Bruce Bartlett Vs. The Neocons

Reaganite Bruce Bartlett took on AEI, Heritage and Bill Kristol in The Fiscal Times over their attempts to make the defense budget totally off-limits to budget cutters. His piece followed an extensive analysis in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus, who showed that 53% of all federal employees work for the Defense Department and that medical bills for veterans and their pensions will quickly eat up the defense budget if nothing is done. Pincus pointed out that even Bob Gates' modest efforts to trim military spending have been met with tough resistance on the Hill. AEI "scholars" attacked teabaggers this past week as showing some signs of isolationism in their willingess to talk about defense cuts.

Barlett points out that establishment conservatives are notorious for demanding cuts in government expenditures but are simply not serious when it comes to tackling the serious causes of our national debt. The three defenders of defense claim that the military is not the "true source of our fiscal woes". Barlett points out that the additional rise from being 3% of the GDP to currently 4.7% means an additional $250 billion a year--or almost 20% of this year's annual deficit. According to the CBO, the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along accounted for 23% of the combined budget deficits between FY 2003 and FY2010.

Brooks, Feulner and Kristol claim that "terrorism and piracy in sea lanes", potential future threats from a "nuclear Iran" or a China "that can deny access to U.S. ships or aircraft in the Asian-Pacific region" justify a defense budget only slightly smaller as a share of GDP than at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviets had thousands of nuclear missiles aimed directedly at the United States. Remember, we are not talking here about the remaining parts of the terrorism/ intelligence budget, which makes defense and this component add up to $1.2 trillion.

Barlett quotes academics who laughed off the triumvirate's reasoning. Daniel Drezner at Tufts said that China posing a serious military threat is a generation away. AU defense expert Gordon Adams said that China's economic pursuits (enabled by the American Chamber of Commerce) pose a much more significant problem for the U.S. than their military pursuits. Adams slaps down little Billy Kristol by saying "anyone who thinks terrorists and pirates justify a $700 billion defense budget and a 2-million-person force has clearly drunk too much Kool-Aid." Smack!

Barlett points out that the U.S. defense budget is 54% of world military spending. We spend more than the entire earth combined. All our of NATO allies spend less than half we spend as a share of GDP. This week Rick Santorum in Iowa truned this upside down on its head by saying that the Healthreform bill will cost so much (false) that it will cut our defense budget just like in Europe! Bartlett points out that Republican members on the Catfood or Deficit Commission have detailed areas in national defense spending that need to be cut, including the whole array of overseas bases. While Secretary gates has found $100 billion in cuts over five years, the CBO made it clear that deep cuts are impossible without scaling back our defense commitments.

Barlett says that we will see this year that many conservatives will scream bloody murder that our national secruity is being fatally undermined. It should be pointed out that a bipartisan commission composed of neo-cons in both parties has been examining this for Congress and coming to the same conclusions as the deficit hawks. As Bartlett reminds us that excessive national debt also undermines national security and this has been reinforced by statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Barlett wrotes,"The only real alternative to deep defense cuts would be to strengthen our nation's revenue-raising capacity." As he wrote in Forbes last year, the Republicans put the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan on the national credit card and the only people who sacrificed were our armed forces and their families.

Barlett says that the Republicans have been able to delude voters and themselves that the budget can be balanced without higher taxes and by cutting only domestic discretionary programs. So far, President Obama has put a three-year freeze on discretionary spending. Barlett says that when reality sets in, Brooks, Feulner and Kristol will have to decide what is more important to them: opposing all tax increases or prserving the defense budget.

Barlett concludes by saying then we will find out if they genuinely care about national security or are thwy what Thomas Paine called "summer soldiers and sunshine patriots." Or what society calls "Chicken Hawks".