AP likes to fact-check the statements of other people, so let’s fact-check this article by AP:
AP says, “A military budget that has doubled since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks faces certain cuts amid the clamor from fiscal-minded lawmakers , emboldened tea partyers and an electorate insistent on Washington changing its spending habits.”
Let’s ignore the question whether the Beltway lawmakers, or even a substantial minority of them, are “fiscally-minded”. Let’s set the record straight on 3 other questions.
Firstly, Tea Partiers are DIVIDED on the question of whether defense spending should be cut. As someone who has participated in numerous debates on TP forums on this issue, I can attest to that. And I like to think that I’m personally responsible for convincing a few Tea Partiers that defense spending should not be cut.
Secondly, according to a recent Gallup poll, 57% of the American people OPPOSE defense spending cuts. So it’s not the American public that is clamoring for defense cuts.
Thirdly, the military budget has NOT doubled since 9-11-2001, which, BTW, is a lousy benchmark of military spending, because back then, America’s military spending was at its lowest ebb since FY1940, i.e. since before WW2.
The FY2001 military budget amounted to $291.1 bn in FY2001 dollars, i.e. $377 bn in 2011 dollars. The FY2011 military budget, including GWOT costs, is $673 bn ($513 bn + $160 bn). This is far less than the FY2001 budget times two. In order to double since FY2001, the military budget would have to grow to $744 bn. But of course, it’s a whopping $71 bn lower.
This is not a tiny error. AP has made a huge error (or has lied). This shows that AP will not refrain from lying to advance the liberal agenda.
AP’s article also contains other lies (as well as the propaganda claims of liberals who oppose a strong defense and desire to significantly cut the defense budget). For example, at the beginning of its article, AP claims that:
“President Barack Obama’s choice of expert budget-cutter Leon Panetta to lead the Defense Department is a clear signal that the White House perceives the nation’s deficit crisis, not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as its toughest challenge. (…) In tapping Panetta to replace Gates, Obama is turning to a Washington insider and veteran of budget fights as the administration wrestles with reining in an estimated $1.6 trillion deficit.”
That is a blatant lie. If the Obama Administration really perceived the budget deficit to be its toughest challenge, and was really wrestling with it, it would not have been submitting budget plans to Congress which GROW annual federal spending and the federal debt year after year and which foresee an annual budget deficit never smaller, in any FY, than $700 bn. And it would’ve submitted a budget plan that cuts other categories of spending besides defense spending.
AP also quotes former RINO Congressman Bill Frenzel as saying:
“”People are looking at the military budget in much sterner terms,” said former Rep. Bill Frenzel, R-Minn., who worked closely with Panetta on the Budget Committee. “They’re digging deeper than the president to settle the fiscal crisis. Defense has to give more.”
Frenzel is lying. What people? According to Gallup, 57% of the American people OPPOSE defense spending cuts. And no, defense doesn’t have to (and mustn’t) give up even one dollar more. Defense spending did not cause this budget crisis; any defense spending cuts, no matter how deep, would not even significantly reduce (let alone eliminate) the 1.6 trillion budget deficit; and the budget can be balanced without any defense spending cuts – but that will require significant cuts of the unconstitutional, ineffective, socialist domestic programs which Obama, the Democrats, and Frenzel zealously protect from budget cuts.
So no, defense spending doesn’t have to be cut, shouldn’t be cut, and mustn’t be cut.
AP mentioned that “Panetta is the consummate multitasker, picked by Clinton to oversee OMB after his four years as Budget chairman, then asked to bring order to a Clinton White House as chief of staff.” It failed to mention that as House Budget Cmte. Chairman, OMB Director, and Clinton’s WH Chief of Staff, Panetta was responsible for the massive defense cuts of the late 1980s and of the 1990s.
It then quoted another biased anti-defense liberal, Gordon Adams, a former Clinton Admin official, who said:
“We’re in a build-down. The game is over. This is all downside.”
This is a blatant lie, although one stated by Adams, not by AP. The defense budget doesn’t have to be (and mustn’t be) cut. America can still afford to spend 553.1 bn per year on defense, provided that the federal government is restricted to only those roles and tasks which have been authorized to it by the Constitution. If it had always obeyed the Constitution, there would’ve been no budget deficit at all.