As reported here on my blog, there is a strange “Left-Right” (or rather Left-Left) coalition of liberals and libertarians against defense spending. Spreading lies and demanding deep defense spending cuts, liberals and libertarians are together fighting against defense spending, a strong defense, andthus against America itself. These despicable traitors do not deserve to be respected by anyone.
Recently, libertarian propagandist Christopher Preble of the CATO Institute (who, last year, called for deep defense spending cuts) has called for purges of the ranks of conservatives, even though, by his own admission, he has NEVER been a conservative.
Meanwhile, the media and liberal Congressman Barney Frank (CPSU-MA) have been lying that there is an “alliance” between liberals (AKA Progressives) and Tea Partiers (including TP-backed members of Congress) on the issue cutting defense spending. This is, actually, a blatant lie, because few TP-backed Congressmen back such policies and the vast majority of them do not support defense cuts. It is “old guard” RINOs like John Boehner and Eric “Double Loyalty” Cantor who are leading the anti-defense GOP caucus, not Tea Partiers.
Libertarians, of course, ideologically oppose a strong defense, wars in general, foreign aid, alliances, and interventions of any kind. They believe America is not threatened by anyone, that the world’s problems are America’s fault (in the tradition of Blame America First), that America is an evil empire, and that the US doesn’t need a strong military. Ergo, they believe that America’s current levels of defense spending are unneccessary. They’re 100% wrong, but they don’t care about that, and hence they fight against America’s defense.
Thus, they are in bed with Progressives. But do they know that their proposals of deep defense cuts would save little money in the short term (compared to America’s annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion and America’s public debt of $14 trillion), and ZERO dollars in the long term?
Here’s why: Defense spending cuts would result in the cuts of some components of the defense budget. Large-scale cuts would inevitably weaken the military; there just isn’t that much waste in the annual defense budget (its scale has been grossly overstated). So, cuts of defense spending would inevitably result in reductions of procurement programs, R&D projects, O&M programs, the force structure, personnel, and intel capabilities. In other words, they would result in a weakened military (how weakened it would be would depend on the scale of the cuts).
Such cuts, even to the tune proposed by the CATO Institute ($150 bn per year), the SDTF ($100 bn per year, $1 trillion over a decade), and the Debt Reduction Commission ($100 bn per year) would save little money in the short term (remember, the FY2011 budget deficit is projected to be $1.5 trillion and Obama’s FY2012 budget assumes a deficit of $1.6 trillion).
Moreover, they would weaken the military (the proposals of the CI, the STDF and the DRC would GRAVELY weaken the military), thus leaving it unprepared for future wars and contingencies, emboldening America’s adversaries to engage in provocations or even aggression, and possibly resulting in an attack on the US itself.
And then, the US would have only two choices: rebuild its military and fight a war invited by a weak posture and by defense cuts, or do nothing. Both of these options would be much more expensive than just maintaining the current level of defense spending, raising it to $553 bn per year (3.78% of GDP) in FY2012, and modernizing the military using this modest amount of money. As Secretary Gates has rightly warned during several Congressional hearings earlier this year, defense cuts have always led to foreign aggression and to a costly process of rebuilding the military, so, Gates warns, defense budgets should be stable instead of being subjected to “giant increases and giant decreases”. Only that is a financially sustainable path for the DOD and the country.
So defense spending cuts – even those proposed by the CATO Institute, the SDTF and the DRC – would save little money in the short term, and zero money in the long term. No real fiscal conservative would ever advocate such a policy.