We have just under a week for the “Super Committee” to complete the work outlined in the Budget Control Act of August 2011 and the progress reports are not encouraging. Characterizing the committee as “Super” may have been a mistake considering every aspect of their work plan has been anything but super.
In my view, when the Budget Control Act was passed, Republicans gave away the farm. They gave the President and Congressional Democrats the ability to raise the national debt by 20% over 16 months without one meaningful concession; not one!
Politicians talk about cutting spending by thirty or forty or a hundred billion out loud then follow that with “over the next ten years” in a muffled voice. I’m not sure it really matters what they say since they don’t adopt and follow budgets anyway. But that was the deal. They would reduce spending in budget cycles starting in 2013 out into the future when many of them will be long gone and out of office.
I can only imagine how good it felt standing up to the microphone and looking into those TV cameras telling viewers how we negotiated hard and got the best deal we could for not just our side, but for the American people. “We agreed to increase the national debt by another 20% between now (August 2011) and January 2013 (just before inaugurating the next President) in exchange for spending cuts totaling $1.2 trillion over the next ten years to be determined by a “Super” Committee made up of twelve members of Congress; half from the Senate and half from the House; half Democrats and half Republicans before Thanksgiving of this year. Failing in that mission, a process called Sequestration will be implemented where every department will suffer equal percentage budget cuts to achieve the stated goal.”
For the Democrats on that podium, that was a euphoric feeling, knowing they had bent over the Republicans again. Don’t you remember a sly smile from Harry Reid as he talked about slashing $1.2 trillion, knowing full well it would never happen?
For the Republicans on the podium, I’m not sure what they felt. I know they should have felt like a kid in Jerry Sandusky’s shower room.
I guess I’m too damn stupid to see how that agreement was in any way good for Republicans; on any level. And frankly for the American people either. But what do I know, I’m just a fry cook?
Number one, we authorized increasing the debt when we said we wouldn’t.
Number two, we agreed to a spending reduction process that had no meaningful reference points and no down side for the Democrats. Sure, cutting some of those social programs would cause the Dems to wince a little, but considering the hurt it would cause for R’s it was a hit they felt was well worth it.
If the Super Committee cannot negotiate a deal with the Republicans they just punt and allow the “Sequestration” to cut the budget which will target Defense spending at a time when we have already cut their budget significantly.
Now as we approach the drop dead date for the committee to finish their work, we’re still hopelessly deadlocked. No, wait, the Republicans are starting to talk about some tax increases as being okay. The Speaker is warming up to the idea of a tax increase for those rich bastards just so we never have to face the prospects of SEQUESTRATION.
How can the Republicans be afraid of Sequestration at this point? What they should have been afraid of was the CASTRATION they went through when they voted for the Budget Control Act at the start of this process. Were they just stupid or is the fix in?
The National Debt will increase to $16 Trillion, tax rates will be raised for rich bastards and spending will not change one iota.
I’m beginning to believe Jack Abramoff was right when he talked about how lobbyists own our elected officials. It may not be Jack pulling the strings, but someone with interests different than mine certainly is.
No Loss for Words 
Is Slashing Defense our Best Choice?
by Steve DanaFacing the possibility of seriously cutting the Defense Budget, maybe we should think about withdrawing our military forces from bases located in foreign countries? Wouldn’t we save a bundle if we didn’t have our forces spread around the world? Considering the way many of them feel about us, pulling out seems like a win/win for everyone; right? How many of the host countries celebrate our presence on their soil?
I am not advocating that we withdraw our forces, quite to the contrary, but shouldn’t we think about it? Doesn’t it make sense that we reaffirm that assumptions regarding our national interests made many years ago have not changed? At the same time, our supposed allies can reconfirm that our presence is advantageous and desirable to them as well or maybe not.
We pay a lot to have a military presence in many of these countries which enables the host countries to allocate a much smaller portion of their own budgets for their own defense and military while substantially increasing our cost. Keep in mind that the cost is not just measured in monetary form; our military forces are made up from millions of young Americans that we ask to go in harms way to protect freedom around the world. Maybe I would feel different if our treaty partners asked their own kids to make the same sacrifice.
Since the European economy is significant, aren’t they capable of paying for their own forces? So what portion of our cost to protect their interests do they pay?
If they beefed up their own forces, couldn’t we support them from bases on American soil? And while we’re at it, who are we protecting the Europeans from? Since we already let almost every European country into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aren’t they all our allies now? So who is the threat? Since we didn’t let the Russians in, they must be the threat along with China since nobody else has the ability to project force significantly beyond their own borders.
Besides America, who funds NATO? Besides America, whose forces constitute the muscle of NATO? Without America, what happens to political stability in Europe if we pull out of NATO?
What happens if we give NATO a notice of intent to reduce participation over the next five or ten years?
The same questions could be asked about mutual defense treaties between America and a bunch of Asian countries like Korea, Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines.
If we closed American bases in all those foreign countries, what would happen besides our Defense Budget going down? Or, would it go down? Would the world become less safe if the United States of America did not have bases in all these places supplemented by a Navy that patrols international waters around the globe? Isn’t that an important consideration?
How would a withdrawal of American forces affect the aggressive tendencies of countries wanting to have a louder voice in international politics?
When you get right down to it, isn’t our military presence around the world the only reason things are as safe as they are? What is that worth to our allies and ultimately to our own people? Shouldn’t we be asking that question?
If our Army had not driven Iraq out of Kuwait when Saddam Hussein invaded in 1990, what would the Middle East look like today? If our troops weren’t stationed in Saudi Arabia, would Iraq have control of all their oil too? How would that affect our national strategic interests or more importantly, how would it affect our NATO allies? Would a Middle East controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood be a threat to Great Britain,France or Germany?
What would those countries have done had we held back and done nothing in 1990?
Consider the plight of Israel. If our forces were not in close proximity to that country, what do you suspect would happen to them? The fact that they are allowed to have nuclear weapons means they will put up a good fight if they are attacked, but there is not much protecting them from an increasingly hostile Middle East.
The lessons we learned over the years taught us that it is easier to defend our own shores if we maintain a presence in those foreign countries. If we prevent destabilization of our “allies” they are more likely to actually be allies.
There are good reasons for America to have presence in all these far off foreign countries, both tactical and strategic. I’ve listened to the rationale from knowledgeable retired Army officers I respect so I don’t doubt that we need to keep our forces in place, the problem is that not everyone shares my concern about the intent of many of our supposed allies and clearly many of the countries that would benefit if we failed.
So is slashing Defense our best choice as we work to balance our budget? I’m concerned that many in our own country are prepared to find out the hard way.
Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Steve Dana Issues | Leave a Comment »