Rebuttal of John T. Bennett’s lies


On his InsideDefense blog at defensenews.com, that website’s editor, John T. Bennett, cheers on the WSJ’s latest, completely baseless attack on HASC GOP members and us defense conservatives in general, seconding the WSJ’s utterly blatant lies and false figures, and citing extreme leftists like Kingston Reif as credible sources of information.

Here is my rebuttal of his pathetic screed.

“Those are the kinds of figures anti-sequester lawmakers and pundits don’t like to talk about. For them, no increase in annual Pentagon funding is enough. And just about every imaginable threat is one that justifies larger yearly increases.” [Bennett]

Those are utterly blatant lies by you, by the pseudoconservative WSJ, and by the leftist C4RFB, not reliable figures. Not even the staunchest defense hawk in the US right now is calling for increases in defense spending nor exaggerating threats. What we defense conservatives, including HASC Republicans, oppose, are deep, rapid CUTS in the nation’s defense budget.

In FY2013, the sequester slashed $37 bn overnight from the base defense budget. This fiscal year, it will cut the budget further, down to just $475 bn, the lowest level of base defense spending (in real terms) since FY2003 – i.e. setting the defense budget back by over a decade. Just two FYs ago, the defense budget stood (in then-year dollars) at over $525 bn.

Contrary to the WSJ’s blatant lies, defense spending will not come anywhere close to $590 bn by FY2021 (or any other point in the next few decades, for that matter). By FY2022, it will still amount to only $493 bn – almost a hundred billion dollars less than what the WSJ and the C4RFB falsely claim. (Source: the July 11th, 2012 CBO report on the impact of sequestration.)

No, defense spending will not reach $590 bn, or any even remotely similar figure, in FY2021 or FY2022. Not even close. The figures from the leftist C4RFB, which the pseudoconservative WSJ cites, are completely false. They’re pure fabrication.

We are not talking about any defense spending increases here. These are deep, real cuts in defense spending – not cuts to the growth rate.

And the actual military consequences of such deep and rapid cuts in defense spending will be grave, contrary to your and the WSJ’s pious denials. Already during FY2013, the Navy had to cancel maintenance for dozens of ships and hundreds of a/c and cancel the Truman’s deployment to the Gulf, while the USAF had to stand 1/3 of its a/c fleet down. Now USAF pilots are leaving the service in droves because, thanks to sequestration, there’s not enough money to fly their a/c. In the long term, if sequestration persists, the military will have to deeply cut its force structure or modernization programs – or both, as evidenced by both the DOD and all non-leftist think-tanks in the US, from the CNAS and the BPC on the center-left to the AEI and Heritage on the right. Which is not surprising, given that the DOD will see its budget cut by 10%.

“To avoid a repeat, GOP veterans need to abandon their parochial interests for the greater good.” [WSJ]

Excuse me? Parochial interests? Defense is not anyone’s parochial interest – it is the highest Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. Dramatically underfunding it is a blatant dereliction of that duty. And if America’s security is not provided for, nothing else will matter – including the budget deficit, which is just a figure. America’s enemies will not wait for the US to get its fiscal house in order – China, for one, is not waiting. Greater good? Nothing could be more important for “the greater good” than providing for America’s defense.

Kingston Reif of the CACN? Ah, yet another leftist “defense source” for a pro-unilateral-disarmament, anti-defense lackey like yourself, Mr Bennett… The reality is that Reif is an ignorant, extremely leftist, anti-defense (and in particular, anti-nuclear) hack, not a credible source. He is not noted for anything except complaining ceaselessly about US nuclear weapons and their supposed cost… but he has no problems with Russia’s, China’s, or North Korea’s growing nuclear arsenals and nuclear weapons spending.

Shame on the WSJ for lying so blatantly to its readers (my rebuttal of its blatant lies will be published next week on ConservativeDailyNews), and shame on you, Mr Bennett, for lying so blatantly about such an important defense issue… AGAIN. You have been caught flat-footed. Not a word you say or write is credible. Not even one.

2 thoughts on “Rebuttal of John T. Bennett’s lies”

  1. Are you serious? I think you need to take realistic approach to your posts and base them in facts.
    Such as your claim ” Now USAF pilots are leaving the service in droves because, thanks to sequestration, there’s not enough money to fly their a/c” In reality The real reason is Fighter pilot fatigue after 12 years of war, Boeing estimates there will be a global need for 460,000 new commercial pilots over the next two decades and the FAA has also raised the qualification requirements for commercial co-pilots from 250 flying hours to 1500, making U.S. military-trained pilots with years of experience even more attractive. Some fighter pilots are retiring, frustrated that their experience in the cockpit was underutilized when they were reassigned to fly unmanned drones.
    Also your claim “In FY2013, the sequester slashed $37 bn overnight from the base defense budget. This fiscal year, it will cut the budget further, down to just $475 bn, the lowest level of base defense spending (in real terms) since FY2003 – i.e. setting the defense budget back by over a decade. Just two FYs ago, the defense budget stood (in then-year dollars) at over $525 bn.” Now you do realize that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over and as such like any military draw down the DoD budget is reduced to meet the new peace time needs.

    According to the CBO projection, the average costs of DoD’s base-budget plans from 2014 through 2018 would exceed average spending for DoD from 1980 to 2012 by about $90 billion a year after adjusting for inflation. Moreover, the average costs of DoD’s plans from 2014 through 2028 would exceed the 1980–2012 average by about $130 billion a year after adjusting for inflation.

    Even with the BCA’s automatic enforcement procedures in effect, DoD’s base budget in 2014 would be larger than it was in 2006 (in 2014 dollars) and larger than the average base budget during the 1980s, a decade that included a large military buildup.

    The FYDP and CBO’s projections begin with DoD’s proposed budget for 2014, in which the department requested a total of $607 billion in new funding. That request can be separated into two parts: $527 billion for the base budget, which funds the normal activities of the department, including manning and training the force, developing and procuring weapon systems, and the day-to-day operations of the military and civilian workforce, and $79 billion for overseas contingency operations (OCO), which refer to the war in Afghanistan and other nonroutine military activities elsewhere $79 billion for other operations.

    The request for DoD’s base budget in 2014 is, after accounting for inflation, one percent less than the amount that the Administration requested for 2013.
    However, if DoD continued to receive its historical share of the national defense budget, the 2014 request would be 11 percent more than what would be available to DoD given the limit on discretionary funding for national defense under the BCA.

    Also you post that “navy cancel the Truman’s deployment to the Gulf”, while in fact the USS Harry S. Truman deployed to the Middle East in July 2013 with USS Gettysburg, USS Mason and USS San Jacinto.

    The Navy says the Truman’s deployment will last about nine months.

    Finally in July after congress gave the air force the ability to move funds Squadrons worldwide were flying again as early as July.

  2. Actually, the FY2013 base defense budget after sequestration and the FY2014 base budget pre budget deal were the smallest since 2003, meaning defense spending had been set back by an entire decade. And yes, pilots ARE leaving the military in droves – and doing it precisely bc theres little opportunity to fly due to seq while therell be plenty of flying to do with airlines.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s