Associated Press
At the Republican National Convention last night, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued, "We can't afford another $500 billion in cuts to our defense budget -- on top of the nearly $500 billion in cuts that the president is already making."
A few hours earlier, Mitt Romney spoke to the American Legion, and made a similar case.
"We are now just months away from an arbitrary, across-the-board budget reduction that would weaken the military with a trillion dollars in cuts, severely shrink our force structure, and impair our ability to meet and deter threats. President Obama's own Secretary of Defense has warned that these reductions would be 'devastating.' And he is right.
"The devastation will be felt here at home, where up to 1.5 million jobs could be lost. GDP growth could fall significantly. These cuts will place further stress on an already stretched VA system, and impair our solemn commitment that every veteran receives care second to none. [...]
"The Obama administration is set to cut defense spending by nearly a trillion dollars. My administration will not."
There's one glaring problem with this entire line of attack: Republicans are blaming the president for the Republicans' policy.
Indeed, the cuts John McCain was whining about on the convention floor? They were approved by Congress with the support of John McCain. Paul Ryan, who's also trying to blame Obama for the cuts, voted for these cuts, too.
The entire line of attack is comparable to Obama coming up with an idea, then denouncing it, then blaming Republicans for it.
We've been over this, but apparently, some of the GOP's most prominent voices are slow learners.
As part of last year's debt-ceiling deal, policymakers accepted over $1 trillion in cuts that would be implemented if the so-called supercommittee 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.
So why blame Obama? He's not the one who came up with the debt-ceiling crisis; he's not the one who recommended the defense cuts; and he's not the one who refused to compromise during the supercommittee talks.
Indeed, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) recently conceded, "What was our Republican leadership thinking when they agreed to the concept of sequestration?"
If Romney wants to propose a competing solution, that's fine, and I'd love to hear it. But in the meantime, he's condemning a policy crafted in large part by his own running mate.
Leave a Comment:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Run for your lives! The Russians are coming! The Chinese are coming! The terrorists are coming! Be afraid and we will protect you!
LOL. You forgot "Duck and Cover"
Maybe it's me but somehow isn't that a fear based extortion? I mean after keeping US afraid, you know it's going to be the 95% of US that pays for the new wars they want to start!
"Gas!!Gas!!Gas!!"
Republicans have been using the defense budget and fear for many election cycles. And those tactics have worked in the past. This is a "throw it against wall and see if it sticks" issue that Republicans will use to bring out their base and see if they can move the needle with undecided voters in the polls. I suspect that it will not work as an issue with the undecided voters because they are more sophisticated than the base and they are not moved by fear. These voters know that there is some waste in the defense department and can withstand some cuts, particularly since we are out of Iraq and withdrawing from Afghanistan. Only the rubes will buy the argument that these cuts jeopardize our security.
Happy Birthday to Jhon McCain, TIME TO RETIRE TO A NURSING HOME!!! HE IS A SENILE OLD MAN THAT THINKS WE ARE STILL IN THE CRUSADES!!!
We MUST cut the stupid military budget, if we are to survive. It's OK to keep the Army going, according to the GOP, but women should NOT be allowed to have birth control. Any other time that would sound like a JOKE, HOWEVER, IT IS THE SORRY TRUTH NOW WITH THE LUNATICS OF THE GOP.
"Wet-start Johnny," responsible for the deaths of 177 of his fellow sailors aboard the USS Forrestal, and the removal of that ship from service at the height of the war due to damage that his "joke" created, is the perfect Republican spokesman to defend Versailles-on-the-Potomac. The only reason he got past Lieutenant Commander was he was dumb enough to turn around and fly low and slow over the target he had just bombed, thus becoming a POW and put onto the automatic-promotion list. Just a perfect example of the Republican Military Mind at work.
McCain as a POW was tortured horribly but was a victim and not a hero. He nonetheless milked this into more government paychecks.
He also would be the first to carp about supporting the Syrian rebels the first time one of them knelt on a prayer rug with a camera crew around. He complains of leading from behind even in the face of the evident success without entanglement or casualties in Libya. He is a cranky guy 24/7.
I know Mc Lame totaled 5 planes during his career. His responsibility for the USS Forrestal deaths of the 177 is not something I've heard (do you have a link). My brother in law was on the Forrestal at the time and he's said nothing about it. He thought McLame was an arrogant ass so he wouldn't be reluctant to talk about it.
So, government spending does work after all! McCain claims defense cuts cause job loss in that industry. What does he think cuts in transportation or education cost in jobs or does that still create jobs?
The dirty little secret the Republicans will not admit to is that the ACA (Obamacare) creates more covered individuals and thereby likely more jobs in healthcare which is a labor intensive endeavor. Dems should make some noise about this.
Spending does equal jobs as somebody has to do what the spending is for.
Of course cutting the defense budget will cost jobs; an estimated 50,000 in Arizona alone because much of the state's economy depends upon defense contracts. And that's what it's all about. It has nothing to do with leaving the nation 'unprotected'. I was surprised the Republicans voted for this, but then I guess that's typical of their inability to see beyond 5 p.m. today.
Seems like the money could best be spent in infrastructure building and repair, but we seem to think that's unimportant. Meanwhile we'll keep stockpiling missiles and building aircraft that really aren't needed, because we're so trapped into the military industrial complex Ike warned us of when he left office.
We used to be number one in space, technology, and all kinds of research areas. That's no longer true. Is there anything we're number one in anymore? I mean other than military spending and highest number of citizens imprisoned?
We're still number one in healthcare spending too! And are doomed to remain so once ALL of us, including retirees, have to go to the private market for health insurance as we would under R/R's plan!
That 1.5 million job loss could be largely curtailed with some surgical
cuts of the outrageously expensive weapons systems that are pushed by
the MIC. Systems that the even the military doesn't want. Our military is
already head, shoulders and belly button above any potential enemy
(real or imagined) and is bloated with the public moneys. We could
cut the military budget by 50% and still be able to kick any
adversary's ass. The only losers will be the weapon manufacturers.
The domestic cuts could be largely in the subsidies given to corporations
already making off the chart profits as well as the multitude of tax
dodges available to them.
...some of the GOP's most prominent voices are slow learners.
Bullsh!t, Benen. They are not slow learners. They have learned all too well that the only avenue to repuke power is lying and they will not get called on it by the corporately owned media.
No, while your point is valid, they're still slow learners. They need to read more.
And while we are at it, if vouchers are such a good deal, why not convert the pentagon to them!
Why would the American people trust their elected lawmakers, living on the taxpayers dime, seriously when they insist that spending cuts and austerity are the only answer when they have run up a tab of trillions on wars, military largess, tax cuts and subsidies to special interests? Deficit reduction is important, and it can be achieved in a more sustainable fashion by cutting a bloated and totally unnecessary military budget, ending tax cuts for the rich, closing loopholes that let massively profitable corporations pay zero taxes, etc., etc... - principled progressive
To the GOP it is 'boots on the ground', not men and women, sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, bleeding, wounded and dying for adventure capitalists and big oil. When we need to defend ourselves and our allies, we will but not again for the lies of the hawks and neocons.
Consistency, honesty, loyalty to America; a Republican craves not these things.
I find it very troubling when a candidate can lie so easily to the American public as Ryan did last night at the RNC Convention. In fact, every single speaker lied to some extent. Huckabee is the one that really surprises me, as he claims to be so "religious" and yet lying is not in the "plus" column in the bible. Paul Ryan, seems to comfortable stating mis-truths and distorting facts. He is not fit for any government position and definately not in the VP spot... He reminds me a bit of the "Eddie Haskell" character from the series "Leave It To Beaver." We cannot have Romney/Ryan in our highest office. They are "unfit" to lead this country, period! As for McCain, you would think that he would know better than to "beat the war drum" due to his being a POW during Viet Nam war... I have no respect for anyone in the GOP anymore. None!!! We are losing men/women still in Afghanistan at this time, why on Earth would they be speaking of getting embroiled in even more countries before, exhausting all other options? I would never, ever suggest anyone to sign up in the military at this time with the fear that Romney/Ryan just might pull out a win. Not based on truths but on lie's and the Republicans efforts to thwart Democratic votes. So easy for old men, and those who never donned a military uniform, to speak of war. Knowing that they, and theirs, will never have to put their lives on the line for this country... I find the tactics of the GOP this election and in 2010, obscene!
Once again, for the slow learners:
$500 billion over 10 years = $50 billion per year.
Cost of the Afghanistan war: ~$40 billion per year, ending in 2014. Result: Actual Pentagon base budget cut: $180 billion.
Forecast base budget growth: 8% per year. Subtracting the $18 billion per year. Result: based budget GROWTH: 3% per year.
This is only spending "cut" in the sense that an alcoholic "cuts back" on beer consumption from 24 a day to 12. Better? Maybe, but only the "end of the world" to the alcoholic.
good analogy
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
How many wars are we currently in/supporting?
The fact is that the GOP keep sending out John McCain to talk about war because he is the only Senator that actually has been in a war - so he gets the sympathy/hero vote!
I don't see any of Mittens children signing up - course they don't want to loose their trust funds?
Funny it's always cowardly bullies that want to send other peoples children out to fight?
I think if the GOP want to send Americans to fight in more wars, then they ought to be willing to send their own children first!
Don't forget Senators Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Jim Webb (D-VA), and John Kerry (D-MA).
They don't count their democrats....
Oh, that's right.
Deep down, those three really hate America.
Senator Daniel Inouye hate America so much he gave his arm for it in WWII
It's not that the GOP are slow learners. It's that their sequestration gambit didn't work out for them, so now they have to lie about whose idea it was.
It's not that they are bad at math. It's that the math does not support their position. So they fudge the math.
It's not that they believe there is rampant voter fraud. They just don't want progressives to vote. So they pass voter ID laws.
This all makes perfect sense when you realize that what they want is the power to run the country, not to actually make the country better. (Well, better for themselves and their contributors, yes).
The more I read at this blog, the more I think we need a repository of refutations for these claims which get debunked over and over again.
It's important to refute these claims as they come up, but it would be great to just have a clean page of Republican talking/platform points, where you could immediately drill down to see the refutation. It would be really great to have a counter or perhaps a listing with date time stamps of each time the lie has resurfaced.
We know we're going to see these claims repeatedly. It's really more a service to the public (and perhaps colleagues?) so they can access the debunking quickly and easily. It's also...
I was listening to an old clip of Molly Ivins last night. She was talking about negative attack ads and how they definitely worked, but they also discouraged voting because by the election, voters don't like either side. She said she thought that politicians forget that we can appeal to the good in people and that that can be effective as well.
One annoying thing about the lying is it turns into a distraction. Republican trots out old lie. Now time has to be spent debunking, which needs to happen; however it also means people have less energy to get to perhaps more subtle, but insightful news. Maybe there is no other news to report. On the other hand, perhaps this constant repetition of lies is another way to get people to stop paying attention to the news, because it turns into same old, same old.
And then... well it's more a wish list item. Surely there is some way to clearly debunk this deception so that people just stop furthering it. Although, look at birtherism... so there will always be die-hards. But perhaps if politicians knew that every time they give the lie to the media, the media would call them on it in the same report. Perhaps politicians would start dropping it from their repertoire and find a new routine or journalists could spend more time identifying other compelling stories.
What if the major media outlets could tell candidates in a non-partisan way: ok, we've heard this particular issue n number of times and it's been thoroughly debunked. From now on, every time you bring it up, we'll report your event; however we'll debunk that issue at the same time.
Or perhaps that comes off as too threatening...