Tag Archives: defense spending

The Great GOP Unraveling

No sooner was John McCain faced with Jeb Bush’s challenge on immigration from his right, as Jeb did an about-face on his past support for a path to citizenship, when he had to pivot and face Rand Paul’s challenge on drone policy from his left, as Paul filibustered John Brennan’s CIA nomination because he feared Obama was about to launch drone strikes on Americans sitting in cafes in San Francisco.

Today, McCain called Paul a “wacko bird,” along with his pals Ted Cruz and Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan.

Now you can say that John McCain is 76 and on his way out, but remember that his little sidekick Lindsey “Butters” Graham is 57, and their new amiga, Kelly Ayotte, who replaced Joe Lieberman, is only 44.

This isn’t a John McCain problem, this is a GOP problem.

The libertarian wing of the Republican Party has now latched on to the Tea Party element, strengthening both.  Paul and Cruz are both Tea Party guys and libertarians.

The GOP has taken up the Tea Party cry to cut government spending, while trying to protect defense spending.  But the Tea Party/libertarian types don’t want to spare defense any more than they want to spare social programs.  They want to cut the whole damn thing, which makes it impossible for them to co-exist with the neo-cons.

Interestingly, neither McCain nor Paul reflects where the country is.  Since we’re war weary, we’re not with McCain that we should have stayed longer in Iraq and should stay in Afghanistan forever.  But since we’re war weary, we like the drones, which keep the terrorists at bay, while allowing our guys to go safely home at night to their families after they’ve taken out a bad guy.  And while Rand Paul isn’t as extreme on foreign policy as his dad Ron, his lack of concern about Iran’s going nuclear isn’t where the country is either.  So in Goldilocks terms, neither McCain nor Paul is just right for the country, one is too hard and the other is too soft.  If the country is sick of the neo-cons, they don’t want them replaced by neo-isolationists.

Adding to the mix — and the mess — you’ve got the primaries of 2014 and 2016.  Immigration and drones are two very different issues, but having gotten blindsided by Jebbie, Marco Rubio felt he had to support Paul on the filibuster to placate the Tea Party people he will need for a 2016 run.  Similarly, Mitch McConnell felt compelled to praise Paul because he fears a Tea Party primary in 2014.

Then there’s  the money.  The Koch Brothers are libertarians first and Republicans second.  Their financial support will redound to those who spout the libertarian line.  By contrast, Sheldon Adelson, who basically bought Newtie a campaign in 2012, has said that he doesn’t care about gay marriage or abortion, he just cares about Israel.  So his money will go to those who toe the neo-con line.

The GOP is trying to accommodate some very strange bedfellows — and it looks as if no one will get a good night’s sleep anytime soon.

Boehner’s Hearty “Bah, Humbug”

In a few hours the House will vote on the GOP’s Plan B, which would raise taxes only on those making more than $1 million a year.  Because, you know, those struggling folks making 7 or 8 or 9 hundred thousand dollars can’t possibly afford a penny more.

The GOP’s bill will also restore the cuts to defense spending that are part of the sequestration scheduled for January 1.

Now, you may be thinking, if they raise revenue by such a tiny amount and restore the defense spending, where are the deficit cuts the GOP is always promising?

Don’t worry, the GOP plan also cuts food stamps and Medicaid.

Nothing quite says “Happy Birthday, Jesus!” like snatching bread and medicine from the mouths of the poor.

If Obama Wins, the Calendar Breaks the Deadlock

If Obama wins, it will be a whole new ballgame with the GOP and their obstructionism, not because they will see the light, but because they will see the calendar.  Those who wonder what will light a fire under the House GOP if he’s re-elected need to recognize the greatly-increased power and bargaining position he will have.

From “November 7th, Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine:

“Obama does have a plan to break the legislative impasse and settle the long-term struggle over the scope of government.

“[O]n January 1, 2013, we will all awake to a different, substantially more liberal country.  The Bush tax cuts will have disappeared, restoring Clinton-era tax rates and flooding government coffers with revenue to fund its current operations for years to come.  The military will be facing dire budget cuts that shake the military-industrial complex to its core.

“At that point [Obama] will reside in a political world he finds at most mildly uncomfortable and the Republicans consider a hellish dystopia.  Then he’ll be ready to make a deal.

“Administration officials no longer say that they can cajole Republicans into agreeing to raise tax revenue through negotiation.  Instead, they understand something important…. They no longer have to.

“What really lured Republicans into a trap was the timing of the arrangement.  The beginning of 2013, when the automatic spending cuts take effect, coincides with the expiration of every penny of the Bush tax cuts.  And so, by postponing the fiscal reckoning, Republicans inadvertently scheduled it for the very moment when Obama (should he win reelection) will hold his maximum leverage.  Last summer, Obama was pleading with Boehner to give him $800 billion in additional revenue.  Come January, he’ll have $5 trillion in higher revenue without doing anything.”  Emphasis added.

Happy New Year, GOP!

 

 

The Weapon of “Weaponized Keynesianism”

From “Obstruct and Exploit,” Paul Krugman, NYT:

“Anyway, do Republicans really believe that government spending is bad for the economy?  No.

“Right now, Mitt Romney has an advertising blitz under way in which he attacks Mr. Obama for possible cuts in defense spending — cuts, by the way, that were mandated by an agreement forced on the president by House Republicans [that would be you, Paul Ryan] last year.  And why is Mr. Romney denouncing these cuts?  Because, he says, they would cost jobs!

“This is classic ‘weaponized Keynesianism’ — the claim that government spending can’t create jobs unless the money goes to defense contractors, in which case it’s the lifeblood of the economy.  And no, it doesn’t make any sense.”

The Ryan Budget as Political Theater

From “Call That a Budget?,” James Surowiecki, The New Yorker:

“The C.B.O. analysis of Ryan’s plan, for instance, finds that, by 2050, all the government’s discretionary spending, including defense, would represent just 3.75 per cent of G.D.P.  Given that defense spending in the postwar era has never been less than three per cent of G.D.P., and that Republicans won’t consider cutting it, the rest of the government’s discretionary sending would have to be squeezed out of that remaining 0.75 per cent.  This is a derisory number — in the entire postwar era, it has never been less than eight per cent.

“It’s true, of course, that this budget will never become reality….  The budget is, as many have said, an act of political theater. … In that sense, the Ryan plan is not about fiscal responsibility.  It’s about pushing a very particular, and very ideological, view of the proper relationship between government and society.  The U. S. does need to get its finances in order.  It just doesn’t need to repeal the twentieth century to do so.”  Italics in original; emphasis added.

Mitt Romney on Defense Policy — Ignorance or Dishonesty?

The Republicans are always bellyaching that Democrat plans to cut domestic spending are never real cuts, they are just cuts in the rate of growth.

Now comes Mitt “I’m Also Unemployed” Romney, in his foreign and defense policy speech in South Carolina yesterday, declaiming that “As President, on day one, … I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts.”

Except that there haven’t been any defense cuts, massive or otherwise.  There have been reductions in the rate of growth in defense spending, which you would expect as we wind down two wars.  And any Republican will tell you that reductions in growth rates aren’t cuts.

Also, Mitt said he would put pressure on Iran by sending an aircraft carrier task force to the Persian Gulf.  Great idea, Mitt, except that we already have one there.

Mitt is either ignorant or dishonest.  Either way, he shouldn’t be commander in chief.