Right now, on the Fox News website, liberal contributor Juan Williams praises Raul Labrador (RINO-ID-1) as a “conservative” and a “Tea Party hero”, and claims that he’s a rising force within the GOP.
I was suspicious of that, because I know that Williams is a strident liberal, who whomever he praises must be treated skeptically. So I visited Labrador’s website, http://labrador.house.gov, to find out what his stances on some of the issues are.
Curiously, while there are pages devoted to issues like “energy” and “agriculture”, neither of which is the proper remit of the federal government, there is no page about defense, foreign policy, or even as broad a category of issues as “national security”.
But, on the homepage, there is a list of his most recent press releases, including his statement on the House vote on the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act, the annual defense policy setting bill.
What did Labrador say on the subject? And how did he vote?
He voted AGAINST it, on the grounds that its indefinite detention provisions violate the Constitution and because he thinks it doesn’t do enough to cut federal spending (as if cutting defense alone can balance the budget). He furthermore falsely claims that Republicans are “refusing to acknowledge that, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen has said, the biggest threat to our national security is our debt”, and that, supposedly, Republicans “must be willing to put their sacred cows on the table so that the Democrats will agree to entitlement cuts.”
His claims about defense spending are blatant lies, which mean that the person making them is a LIAR.
The claims that Republicans are not doing enough to cut defense spending, and that defense is a sacred cow for them, are false. Republicans have already slavishly agreed to Obama’s defense cuts of 2009, 2010, and 2011, which involved the closure of over 50 weapon programs (mostly needed programs) and cutting over $400 bn out of defense accounts, mostly from modernization accounts. In 2011 alone, Secretary Gates proposed, and Republicans agreed to, $178 bn in cuts and efficiencies over 5 years. The weapon program closures ordered by Gates in 2009 alone totalled $330 bn over these programs’ lifetimes.
Republicans also voted to ratify the disastrous New START treaty, which is making deep reductions in the US nuclear arsenal just as Russia is growing its.
Most importantly of all, almost all Republicans voted for the Budget Control Act of 2011, which included both First Tier defense spending cuts (which the FY2013 NDAA would implement, with few exceptions such as the ANG), and the disastrous sequester. That alone proves that Republicans have agreed to cut defense spending deeply – too deeply, in my opinion. It also, by itself, proves that defense is not, and has never been, a “sacred cow” and has always been on the table.
Taken together, the defense cuts implemented by Obama, with Republicans’ consent, total $920 bn since 2009 alone, not even counting the New START treaty. No other federal agency or program, whether security-related or not, discretionary or mandatory, has contributed anything even close to that. In fact, no agency or program other than the DOD has contributed ANY meaningful budget savings. In fact, while defense has never been a sacred cow, many other agencies and programs (including all three entitlement programs) have been, and continue to be.
Come back to me when agencies and programs OTHER THAN DEFENSE contribute an amount similar to what defense has contributed to date – $920 bn – and then we can talk.
No one can honestly claim that defense is someone’s “sacred cow”, or that it hasn’t been cut deeply enough.
Labrador also falsely claims that Republicans need to cut defense to convince the Democrats to agree to entitlement cuts.
But that’s a mirage, a false promise, and Labrador knows it. The Dems will never agree to any, even the mildest, entitlement cuts, as their votes against, and lies about, the Ryan Plan and the Sequester Reconciliation Act irrefutably prove. The Dems zealously want to protect entitlements from any cuts as much as they want to deeply cut defense. That’s because such a policy would keep, and grow, the dependency class, which is the Dems’ biggest voter bloc. They would never agree to any cuts to entitlements even if Republicans agreed to eliminate military spending entirely.
Labrador knows that. He doesn’t want to cut entitlements or balance the budget either. He’s just interested in cutting defense deeply together with his RINO friends Tim Huelskamp (RINO-KS), John Campbell (RINO-CA), and Ron Paul (RINO-TX).
Labrador is not a conservative. Anyone who supports deep defense cuts is NOT a conservative. He’s a libertarian RINO, just like the abovementioned RINO politicians. Calling him a conservative is an insult to every REAL conservative, including myself.