There is plenty of howling about the compromise that has come out of the latest maneuverings over our flat brokedness. Any deal must have some unpleasant bits as the Dems and Obama are still in control of two thirds of government, if not particularly in touch with reality. They refuse to recognize the simple fact that there are not enough rich people in America to fund the socialist paradise they have created and wish to continue. We have a chance to vote them out next year, but until then we must "deal" with them. So we come to the latest attempt to extend Uncle Sugar's maxed out credit. No it doesn't to much of anything about the real problems of Social Security and Medicare, I refer you back to the Dems and their two thirds of government for that glaring deficiency. But it does force some actual cuts, as opposed to the Reid fictional notions, and it doesn't just give Obama the free pass past the election next year he was sniveling about. The question is whether the Republicans allowed too much exposure for the defense budget to get this deal. It is easy to see how that idea got some traction, but I think it is less than meets the eye. Let's hear from Jen Rubin, the house conservative at the Wash Po and an econ guru, who kicks ass by the way. There are two defense-funding issues in this proposed framework. A GOP source on the House member conference tells me that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) just said that the speaker “did a great job of pushing back on defense. We were scared of the Reid firewall and this helps us dramatically protect defense.” Here is the outline on the defense cut issue from the House Republican perspective: FY 2012 and 2013 In the House-passed bill, defense funding would be a range of plus-or-minus three percent from last year’s level. In this new framework, the Democrats tried to insist on locking in Defense cuts — which Republicans consider irresponsible and strongly opposed. Instead, the emerging framework creates a ‘firewall’ that separates all security spending (security spending is not just DoD but also foreign aid and Homeland Security, for example) from non-security spending. This structure allows our members, led by House Armed Services Chairman Rogers and McKeon, to work with both parties to do the right thing and ensure that any cuts do not harm defense. While Democrats may continue to insist and try to cut defense, Republicans will fight on behalf of our Armed Forces and make sure our troops get the resources they need. “Sequestration” The second issue regarding defense is in the ‘trigger’ or ‘contingency.’ The point of the ‘backstop’ is that it isn’t supposed to be used. •Any savings from the Joint Committee would reduce the amount of the sequestration (dollar-for-dollar). •Even if the committee failed to produce a single dollar in savings, Defense would be on the hook for less than $500 billion over nine years, beginning in 2013. •FY 2012 would not be affected under any circumstances, •If this occurs - Congress, and the President (whether Obama or his successor), could replace the Defense reductions with other spending reductions. And, again, the point of the ‘backstop’ is that it never, ever happens. Yes there is exposure, but in the end there seem to be some significant safeguards. Remember that there are even a numbner of Republicans with the Ron Paul disease that causes them to ignore the effect that weakness in defense has to our overall health as a nation, so they needed to be kept on board. I am not a fan of much of anything cobbled together in this mosquito-infested, humid hellhole, but this is far from the worst deal that could have been made, and defense will not see any more damage under it than was in the mix anyhow.
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/hWamlINGfRo/the-debt-compromise-and-defense-spending.html
Posted
Jul 31 2011, 11:45 PM
by
BLACKFIVE