Republicans who feign attacks of the vapors and fainting spells over the big, scary deficit would be more convincing if they didn't begin with the insane premise that defense spending should be sacrosanct. The House leadership in the past few days has begun to signal retreat from this indefensible position, but it's unclear how much of the hyper-conservative GOP majority will follow.. . .The Republican "Pledge to America" promised to cut "at least $100 billion in the first year alone," notwithstanding "exceptions for seniors, veterans and our troops." This was never a serious proposal, given that defense, plus entitlements and other mandatory spending, consume about four-fifths of the budget. But it was a nice round number that sounded good.. . .Do Americans really want the effectiveness of, say, food safety inspection to be eroded by 30 percent? What about air traffic control? I didn't think so.
Robinson also reminds us that the Republicans political budget play would cut "funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Energy Star program, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" while continuing to waste $13 billion for a landing craft that Secretary of Defense Bob Gates wants to cut because "we are no longer fighting World War II."
I agree with Robinson. There are plenty of wasteful defense contracts that should be among the first things we cut because they don't exist to keep our troops safe. Some things, like the FDA or the FAA or (I'll say it...) USAID are just as important as building military equipment that doesn't work or fit in with how our military operates in this millennium.
No comments:
Post a Comment