The "balance" within the Debt Ceiling agreement calls for matching reductions in military spending and entitlements programs to "kick-in" automatically if the bipartisan congressional panel fails to agree to alternative cuts totaling $1.2 trillion. Each, defense and entitlements, would then face $600 billion reductions over 10 years.
Unchallenged news reports place the Democrat leadership as the initiators of military spending as a counter-weight to Republican ideological and fiscal imperatives within the panel agenda. After all, it is suggested, Democrats hold that military spending is a "Republican" political paradigm. Democrat logic then sees a Republican acquiescence to Democrat initiatives to protect military spending in the congressional panel discussions. To be sure, elements of the Democrat base are against military spending, some at any level, and against the two ongoing wars while Republicans are generally seen as bulls in military spending.
Assume for the moment (for it would have no validity beyond this single moment) that the panel talks are productive and agreements are reached in rational compromise. Now, coming back to reality, let's assume that the Republicans refuse any discussion of revenue increase and the Democrats hold firm (this time) to their demand for a balanced reduction/revenue outcome. In either of these events the Democrats are going to have to face a strong political argument from the Republicans stemming from their own (Democrat) construct of this military/entitlements balance.
Cuts to the military are always styled as cuts to the "defense" budget. We are presently engaged in two wars. Anonymous "senior Pentagon officials" already warn of dire consequence if the "kick-in" occurs. Republicans may reasonably and with some validity argue in the coming months that the Democrats are willing to put the entrenched, "undeserved" entitlements of a few before the defense of this country while jeopardizing the lives of men and women in the front lines. Whatever the inflation to the Democrat base, this creature of compromise will definitely NOT play well with Independent voters. The Independents (as I) will not accept an outcome, real or gambled, detrimental to our Armed Forces, that is, to our defense.
The Democrats placement of "Defense" as the counter-weight was, at the least, short sighted while, more correctly, plain dumb. They could simply have stood on equity and principle. Leadership, in a country already demanding a balanced outcome, would have been a powerful counter-weight. Watch as it plays out.
No comments:
Post a Comment