Right-Wing Talking Point Watch: Will Obama "Cut" Defense Spending?
The short answer is no. But conservative columnist Tony Blankley still does his part today to flog an already tired line of faux-skepticism about the Obama administration's alleged plans to "cut" defense spending in the upcoming budget.
Blankley claims that while total Pentagon spending for next year is in line for an 8% increase, the wild card of continuing Iraq and Afghanistan expenses raises the specter of a defense cut under Obama. It's almost as if he hasn't been keeping up with TPM alum Spencer Ackerman, who demolished this talking point as hogwash two days ago.
(Robert Kagan was the first right-leaning pundit out of the gate on this one.)
The tale is a simple one: Pentagon officials, aiming to start budget negotiations from a wildly advantageous point, submitted a spending estimate that wasn't completely vetted by the departing Bush administration. The Obama folks knocked the number down to a more realistic number -- that still reflects a higher military budget.
If only the truth could prevent conservatives from hyperventilating with fantasies of Obama cutting defense spending.
Josh
Matt
Eric
1. He should cut defense spending massively in this economic crisis by at least 20%.
2. He won't because of the political theatrics of the republicans and it would be political suicide.
3. I'll be happy when the republican party ceases to exist and we get a rational opposition party.
February 4, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see the Repugs disappear as a national party too (and they are well on their way currently) They can have lower-level state positions in the South if they want.
Then, what I'd like to see nationally is the Dems being the party of the center to right-of center, as they are largely now already, and a strong Green party to challenge them from the left.
February 4, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, another thought, what obama should do is put the war costs in the defense budget again, where it should be, and raise it by 5%. That would in effect be a massive cut in defense spending. No more separate appropriations for war costs. That's the ticket.
February 4, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
While the war should be considered part of defense spending, putting them into the defense budget is not a good idea. It is much easier, politically speaking, to add money to the budget of an agency than it is to remove it. Once the DoD had an additional kajillion dollars (the actual price of the wars, as calculated by me) it would be political suicide to take it back out. Look at this ridiculous garbage over not increasing DoD's budget at a sufficient rate as it is.
For any reasonable person, this approach would make sense, unfortunately, our government is not a reasonable person, it's a group of people whose first priority is to get reelected.
February 4, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love it if he did. :-)
♪ ♪ ♪
February 4, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish he would cut defense spending - or at least make it in issue up for discussion. It's the elephant in the room nobody dares talk about - Why not? America spends $515B and the #2 Country is France at $61B. The whole EU is at $311B and NATO combines for over $1T (worldwide spending is around $1.4T).
February 4, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the very least, it should slide with the GDP. So that means in absolute terms, defense spending ought to be going down right now.
February 4, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed!
But also, could we start calling it what it really is - "Military spending" or "War spending". NOT "Defense spending"!
February 4, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely!
February 4, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll sign on to that as we only use our military to knock around countries without nukes or air forces, and we haven't faced a real external threat since WWII.
February 4, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he will cut defense spending, since Bush was paying gobs of it to private contractors like Black Water anyway! Prince's war profiteering days are over!
February 4, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
But...but...but...if we cut defense spending, the terrorists will win. Dick Cheney told me so. Because, you know, trillions of dollars spent on missile defense systems that don't work or bombers we don't need or any other Cold War military relic we still cling to will really help us stop attacks like 9/11 and Oklahoma City and the anthraxx mailings.
February 4, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's more to this than just the military budget.
First, those branches of service not directly involved in the fighting, USAF and NAVY air wings, have had their feathers clippped - more $$$ diverted to ground-pounders. So projects not directly related to the war effort are placed on indefinite hold.
Second, other government agency's not directly involved in the war effort, EPA and so forth, had their budgets cut and funds diverted. The VA hospitals were forced, by executive order, to refuse VA medical to veterans based new criteria aimed at minimizing eligibility.
Third, those clandestine agencies that have sprung up like mushrooms on a cowpie are having a feeding frenzy at the taxpayer expense while their consumption is a tightly held secret from the public.
In short, the current military and clandestine service budget has cannibalized other agencies budgets to support their efforts. The Pentagon and CIA need to realize the taxpayer pocket and patience has limits even in a war.
February 4, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh we still have a lot of growing up as a country if cutting the massively disgusting military budget slightly is seen as a bad thing.
Bah!
February 4, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Golly, are those two guys, Blankley and Kagan, by any chance being paid by the defense industry ???
Let's not play along with their silly puppet show - these alleged institutes and think tanks are just fronts for companies selling products : weapons, oil, gas ...
How hard is it to find out who is funding the AEI for example ?
The Right Wing bloviators on TV are shills ... why not say so ?
February 4, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't start massively cutting defense spending right off the bat. As bloated as it may be, we are still at war. Now is not the time to make massive cuts. I'd let this Afghanistan thing play out a bit more and see where it goes for another year at least. I'm sure there are a few specific programs that should be put on hold, but an overall cut sounds like a bad idea right now.
Just my thoughts...
February 4, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a start. Mothball 1/2 of the older carriers right now. They are nothing more than floating airbases anyway. Why do we need 15? Who's the big naval threat? It really is outrageous when you think about it.
Samething with the freaking b-2's. Stick em in a warehouse for later use, if needed. They are too expensive to operate anyway.
Just those two things would save a ton of money. Won't happen, but it totally makes sense.
February 4, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
it should be cut by 50%.
end the 2 wars and close all bases outside of the US.
no reason not to.
unless you love killing innocent people.
ahh..i see all the hands raised.
February 4, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink