In a recent (Thursday, November 15th) interview with Sen. Rand Paul, Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto asked Paul many softball questions, including one (at ca. 3:00) in which he claimed that 1) Republicans are protecting defense spending and oppose any cuts to it; and that 2) the Democrats have just as good an excuse not to cut their favorite programs (welfare and entitlement programs). Rand Paul did not disagree and implied agreement.
Cavuto’s claims are utter garbage, and they show that he doesn’t understand the Constitution (or doesn’t care about it).
Firstly, Republicans are not protecting defense spending at all costs or treating it as sacrosanct. On the contrary, they have already (and I believe wrongly) agreed to large defense cuts. In 2009 and 2010, they agreed to the massive (over 50) killings of crucial weapon programs such as the F-22 (which will cost America air superiority sometime down the road), the Multiple Kill Vehicle and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (undermining missile defense), and the Zumwalt class (the only class of destroyers large enough to accomodate the new Air and Missile Defense Radar, or AMDR).
In December 2010, Republicans voted to ratify the New START treaty, which mandates unilateral and deep cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal.
In early 2011, Republicans voted to implement the $178 bn in efficiencies and cuts proposed by Secretary Gates, involving several program closures as well as sweeping efficiencies and bureaucracy reductions.
And in August 2011, Republicans voted for the Budget Control Act, which mandated $487 bn in immediate defense cuts over the next decade ($48.7 bn per year, on average) and requires an additional $600 bn in defense cuts over the next decade if Congress doesn’t agree to an alternative deficit reduction package.
Any claim that Republicans are protecting defense spending, or that the DOD’s budget enjoys “protected status”, is a blatant lie.
Cavuto’s claim that the Democrats have just as good an excuse to protect their favorite programs as Republicans have to spare defense from cuts is also a blatant lie, and it shows that he either hasn’t read the Constitution or doesn’t understand it or doesn’t care about its provisions. It also shows that he has no moral code or backbone.
The Constitution makes defense the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. It obligates the government to protect the country against invasion and domestic violence in Art. IV, Sec. 4. Most of the enumerated powers of Congress listed in Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution pertain to MILITARY MATTERS. Furthermore, the Constitution’s Preamble says that one of the reasons why it was adopted, and the federal government created, in the first place was to “provide for the common defence.”
On the other hand, federal “welfare” and entitlement programs are completely unconstitutional, as they are outside the scope of the federal government’s enumerated powers. The federal government has no authority to create and maintain such programs; all spending on them is utterly unconstitutional. (However, because so many Americans have become dependent on them, they will have to be phased out or privatized in an orderly manner, rather than abolished immediately.)
Moreover, these programs are based on redistributionism, i.e. stealing. They function as follows: the federal government takes money from some people (who earned the money through hard work) and gives it to other people – ones who didn’t earn it.
This is stealing, although organized and sanctioned by the federal government (specifically, the notorious IRS). It is prohibited by the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments say that not only are we prohibited to steal other people’s property, we are also prohibited to covet it.
Yet, Cavuto sees no difference between defense and these redistributionist programs.
Neil Cavuto is an ignorant, liberal, pseudoconservative anchor. His (and Rand Paul’s) views are indistinguishable from the views of liberals. But most worrisomely, he’s blatantly and shamelessly lying to a public he hopes is ignorant of the facts and won’t bother to investigate them.
Neil Cavuto should be suspended and fired.
 When the Constitution was adopted, in 1787, the founding generation still used British spelling. Thus, they wrote “defence”.