McKeon's long reach into City Hall

I really wish City Hall would show a little more independence from Buck McKeon every now and then. First came the infamous "Thank you Buck!" banners in 2006, then this weekend's report that they are "pleased" with McKeon's cynical Cemex bill, and now this: in their staff report on the sequestration cuts, they copy McKeon almost verbatim on what the cuts would mean to the defense department:

The automatic cuts required under sequestration were designed to be a motivator for the House and Senate Supercommittee and was not expected to actually be enacted. If sequestration moves forward the results are anticipated to be the smallest Army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1916, and the smallest Air Force in U.S. history.

It is anticipated that California would lead the nation in job loses with 125,000 projected in fiscal year 2013 particularly the defense contractors and their suppliers. There are 69 aerospace and defense contractors located in Santa Clarita Valley alone representing around 4,000 jobs. The annual sales for these contractors in 2010 were $953 million. While it is difficult to project the specific impact to Santa Clarita, clearly local jobs will be impacted.

When I read that, I found it really familiar.  So I browsed my email archives and found it. The line about sequestration downsizing the US Army, Navy, and Air Force to levels not seen in decades is copied almost verbatim from Buck McKeon and Paul Ryna's essay in Real Clear Politics from back in May:

Sequestration would force the greatest Armed Forces in history to its knees, resulting in the smallest Army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1916, and the smallest Air Force in our history.

Now we can't expect our City staff to be experts on defense policy (whereas McKeon, ostensibly, should be) but we should expect our staff to at least go to more than one source when exploring a policy's effects on the local government, even if it just to add our name to a simple letter.

For instance, the US Conference of Mayors might be a nice place to start. Their letter on sequestration's impacts includes more than just defense cuts:

We are particularly concerned with deep reductions in non-defense discretionary spending, one-third of which is directed to state and local programs: 36 percent is directed to education; 28 percent to housing and community development; 18 percent to health and the environment; ten percent to workforce; and five percent to public safety and disaster response. The additional cuts scheduled to occur through sequestration will bring domestically appropriated funding well below historical levels as a share of the economy, forcing inevitable cuts to a number of critical local services and dramatic job losses for teachers, first responders, and health care workers.

There are many reasons to be concerned about the sequestration cuts, but we seem to only be talking about defense-related cuts here in the SCV, even though defense is a relatively small part of the SCV economy. The staff report barely mentions the cuts that could hit other vital programs we enjoy and depend on.

By depending on McKeon alone, we're only getting half the picture.

-----------------