumping CO2 underground and other politically-correct anti-AGW programs.

Antle has tried to defend MD’s call for “a truce on social issues with liberals so that we can get along” by claiming that Mitch Daniels is pro-life and opposed to same-sex marriage. The truth is that if he really was, he would’ve fought for the rights of unborn children and against SSM, instead of proposing a truce (which would be a capitulation). Liberals don’t need, and don’t want, any “truce on social issues” because they’ve already enforced their policies on the US. Abortion-on-demand, without any significant limitations (not even parental consent or parental notifications) is the law of the land. Gay marriage is the law of several states. The DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Massachusetts (Joseph Tauro). The DADT policy has been ruled unconstitutional by another federal judge, and the Congress plans to repeal it. Federal funds are being used to finance abortions and ESCR.

The worst part of MD’s policy agenda is cutting the defense budget, a policy which Antle has endorsed. Antle wrote in his AmSpec propaganda article about MD that:

“He told the Weekly Standard, of all places, that military spending would have to be cut. “When Bush arrived we were spending $300 billion on national defense, and he thought that was plenty,” Daniels said. “Now it’s what, $800 billion?””

Firstly, Bush did not believe that the defense budget he inherited from Clinton was enough. His pre-election and post-election speeches and press notices, as well as his actual budgetary policies, prove that. Bush has repeatedly said that the FY2001 budget was inadequate. No wonder, then, that he increased defense spending.

Secondly, the defense budget is currently $534 bn (for FY2011, Obama has proposed $549 bn). Even total military spending of the US was only $664 bn as of FY2010. So MD’s claim that America’s “defense spending” or “military spending” amounts to $800 bn per year is totally false. America has never had a defense budget (or military budget) that big. Not last fiscal year, not ever.

Thirdly, the FY2001 defense budget was (rightly) judged as inadequate by leftists, centrists, and rightwingers alike as of 2000 and 2001. The then-chairman of the House Budget Cmte., John Kasich, a critic of defense spending, said “We need to put more money into the Pentagon” and said that the DOD’s annual budget should be increased by $50 bn in 2000 dollars. The leftist Brookings Institution called for the DOD’s budget to be increased by $100 bn in 2000 dollars. Then-presidential candidate George W. Bush and then-VP candidate Dick Cheney promised to increase the DOD’s warchest. Clinton’s own Joint Chiefs of Staff believed the defense budget was vastly inadequate and called for significant defense spending hikes.

Fourthly, America cannot afford defense cuts. The defense budget ($534 bn) constitutes only 3.65% of GDP and only 14.87% of the federal budget. The US military cannot cope with less money – it’s impossible. The US military needs to replace the vast majority of its equipment with new weapons, properly compensate and treat its personnel, maintain the necessary bases properly, and conduct military operations.

Traitor Daniels and Traitor Antle have called for deep defense cuts at the same time that young Americans are fighting in Afghanistan to defend their asses.

No real conservative would ever vote for Mitch Daniels.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/10/mitch-the-knife/1

6 thoughts on “James Antle never ceases to lie on behalf of Mitch Daniels”

  1. I don’t have any interest in arguing with the above blogger, since there doesn’t seem to be much point. But for the benefit of any readers, let’s clear up some of the debris on this page.

    “Antle has been propagating the lie that Mitch Daniels has balanced Indiania’s state budget and that now, the Hoosier state has a budget surplus. It doesn’t. As of today, Indiana has a $1 bn yearly budget deficit.”

    The section on Indiana’s state budget clearly begins with when Daniels took office. Daniels presided over the resolution of that budget crisis and eliminated an inherited deficit. As for what is going on now, Indiana has a biennial budget process. Maybe Daniels will fail to balance the budget the second time around, but it’s pretty misleading to only cite the number from the first year of this process.

    “Antle has tried to defend MD’s call for ‘a truce on social issues with liberals so that we can get along’ by claiming that Mitch Daniels is pro-life and opposed to same-sex marriage.”

    Fact: I have explicitly disagreed with the social issues truce. In the article that causes this blogger’s hyperventilation, I make pretty clear that this will damage any Daniels presidential candidacy and I compare it to a similar miscalculation made by Phil Gramm in 1996. But I do try to try to tell Daniels’ side of the story, rather than simply beat my chest and call him a traitor.

    Daniels says he is pro-life and believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He has been supported by Indiana Right to Life and other social conservatives in the state. I have seen no evidence of him vetoing social conservative legislation or signing socially liberal legislation, and this blogger provides none.

    “The worst part of MD’s policy agenda is cutting the defense budget, a policy which Antle has endorsed.”

    Non-defense discretionary spending is just 12 percent of the fiscal 2009 budget. If you don’t put entitlements and defense on the table, you are not serious about spending reduction. Daniels primarily emphasizes entitlements, but he does not exempt defense from cuts when asked. Until you get into specifics, it is pointless to shriek about cutting defense spending. The closest Daniels has come to providing those specifics is when he suggested he’d go further than Gates. As for me personally, there are plenty of defense cuts I’d oppose. But I don’t oppose all defense cuts in principle, because to do so would be absurd.

    Here we get to the only valid point in this entire rant: Daniels gave an incorrect figure about national defense spending to another magazine. I quoted what he told this other magazine, the Weekly Standard, in my own piece. You would hope that Daniels would no what we actually spend on defense.

    The blogger then goes on at length about the Bush defense spending increases. Who was the budget director for most of that period? Mitch Daniels.

    A key problem with Clinton’s defense budget cuts is that he wanted to increase commitments abroad and cut defense spending at the same time. That is obviously going to stretch the military too thin.

    “Traitor Daniels and Traitor Antle have called for deep defense cuts at the same time that young Americans are fighting in Afghanistan to defend their asses.”

    And defending this blogger’s right to pull bogus arguments from his ass. What is specific cut is this blogger salivating about?

    “No real conservative would ever vote for Mitch Daniels.”

    And no sane person would spend as much time as I just did responding to such an inane blog post.

    1. Inane? Arguments pulled from my ass? Hardly.

      Firstly, thanks for admitting that Mitch Daniels should, as a former OMB Director, know how much does the US spend on defense annually. As he has displayed, he doesn’t. He said the US spends $800 bn per year on defense. The FY2010 defense budget was $534 bn (plus a $130 bn GWOT supplemental).

      Secondly, unlike you, I do oppose all defense cuts on principle. Defense cuts are treasonous and bad; they weaken the US military. Yet, MD has said that if elected, he would “dramatically cut” defense spending. If you don’t understand what that means, how about the current SECDEF explain this to you?

      http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=61714

      Speaking of the current SECDEF, I’ve been very critical of him, and I don’t intend to defend him, but just for the record: the $100 bn “defense cuts” that he called for are not meant to be defense cuts, but rather dramatic reductions of DOD bureaucracies, overhead spending, and duplicate agencies/programs. Gates (unlike the Deficit Reduction Commission) intends to reinvest 100% of these savings in the military, specifically in the military’s force structure and its equipment programs.

      Oh, and before you slander me again, learn the basic facts about MD, Mr Antle. MD was not the OMB Director for “most of Bush’s time as president” – merely from January 20th, 2001, to June 6th, 2003. Vide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels

      You wrote that “Non-defense discretionary spending is just 12 percent of the fiscal 2009 budget. If you don’t put entitlements and defense on the table, you are not serious about spending reduction. Daniels primarily emphasizes entitlements, but he does not exempt defense from cuts when asked. Until you get into specifics, it is pointless to shriek about cutting defense spending.”

      Actually, I have factually correct data for the FY2010 budget ($3591 billion). Defense spending ($534 bn) constituted just 14.87% of it; total military spending ($664 bn) constituted just 18.5% of it. Entitlement spending (i.e. the Big Three entitlement programs plus veterans’ benefits) constituted $1495 billion, i.e. 41.63% of the total FY2010 federal budget. Debt interest payments ($176 billion) constituted another 4.9% of the federal budget. Together, these items amounted to $2335 billion. The rest, $1256 billion, was domestic federal spending, and constituted 34.9% of the FY2010 federal budget. This $1256 billion was almost enough to balance the budget.

      The Congress can never balance the budget by cutting defense spending. It’s too small to make any significant difference on the total federal budget deficit. Like I said, the Congress could abolish the DOD altogether, and the federal government would’ve still had a large annual budget deficit. Reducing bloated domestic spending (of the entitlement and discretionary categories) is the ONLY way to balance the federal budget.

      “Daniels says he is pro-life and believes marriage is between a man and a woman.”

      Irrelevant. What politicians claim is irrelevant. What matters is the actual policies they implement when elected to office. Mitt Romney also claims that he’s pro-life and that he believes marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples.

      “He has been supported by Indiana Right to Life and other social conservatives in the state. I have seen no evidence of him vetoing social conservative legislation or signing socially liberal legislation, and this blogger provides none.”

      So? During the 2008 primary campaign, Mitt Romney was endorsed by, inter alia, the NR’s Editors and Ann Coulter. Does that mean that Mitt Romney is a conservative? Of course not. Furthermore, I did not provide evidence that he ever vetoed socially-conservative legislation or signed socially liberal legislation because that was not the subject of this blogpost. The subjects were his ridiculous comments on defense issues and his call for a “truce” (i.e. capitulation). Furthermore, MD doesn’t need to sign any socially-liberal legislation, because abortion on demand (without any limitations, not even parental notifications and parental consent) is the law of the land, and a federal court has overturned the DOMA. Another federal court has overturned the DADT policy. Voluntary nondeminational school prayer has been considered unconstitutional by federal courts since 1962/1963 (when the Engel v. Vitale ruling was issued).

  2. “Defense cuts are treasonous and bad; they weaken the US military.”

    This absurd oversimplification is an example of what I am talking about when I say “inane.”

    “but just for the record: the $100 bn “defense cuts” that he called for are not meant to be defense cuts, but rather dramatic reductions of DOD bureaucracies, overhead spending, and duplicate agencies/programs.”

    Just for the record, those are the kind of cuts I am advocating, not the mythical “defense cuts” you are hyperventilating about.

    “Oh, and before you slander me again,”

    Slander you? You called me a traitor. I just pointed out that you are misrepresenting my arguments, though in most cases it is because you don’t read carefully enough to understand them. The only slander is coming from your keyboard.

    “MD was not the OMB Director for “most of Bush’s time as president” – merely from January 20th, 2001, to June 6th, 2003”

    I did not ever say “most of Bush’s time as president.” The quote you ascribe to me is not something that I ever said. I specifically wrote “for most of this time period.” And to what does “this time period” refer? The time period in which Bush implemented his initial increases in defense spending after the Clinton administration. These basic failures at reading comprehension and quotation crop up again and again in your screeds.

    Rather than point out the flaws in your next two paragraphs of number-tossing, I’ll simply say this: I favor cutting spending in all categories, including the biggest mandatory programs (entitlements) and the biggest single discretionary program. I don’t exempt anything. I would also get most of the cuts out of domestic spending, both discretionary and mandatory. But I don’t pretend you can simply zero out the domestic spending and then cut zero from the defense budget. It ain’t gonna happen.

    “The Congress can never balance the budget by cutting defense spending. It’s too small to make any significant difference on the total federal budget deficit.”

    It is the single largest discretionary expenditure. It is only too small if you are only going to cut defense spending. But only you, who keeps talking about zeroing out huge categories of spending that are never going to be zeroed out, adhere to this kind of “logic.”

    “What matters is the actual policies they implement when elected to office.”

    That’s right. And you have provided zero evidence that Daniels implemented socially liberal policies while in office.

    “Furthermore, I did not provide evidence that he ever vetoed socially-conservative legislation or signed socially liberal legislation because that was not the subject of this blogpost”

    Then you can’t call him a social liberal, because those kinds of arguments require evidence. You are admitting you have not provided that evidence.\

    “The subjects were his ridiculous comments on defense issues and his call for a “truce” (i.e. capitulation). ”

    Then you should have stuck to those subjects instead of making charges you can’t prove.

    “Furthermore, MD doesn’t need to sign any socially-liberal legislation,”

    If you want to argue that a social issues truce would be unworkable, be my guest. I’ve made the same argument. But the claims you are making go beyond that and you have no evidence for these points. You are also vastly oversimplifying the “law of the land” on abortion — and I reject the idea that liberal judges make the “law of the land — but I’ve already wasted enough time here.

    1. “This absurd oversimplification is an example of what I am talking about when I say “inane.” ”

      It’s not an oversimplification. It’s a fact. You can’t get less if you invest less on something. Weapons and troopers cost some money, you know. They ain’t free. Neither are bases, fuel, or satellites. The DOD’s budget is already so small (3.65% of GDP) that it can’t do with less money. Yet, your hero Mitch Daniels advocates “dramatic cuts” of defense spending to solve a deficit problem caused exclusively by domestic spending.

      “Just for the record, those are the kind of cuts I am advocating, not the mythical “defense cuts” you are hyperventilating about.”

      No, you also praised MD’s proposed defense cuts. Furthermore, Gates plans to reinvest those savings in equipment and the force structure, whereas liberals like MD, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson want to use these savings to balance the budget (i.e. to take this money out of the DOD’s account).

      “I did not ever say “most of Bush’s time as president.” The quote you ascribe to me is not something that I ever said. I specifically wrote “for most of this time period.” And to what does “this time period” refer? The time period in which Bush implemented his initial increases in defense spending after the Clinton administration.”

      Learn the basic facts, Antle. The Bush Admin increased defense spending year-on-year during its entire 8-year tenure. However, the defense spending increases that were implemented during MD’s time as OMB Director were small and insignificant, so the Bush Admin had to continue to increase defense spending to try to rebuild the US military, ruined by 12 years of defense cuts (1989-2001). Heck, by FY2006 defense spending was still lower in real terms than what it was in FY1968 (let alone what it was during the Reagan era)!

      “Rather than point out the flaws in your next two paragraphs of number-tossing”

      Ah, so because the evidence proved you wrong, you chose to simply ignore it.

      “I’ll simply say this: I favor cutting spending in all categories, including the biggest mandatory programs (entitlements) and the biggest single discretionary program. (…) It is the single largest discretionary expenditure. It is only too small if you are only going to cut defense spending. But only you, who keeps talking about zeroing out huge categories of spending that are never going to be zeroed out, adhere to this kind of “logic.””

      False. You are parroting the lies of the CAP. The largest discretionary spending category is welfare spending (888 bn USD in FY2010), not defense spending (534 bn USD in FY2010; or 664 bn USD, if you count GWOT spending). Furthermore, on my blog, I have published my blueprint of how the federal budget can be balanced without any defense spending reductions. Be warned, however, that my blueprint assumes that the annual cost of the SS program would be reduced by 50%.

      “Then you can’t call him a social liberal, because those kinds of arguments require evidence. You are admitting you have not provided that evidence.”

      He has already provided sufficient evidence himself: namely, his call for “a truce” (i.e. capitulation) on social issues. This would essentially amount to an unconditional surrender, for the reasons I listed above.

      “But the claims you are making go beyond that and you have no evidence for these points.”

      Which points? That defense spending should not be cut? That welfare spending, not defense spending, is the largest discretionary item in the federal budget? That MD is a social liberal? That the US military can’t do with less than the FY2010 defense budget? I have prove for all of these claims.

      “You are also vastly oversimplifying the “law of the land” on abortion — and I reject the idea that liberal judges make the “law of the land — but I’ve already wasted enough time here.”

      I don’t believe that liberal judges make the law of the land, but you need to understand that under the US Constitution, the Supremes can render any law null. As a result of rulings delivered by federal judges (specifically, activist judges who like to make law from the bench), abortion on demand without limits is now the law of the US; the DOMA has been overturned; nondeminational school prayer is forbidden; a creche is forbidden. Using the federal judiciary, liberals have managed to impose their policies on all 300 mn Americans. MD has proposed to make these policies permanent, by proposing a “truce”, which would essentially mean that social conservatives would stop working to repeal those liberal policies.

  3. “Learn the basic facts, Antle.”

    The basic fact is that you are a compulsive liar who quoted me as saying something I did not say.

    “Ah, so because the evidence proved you wrong, you chose to simply ignore it.”

    Using statistics incorrectly doesn’t count as evidence. You are barely literate.

    1. The basic fact is that I’ve disproved you with MD’s own words and actual data available on the Internet.

      My statistics are correct. Your claims are not. You’re exaggerating defense spending to make it look as if it is the biggest item in the annual federal budget, which it is not. You’re the compulsive liar, not me.

      The FY2010 core defense budget was $534 bn. The FY2010 GWOT supplemental was $134 bn. Total FY2010 DOD spending was therefore $664 bn. The source: the DOD’s official website (http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652).

      According to the CIA’s World Factbook, as of CY2008, the GDP of the US was $14.61 trillion.*
      Now the math:

      $534 bn / $14610 billion = 0.0365
      $664 bn / $14610 billion = 0.045

      Regarding Indiana’s budget, now, during FY2011, Indiana has a $1.3 budget deficit. The source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/37516854
      During FY2010, Indiana had a $1.1 budget deficit. The source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/31965898

      This year, Indiana was ranked 21st in the CNBC’s ranking list of the Best States For Business, thus deteriorating, because in 2009, it was ranked 15th.
      This year, Indiana was ranked 42nd in terms of the quality of its workforce, 44th in terms of “quality of life”, and 41st in terms of the quality of its economy. In no category was Indiana ranked among the 5 best states.

      As for MD’s social policies: he has raised the state cigarette tax to punish smokers and to pay for his state HC plan. And his call for “truce” on social issues indicated what a strident liberal he is. Under today’s circumstances, a “truce” would mean a capitulation, because the Dems have already made sure that 95% of their social agenda is now the law of the land (abortion on demand without any exceptions, ESCR funded by the federal government, abortions funded by the FG, the UNFPF funded by the FG (to conduct compulsory abortions on Chinese women), funding foreign pro-abortion organizations (the Mexico City policy), and a federal socialized medicine scheme that would pay for abortions. As a baptized, believing, practicing, churchgoing Christian, I vehemently oppose any truce on social issues.

      *The DOD said this year that currently, the GDP of the US is a complete $15 trillion dollars, which means that the tiny burden DOD spending imposes on the economy is even smaller than I’ve calculated.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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