Richard Viguerie again proves he’s no conservative

The utterly discredited pseudoconservative charlatan Richard Viguerie, who has repeatedly proven he is no conservative, has done so again. Instead of behaving like a TRUE conservative – i.e. a supporter of a strong national defense – he’s behaving like the rambling Ron Paul libertarian/libtard he is, and railing against a strong defense and those who support it.*

Specifically, this time, he’s railing against those Republicans who support saving defense from the disaster that sequestration would be. (Wait… that would be the vast majority of Congressional Republicans and of GOP members in general!) He’s gone even so far as to claim that Republicans who want to repeal defense sequestration “can’t be trusted on spending” and want “more spending.”

Not only are these claims utterly false, they’re also absurd and laughable: Republicans’ only sin is that they want to… repeal the disaster that defense sequestration would be.

Viguerie, like other libertarians and liberals, denies that sequestration would be calamitous for America’s national defense and its national security, despite the overwhelming body of evidence that it would be. He falsely claims that it’s merely “Republicans’ national security boogie man.”

The fact is that sequestration WOULD be a disaster for the military and for national security. That’s because (in short) it would cut defense budget so deeply (down to just $469 bn in FY2013) that it would not be nearly sufficient to fund the force size, units, training, equipment, programs, and infrastructure necessary to protect America. More on that here.

Viguerie asks the Republicans who voted for sequestration: “This begs the question, “If it was so bad for national defense, why did you pass it in the first place?””

But some of those Republicans who argue strongly against it, such as Sen. Kelly Ayotte and Rep. Randy Forbes, voted AGAINST the Budget Control Act (which created the sequester mechanism). As for those Republicans who voted for the BCA, they did not vote for sequestration (not directly, at least). They voted for the BCA as a whole, even if not supporting sequestration. They voted for the BCA in good faith, in the belief that the Super Committee would do its job. The fact that the Super Committee has utterly failed to do its job is NOT their fault.

Myself, I opposed the BCA (including sequestration) from the very beginning, have been very critical about it from the start, and had I been in Congress at the time, I would’ve voted against it. Thus, Viguerie cannot use that argument against me. I knew from the start that sequestration would be disastrous and that creating the Super Committee was a dumb idea (as did other Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich).

Furthermore, it is a blatant lie to claim that repealing sequestration would mean “more spending” (in this case, defense spending). It would only prevent excessive cuts to the defense budget, but it wouldn’t prevent it from being cut altogether, let alone grow it. Under the First Tier of the BCA – which is almost never mentioned these days by anyone other than us defense conservatives – defense spending will be cut by $487 bn over the next decade, and the defense budget topline will be cut in real terms from $535 bn today to $525 bn in FY2013.

Viguerie falsely claims that “Whether we spend the money on welfare or the Pentagon, we will be just as broke, and a lot less secure, if we keep running trillion-dollar deficits.”

That’s patently false. Defense spending is NOT making America broke and is NOT the cause of America’s fiscal woes. It amounts to just 4.22% of America’s GDP (which is $15.29 trillion) and less than 17% of the total federal budget; the base defense budget equals just 3.47% of GDP and less than 15% of the TFB. America can very well afford the current level of defense spending (which is modest). Defense spending does not have to be cut deeply to balance the budget, as the budget plans of Chairman Ryan, the Republican Study Committee, Sen. Toomey, and Senator Lee prove. The US just needs to significantly reform its entitlement programs (which consume 63% of the ENTIRE federal budget and grow every year on autopilot) and eliminate unconstitutional federal agencies and programs.

Defense spending did NOT cause America’s fiscal woes, and cutting it – even deeply – will not even make a dent in the federal budget deficit.

(All three graphs are from Senate Budget Committee Republicans)

(Graph from the Heritage Foundation)

Moreover, Viguerie’s rant proves his libertarian (or is it liberal?) ideology and mindset. He sees no difference between funding the #1 Constitutional responsibility of the federal government (defense) and, on the other hand, spending on unconstitutional agencies and programs such as the Department of Education.

That alone proves that he is no conservative, and that he’s a very ignorant person.

Viguerie concludes his ridiculous blogpost by saying:

“If the budget cuts mandated in the sequestration law are wrongly allocated between the defense and domestic constitutional responsibilities of the federal government, then Republicans must come-up with the right amount to cut from each, and stick to it.”

Sequestration IS wrongly allocated, insane, disastrous, and utterly disproportionate. Under sequestration, over 60% of the cuts would come out of the defense budget, and less than 40% from domestic discretionary spending and Medicare. SS and Medicaid would not be cut at all.

As data stated in the Paul Ryan Budget Plan, in Table 1 of Appendix II, proves, defense would bear far more than half of the burden of the sequester’s budget cuts. The numbers, as the table states, would be as follows:

Category/FY13–14–15–16–17—18—19–20—21—22–TOTAL CUT OVER THE DECADE

Sequester  -­‐98 -­‐93 -­‐92 -­‐91 -­‐91 -­‐90 -­‐89 -­‐88 -­‐88 -­‐90 -­‐913
Defense —-­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐55 -­‐56 -­‐551
Non-­‐Def. -­‐43 -­‐38 -­‐38 -­‐37 -­‐36 -­‐36 -­‐35 -­‐33 -­‐33 -­‐34 -­‐362

As these numbers prove, defense would bear far more than half of the spending cuts burden. In the first year (FY2013), it would be 56%; in FY2014, 59%; in FY2015, 59.78%; in FY2016, 60.43%; in FY2017, 60.43%; in FY2018, 61.11%; in FY2019, 61.79%; in FY2020, 62.5%; in FY2021, 62.5%; in FY2022, 61.11%.

In total, defense would be whacked by $551 bn over a decade, while nondefense discretionary spending would be cut by only $362 bn. Thus, the total amount of cuts would be $913 bn, and defense would bear 60.35% of that spending cut burden, i.e. the vast majority.

And no, Congress should not change the distribution of the cuts. Congress should spare defense from sequestration completely. It is time to draw a firm red line against any further defense cuts, including sequestration.

Viguerie has again proven that he’s no conservative.

*As everyone should know by now, supporting a strong national defense (and robust funding for it) is an integral, irremovable, inexcisable part of the conservative ideology, and no one who opposes it or supports deep defense cuts has the right to call oneself a conservative.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s