Getty Images
McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are pointing fingers in the wrong direction.
Republican concerns about the looming, automatic defense cuts are reaching a near-panic. Some high-profile GOP senators are now taking their message on the road, in the hopes that public pressure will change the direction of the discussion.
Three Republican senators vocal on national security concerns plan to hit the road next week to warn voters in four key swing states about how automatic spending cuts at the Pentagon could harm their communities.
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) plan to visit companies, universities and research centers in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire that could bear the brunt of deep defense spending reduction set to take effect next year.
All three serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee and speak regularly about the danger of the spending cuts that Congress and the White House agreed to last year as part of a deficit-reduction plan. Unless lawmakers approve alternative reductions before January, the government will be forced to slash $110 billion in spending next year, evenly divided between the military and non-defense programs.
At issue, of course, is the so-called "sequester," which many believe would cut Pentagon funding too much, too quickly. That's no doubt the message that McCain, Graham, and Ayotte intend to take on the road.
Indeed, the three apparently hope town-hall discussions in swing states -- Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and New Hampshire -- should help persuade the public how right they are.
But for crying out loud, can the political world please try to remember that these defense cuts were a Republican idea -- and that McCain, Graham, and Ayotte all voted for the same plan they're now condemning?
To his credit, Dana Milbank hasn't forgotten the recent history.
If the defense cuts are Obama's, they are also John Boehner's, Eric Cantor's, Mitch McConnell's and Jon Kyl's. The bill passed with the votes of a majority of House and Senate Republicans.... [The GOP] continues to choose tax cuts over defense spending.
The automatic defense cuts came about largely because Republicans on the supercommittee refused any tax increase. By coincidence, the choice between tax cuts and defense spending came to the Senate floor again on Wednesday -- and Republicans again chose the cuts.
As we've discussed, as part of last year's debt-ceiling deal, policymakers accepted over $1 trillion in cuts that would be implemented if the so-called super-committee failed. Democrats weren't completely willing to roll over -- they wanted to create an incentive for Republicans to work in good faith.
Republicans agreed: if the committee failed, the GOP would accept defense cuts and Dems would accept non-defense domestic cuts. The committee, of course, flopped when GOP members refused to compromise, which put us on the clock for the automatic reductions that Republicans contributed to the very process they insisted upon.
If McCain, Graham, and Ayotte are headed to swing states to complain about this, is it too much to ask that someone inquire as to why their party pushed for this policy in the first place?
Leave a Comment:
the final question presupposes the ability to think. that's a little much to ask of an electorate that put these clowns in power. a considerable portion of the voters simply aren't going to get it until they feel the pressure of the vice on their personal gonads.
I really do not expect anyone to believe me, but as a life long reader of military history I believe that--
The USA has no enemy that we need this size of bloated military to fight. The Army is geared too much toward so called "heavy" (meaning armored) Divisions and not enough toward "boots on the ground". The Navy is too big. The Air Force I'm not sure.
So some cuts would be a good thing, but only if they are made in the right places.
LBS,
I believe you. We could cut the defense budget in half and not lose any DEFENSIVE capacity.
If our military was smaller perhaps we would think twice before we fought two wars simultaneously. Maybe we would only fight the ones that we had a reason to fight.
When they go on the road watch how they keep talking about all the jobs that the government spending cut back will do. They will actually be telling the truth.
We should take the military cut backs and invest it in infrastructure. I mean what has a better return on investment nation building at home or nation destroying abroad?
Absolutely....let's do it. Let's start with every home gets solar power, put the vets to work on the infrastructure, rev up the high speed trains, revitalize the public schools with safe buildings, cutting edge technology and teachers of the highest quality.
Sort of like Newt and his "What I said last night is not true today and should not be believed" bit during the primary season.
Looks like the Republican's have their message: "I lied to you before, but you can trust me now."
Back when they were "for it" they saw it as a political ploy.
Now, with re-election looming, they realize that many of their CONSTITUENTS work in defense plants.
Yes - and this just points out that their concern is not that "defense cuts will make the US weaker" - it is that the contractors will lose out.
So it is partly concern about the jobs for the workers, but the $$$ that the contractors (who are contributors to their campaign? - just asking) will lose.
It was a very smart ploy. Try running in northern Va against defense. Meanwhile, domestic cuts go into effect
Yes Tom,
It was so smart that the GOP is desperate to stop the defense cuts that they negotiated for, go into effect.
Very smart indeed.
The Republicans whine a lot about "personal responsibility", yet here they are acting as if the Dems are imposing something that the Reps actually set up themselves. As if they bear no responsibility for the fact that the sequesters are a result of their negotiations (or lack thereof) on the debt limit increase? What did they think was going to happen? That they were going to be able to convince the Dems to give in to their demands before the sequesters kicked in? I don't see how anyone can expect a good result when there is such a lack of integrity in the process. Faulty processes tend to produce faulty results.
ARG. I just read Drift and it just boggles my mind how politicians don't seem to actually care about the military even when they say they do. You know who I don't hear complaining about the proposed cuts to the military budget? Actual active servicemembers.
Why do you waste your time reading such dribble? Maddow rants in her book as she does on her show.
Why do you waste your time reading such dribble? Maddow rants in her book as she does on her show.
@tom:
I guess you missed the chapter on our aging nuclear arsenal!
Usually the military is honest about what they need and don't need in their budgets. It's Congress that shoves the crap into the military budget. Rather than make sure that our military has the necessary armor and gear for a conflict, Congress would rather pour money into stuff that doesn't work (like the Sgt. York etc.,) just to keep their campaign coffers full from those military contractors.
@Tom Re: #4.1
From the New York Times Book Review: {emphasis added} Both paragraphs are quoted from NYT article
Fox News fans will be taken aback to find a blurb from none other than Roger Ailes, that conservative channel's creator, declaring that "Drift" offers "valid arguments" and is "a book worth reading."
If the book lures readers briefly from their political silos, it will be because Maddow's thesis crosses ideological lines. Like the Tea Partiers, she believes that the United States must return to the lost principles of the nation's founders — in this case a suspicion of standing armies and a deep reluctance to go to war. "America's structural disinclination toward war is not a sign that something's gone wrong," she declares. "It's the way the founders set us up."
Does that mean you read it, Tom? Cuz I'm sure you would never be just talking out of your a$$ (sarcasm soooooo ON)
They were for these cuts, before they were against them.
Waaaa, wa, wa, waaaaa! Sorry I just had to get that out! In this alternate world that we live in, it's always amazing that the GOTP never seem to be called out on policies that they once supported, and NOW decide that they want to take their balls and go home!
The nerve! Why is it that we as a society expect children to "act like adults" when the "adults" in positions of "leadership" are clearly acting like 2 & 3 year olds?!
Typical Republican attitude: things don't go their way, they bail out and leave. Yet if it was social spending on the table, they would have agreed to it and made sure that Democrats stuck to their ideals.
The agreement was made by both sides: no solution, we all go under. Why is that so hard for them to grasp?
Am I remembering wrong, or did the military leaders once say that they didn't need all of the money the Repubs thought they needed? Has anyone asked the Pentagon?
they agreed to the cuts....remember Orange Julius said he got 98% of what he wanted?
this is part of that 98%
The U.S. is responsible for 42.8% of the world's total military budget. There is a common sense solution to the military bloat that actually increases military efficiency on the "Why Do We Have The Most Powerful Military Budget In The World (No, Seriously. Why?) post on the "Grumbles From an Old Grouch" blog. (grumblesfromanoldgrouch.com)