As the congressional supercommittee limps toward its Nov. 23 deadline, Democrats who have intensely resisted any significant budget cuts may get the squeeze, particularly if the Republicans change the rules in the middle of the game.
According to the National Journal, if the supercommittee fails to come up with a way to cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit, Republicans are planning to reverse or mitigate the cuts to national security spending that would be required by the “sequester” mechanism.
And enough Democrats, to save face and prove that their not soft on defense, might have to go along.
And enough Democrats, to save face and prove that their not soft on defense, might have to go along.
The sequestration would require that about half the cuts come from discretionary spending and the rest – $650 billion over 10 years – would be carved out of the Pentagon budget. Defense Department Director Leon Panetta has loudly warned that such a cut would be devastating to the U.S. military.
But as two wars are winding down and deficit/debt reduction is an overriding issue heading into 2012, the question becomes, is it politically acceptable today to vote for defense cuts?
Marc Ambinder of the National Journal answers that question this way:
“The case for ‘yes’ posits that, with the drawdown of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the intense fervor for debt reduction, voters won’t hold a vote to cut defense spending against their member of Congress. It also means voters don’t automatically associate Republicans with national-security strength anymore. (After all, the defense-cut sequester — a 10 percent reduction — was supposed to be their incentive to come to a deal in the joint committee.). Plenty of tea party members are on the record as supporting defense cuts, too.
“The case for ‘no’ sees defense cuts as politically suicidal, particularly for the large number of Senate Democrats who are up for re-election. It’s certainly true that a number of prominent congressional Democrats don’t want to cut $650 billion over 10 years.
“So let’s assume the committee fails and sequestration kicks in. Democrats will face a war with Republicans over the 8 percent cut to nondefense discretionary spending. Republicans, led by Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, have already said they’ll fight to restore defense spending. Assuming a budget comes out of the House without the defense sequester — a budget that would still require a $1.2 trillion chop because of the Budget Control Act’s requirements — it faces uncertain sledding in the Senate.
“But it’s possible that enough Democrats can be cowed into voting for it, lest they get tagged with being anti-defense. President Obama would almost certainly veto this legislation. And then the House and the Senate would have to overturn his veto. …Getting to a two-thirds vote in the Senate will be nearly impossible.”
It would be interesting to see the difference between the pre Iraq and Afghanistan Defense budget and today's. Do we have to retain a defense budget that can support two foreign wars half way around the world, even if we are at peace? It's clear the war on terror must be fought with increased intelligence not with a conventional war machine.
Soft on Defense? Rightly or wrongly, we have rebuilt two foreign countries over the last decade. It's time to rebuild America, which is crumbling from within, or there will be nothing left to defend.