Defense Cuts and the 9/11 Connection.

Since I like analogies, let’s start off with an analogy.

Let's say you're in a boxing match.

Your opponent is 5'6'', 135 lbs.
Soaking wet.

You're 6'2'', 210.

He catches you with a mean right hook.
He knocks you out, and you awake to blood and broken teeth in your mouth.

You know you should have been able to handle him.
You go home embarrassed, bewildered, and holding onto your jaw, saying to yourself, "I don't care how much it costs, next time I'll be ready for him."

You pull out all the stops, hiring a new trainer, buying top of the line equipment, fancy nutrition supplements, etc...money is no object.

Prior to meeting him again in the ring, you hear something that shocks you: your opponent wasn't so formidable after all. Prior to your fight, he apparently slipped a horseshoe into his boxing glove.

Did you overreact?
Had you known this beforehand, would you still be justified in your response to the knockout?
Was it measured and rational?

Here's a fact: defense spending has tripled since 1997.
The majority of that following the September 11th attacks.
You can pretty much correlate the upswing in defense spending with those events taking place.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Is the world three times as dangerous today than it was on September 10th, 2001?
Are there three times as many enemies out there?

The answer to these questions is no.

In the past 10 years, there has been one "successful" attack (which doesn't even count, as it never would have taken place without outside forces guiding events), and several failed, smaller attempts to cause harm. Even these events may have been prevented.

The State Department helped the Underwear Bomber onto the plane. There were prior warnings to the Fort Hood shooting.

As for the Times Square Bomber, he went all the way to Pakistan just to learn how to make bombs that had no chance of exploding. In other words, when thinking of many of these militants, think more "bumbling and incompetent", less "spooky" or "blowing up skyscrapers."

There's a greater point I'm trying to get at here.

Had none of this happened, would you have...

-supported tens of thousands of troops entering Afghanistan?
-supported invading Iraq and removing an Iranian regional counterbalance?
-supported warrantless domestic wiretapping and spying?
-supported HUGE increases in defense spending?
-enlisted or even died in the armed forces?

There are countless consequences to the September 11th attacks that could be plugged in here.
Each one deserving of that scrutiny; needing to pass that test.
Because if we're not basing our decisions on real facts and happenings, what on Earth are we basing them on?

We need to realize we've been suckerpunched.
We need to re-assess the opponent and the situation.

Listen, I'm not denying that there are people out there who would like to see you dead.
Yes, there are Radical Islamists out there.

Really need to go in and "get somebody"?
Let Mr. Petraeus and the CIA along with our elite armed forces take care of that stuff.
But hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground?
Americans have neither the stomachs nor wallets to handle it.

Zbigniew Brzezinski once equated American defense spending with "economic self-denial."
Do I agree with this sentiment?
To a certain degree.

Sure, we need to defend ourselves, and I love the fact that we have the fanciest toys. Investing in our military is vital to national security.

But at what point do military expenditures become excessive? When does it take up too much of the pie? When could the money be better spent elsewhere?

The 9/11 connection is relevant.
It’s a subject I had put away for a while, only to pull it back out because of how relevant it was to the situation we find ourselves in today.
The present only makes sense when the past is put into proper context.

You're trying to tell me there's not room to make ANY cuts in defense at all?
Defense cuts belong on the table (Some decent ideas in here...not all of them, but whatever).
Starting with these phony wars that over 6,000 people have died for.

Compromise.

There's compromise in the capitol.

The leadership of both parties have reached a consensus with the President in the debt ceiling standoff. The signing process came to a close Tuesday afternoon.

What did the two parties walk away with?


Democrats-
1) The debt ceiling increases will cover U.S. spending through 2012, which prevents it from becoming a 2012 election issue.
2) Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are off the table.


Republicans-
1) Cuts...and cuts larger than the debt ceiling increase, at that.
2) No new revenues.


Let's go a little further in-depth as to how this deal will work out.

First, the debt ceiling would be raised by nearly $1 trillion, accompanied by spending cuts.
Then, a congressional "supercommittee" of twelve, containing 3 members of each party from each house of Congress, would be assembled, with the goal of recommending another $1.8 trillion in deficit cuts by the end of November.

If this supercommittee fails to yield results, Congress would then have to vote on a constitutional balanced budget amendment.

If that amendment fails, then an automatic $1.2 trillion in triggered cuts would kick in, affecting both the Pentagon and domestic discretionary spending like Medicare equally.

The thought of cutting defense at all makes many Republicans cry.
Democrats tear up at the thought of cuts to Medicare.
I guess that's a strong incentive for this supercommittee to do some actual work and identify cuts as needed.

Another point worth mentioning is that many of the cuts are backloaded, taking place toward the end of the 10-year window in discussion. Just to show you, not even $30 billion was hacked off of the first year of these projections.

The far left and far right wings are both dissatisfied with the deal, and for different reasons.

The left because they feel like they got rolled by the Tea Party. There was no clear increase in the government's capacity to borrow as they wanted.
The right because they don't feel there were enough cuts, and entitlement reform was left out of the equation. Some also voted against the bill because they refused to increase the debt ceiling without a balanced budget amendment. Period.

What's my opinion on the whole thing?
Am I happy with the deal?

Entitlement reform kind of got kicked down the road, so I'm a bit annoyed by that.
But the conversation has been brought in the right direction.
Borrowing $0.42 out of every dollar that we spend is not sustainable.
Some cuts are going to be necessary.
Most people would agree with that.


Not Paul Krugman.
I almost spit out my drink when I heard him say that we should not be making any cuts AT ALL.
Really?

He didn't say, "Indiscriminate cuts may harm the economy."

My mind is officially blown.
Liberal academia screams one thing and S&P screams almost the total opposite.

Even with these cuts, the US may still lose its sterling AAA bond rating anyway.
And only in Washington can they talk about $2 trillion in cuts while failing to mention that it is all in the context of a budget baseline that is assumed to increase by 8% or 9% every year.
Think about that.

Before I close, I'd just like to go back to the balanced budget amendment.
Some argue against it and consider it unwise to place such restrictions on our government.

If fiscal conservatives can't gather enough support for a BBA, consider tweaking with it a bit in order to get the necessary support.

For example, instead of mandating a balanced budget every year, mandate that deficit spending isn't allowed to go over by more than a given percentage of the budget each year. That allows for some flexibility, but would put some kind of restrictions on how and how much our government spends, and would certainly help to put a cap on runaway spending.

Hey, a watered-down version of what you seek would work better than trusting politicians to keep our books in the black. At least I think so.

Raising the debt ceiling needed to be done, but Washington still has a lot of work to do.