McKeon desperately fights defense cuts

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

He invokes 9/11 nearly 10 years to the day after it occurred and mourns cuts to the Defense Department, comparing our forces in 2011 with what we had at the end of the Cold War:

An embedded YouTube video appeared here in the original post. View the original — embeds are preserved as links in this archive.

All this ahead of the new Super Committee, which is tasked with reducing our deficit spending by $1.5 trillion. If the committee can’t reach an agreement, automatic cuts to social programs and defense will result. McKeon said his message to the committee is to “Leave us alone.”

It’s obvious McKeon cares deeply about defense spending. I believe he’s earnest when he says it’s the most important priority Congress should have, and he’s earnest when he says our military isn’t as potent as it used to be. And maybe the majority of Americans agree with him.

The question then is a matter of values. What does McKeon value more- defense spending or say, low taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year? If F-22s, B-2 bombers, new aircraft carriers, an extra jet engine for the F-35 and such are necessary to fight Muslamic extremists hiding in caves, then we should all pay for it in some way, right? Because currently we’re not; we’re deficit spending on both social programs and the military.

If push comes to shove, as it might soon, maybe we’ll get to see what McKeon values more: low taxes or increased defense spending, because I don’t think we can have both forever.

Comments (8)

Kevin D. KorenthalSeptember 9, 2011 at 11:00 am

The defense of the nation, unlike many of the things that government pays for today is proscribed in the Constitution. If there is any cutting that needs to be done (and I think we all agree that cutting is necessarily) then it should be to the unsustainable welfare system. Specifically, Social Security and Medicare need to be overhauled in order to prevent the bleeding losses and fraud (especially in Medicare) that are driving up costs and putting the next generations access to these necessary social welfare programs at risk. Look, I am not convinced that our military is properly organized or equipped to deal with the 21st Century reality. But unlike Jeff, I do not see Islamic Terrorism as our only or even biggest threat. A rising China, with it’s obvious desire to control Asia and the potential for retaliatory action should the U.S. decide to reject China’s currency manipulations. I am no fan of Buck McKeon’s. But Jeff’s typical liberal over-simplification of the defense spending issue deserves rebuke. You continually prove Jeff how intellectually incurious, simple-minded and partisan you are every time you dive into these waters.

Timothy Myers SRSeptember 9, 2011 at 12:56 pm

“Pro”scribed means prohibited KK. Also, did you know the US did not have a large peacetime standing Army until the after WW II? Finally, believing the Chinese pose ANY kind of credible military threat against the US shows someone who has made it their personal business to keep themselves uninformed about the FACTS surrounding the Chinese military.

spineflower2September 9, 2011 at 4:38 pm

The Chinese do not have to fire a shot to take us down. With all the money we owe them, they will soon start dictating public policy to us. We won the Cold War on technology but also mainly on economics: the Russians could not keep up with our potential for defense spending. When they saw the losing endgame, they gave up. China will do the same to us some day in the not-too-distant future.

spineflower2September 10, 2011 at 10:20 am

The irony here: Khrushchev promised to “bury us” without firing a shot, using Communism. The Chinese will do it with Capitalism.

SCV LoverSeptember 9, 2011 at 2:49 pm

you are consistently the most un-informed person on this blog

Mike MSeptember 10, 2011 at 2:48 pm

talk about simple minded – you fall into the typical “conservative” trap of referring to programs that I pay into with the expectation of directly withdrawing later (Social Security and Medicare) as welfare. Umm – not the same thing, thanks. Welfare is money given to people who DON’T have any, without needing to have paid in first. Social Security and Medicare are not, in fact, welfare programs. I can think of quite a few corporate tax credits that do NOT require paying into first that do qualify, however.

PackfanSeptember 9, 2011 at 3:12 pm

This is not defense but offense! Other countries are trying to keep up with us. There can be no winners paying for an enormous offense budget while the main purpose of that is withering on the vine, killed by that which says it’s for our own good. Cut the military and Buck and let’s rebuild America!

Mr PerezSeptember 10, 2011 at 7:57 pm

While I may agree at cutting these politicians, I refuse to agree on cutting our military at a high rate. The military serves more purpose than dropping bombs at 3000feet or doing house by house searches. That is all that gets put on CNN though. We have to lower the numbers back down to the pre-2005 growth numbers but doing so too fast will result in making the military weaker, while also putting more people on the unemployment line. The DoD is the largest employer in the free world and the government has helped the economy in that way.

Kevin D. KorenthalSeptember 9, 2011 at 11:00 am
The defense of the nation, unlike many of the things that government pays for today is proscribed in the Constitution. If there is any cutting that needs to be done (and I think we all agree that cutting is necessarily) then it should be to the unsustainable welfare system. Specifically, Social Security and Medicare need to be overhauled in order to prevent the bleeding losses and fraud (especially in Medicare) that are driving up costs and putting the next generations access to these necessary social welfare programs at risk. Look, I am not convinced that our military is properly organized or equipped to deal with the 21st Century reality. But unlike Jeff, I do not see Islamic Terrorism as our only or even biggest threat. A rising China, with it’s obvious desire to control Asia and the potential for retaliatory action should the U.S. decide to reject China’s currency manipulations. I am no fan of Buck McKeon’s. But Jeff’s typical liberal over-simplification of the defense spending issue deserves rebuke. You continually prove Jeff how intellectually incurious, simple-minded and partisan you are every time you dive into these waters.
Timothy Myers SRSeptember 9, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“Pro”scribed means prohibited KK. Also, did you know the US did not have a large peacetime standing Army until the after WW II? Finally, believing the Chinese pose ANY kind of credible military threat against the US shows someone who has made it their personal business to keep themselves uninformed about the FACTS surrounding the Chinese military.
spineflower2September 9, 2011 at 4:38 pm
The Chinese do not have to fire a shot to take us down. With all the money we owe them, they will soon start dictating public policy to us. We won the Cold War on technology but also mainly on economics: the Russians could not keep up with our potential for defense spending. When they saw the losing endgame, they gave up. China will do the same to us some day in the not-too-distant future.
spineflower2September 10, 2011 at 10:20 am
The irony here: Khrushchev promised to “bury us” without firing a shot, using Communism. The Chinese will do it with Capitalism.
SCV LoverSeptember 9, 2011 at 2:49 pm
you are consistently the most un-informed person on this blog
Mike MSeptember 10, 2011 at 2:48 pm
talk about simple minded – you fall into the typical “conservative” trap of referring to programs that I pay into with the expectation of directly withdrawing later (Social Security and Medicare) as welfare. Umm – not the same thing, thanks. Welfare is money given to people who DON’T have any, without needing to have paid in first. Social Security and Medicare are not, in fact, welfare programs. I can think of quite a few corporate tax credits that do NOT require paying into first that do qualify, however.
PackfanSeptember 9, 2011 at 3:12 pm
This is not defense but offense! Other countries are trying to keep up with us. There can be no winners paying for an enormous offense budget while the main purpose of that is withering on the vine, killed by that which says it’s for our own good. Cut the military and Buck and let’s rebuild America!
Mr PerezSeptember 10, 2011 at 7:57 pm
While I may agree at cutting these politicians, I refuse to agree on cutting our military at a high rate. The military serves more purpose than dropping bombs at 3000feet or doing house by house searches. That is all that gets put on CNN though. We have to lower the numbers back down to the pre-2005 growth numbers but doing so too fast will result in making the military weaker, while also putting more people on the unemployment line. The DoD is the largest employer in the free world and the government has helped the economy in that way.