Republicans say defense cuts should not be part of super-committee plan

U.S. Capitol

Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee Thursday unveiled their single recommendation to the congressional committee tasked with slashing spending--no new defense cuts.

California Republican Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, the panel's chair, said the so-called "Super Committee" must avoid adding more defense cuts to reach their $1.2 trillion dollar deficit reduction goal by November 23rd.

"We have gone overboard on the cuts," McKeon said, warning that defense officials are already scrambling to identify $469 billion in congressionally mandated spending cuts over the next ten years.

McKeon also said it is critical the committee members succeed in order to avoid automatic cuts of up to $500 billion in across the board defense cuts that would go into effect if the super committee fails or if Congress rejects the committee's proposal.

"We've gone past cutting the fat" McKeon said. "We've gone past cutting into the muscle and if these other hits come from the trigger, if the super committee is not able to do their work, and the sequestration cuts in we're into the bone and it's all over."

Sequestration is a policy term for the automatic cuts designed as part of last summer's budget deal as an incentive for the panel to strike an agreement on specific cuts to reduce the deficit since across-the-board cuts would be too painful for both sides.

Freshman Rep. Martha Roby, who voted against the debt ceiling agreement, slammed the whole idea of a trigger, including across-the board defense cuts.

"It is unconscionable that we would hold our military families as an insurance policy in a political debate," she said.

Other members of the committee argued that President Barack Obama should weigh in and make clear that he does not support further defense cuts.

"I think it's important for the president as commander-in-chief to make his view known to members of the super committee on both sides of the aisle and to members of congress on both sides of the aisle," said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas.

"As commander in chief if he believes not another dime in defense out to be cut that is something that we all ought to pay attention to. Including, and maybe especially, members of his own party."

House Armed Services Committee Democrats also released their recommendations today. In a letter to Super Committee members, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash, agreed that they should keep their hands out of the defense pot.

Smith wrote that instead of touching the military's budget, "I strongly urge the Joint Select Committee to include significant revenue increases among its recommendations for satisfying deficit-reduction requirements. Including revenues in an overall balanced approach to deficit reduction is the best course of action for the committee."

McKeon said that Republicans would not accept tax increases and called the defense cuts versus tax increases debate a "false choice." He argued it's up to the committee to find a solution by cutting spending on the mandatory spending side of the ledger that includes programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

"I don't think it's our job on this committee to do the super committee's work of solving their problem," McKeon said. "Their problem is to come up with 1.2 trillion in cuts out of entitlements. That was their mandate, that's what they're supposed to do."

The deadline for committees to make recommendations to the Super Committee is tomorrow.

[MTATL67]

Do the Republican want to cut government spending or not? The Republican's just don't want bases closed in their states...typical. I was in the military and I am a huge supporter of the men and women in uniform. The fact is that the defense budget has a ton of waste that can be cut. Republicans in Congress forced the Pentagon to take money for that tank even after they were told by the military that they did not want and it cost too much.

[MurdochSucks]

by RobAla October 13, 2011 9:44 PM EDT
The first Constitutional duty of funding by the federal government is Defense. We can pretend that we all live in Nirvana, but it does not make it so. We live in a very volatile world. Both Iran and North Korea are testing long range missiles, and both are developing nuclear capabilities. We would be total idiots to allow the defense of this nation to drift into softness or inadequacy.

We need to make serious cuts in federal spending, but we are not in a stable world that would allow for cuts in defense. Let's not be totally stupid.
+++++++++++++++++++

We spend more in military expenditures than the rest of the world combined! It doesn't take a genius to realize that trend will end this empire, as it has countless empires in the past. We need to scale back big time, because the cost is not worth the gain. We are not under attack, we are on the offensive! That is much different than the core duty of the Federal government. Righties talk all the time about what is or is not the role of the federal government. Should our military be immune to such scrutiny? Especially in dealing with external conflict over OIL?

[konr22]

Good to know the republicans can still fund war. Whoops, I mean wars.

[Lindag10]

Sure cut Social Security off at the knees but keep those fat defense contractors happy. We don't NEED military spread all over the globe to "defend" the country. Sheez.

[dzaffina]

but the republicans need military spread all over the globe to defend big oil and corporate interests who own them.

[RobAla]

The first Constitutional duty of funding by the federal government is Defense. We can pretend that we all live in Nirvana, but it does not make it so. We live in a very volatile world. Both Iran and North Korea are testing long range missiles, and both are developing nuclear capabilities. We would be total idiots to allow the defense of this nation to drift into softness or inadequacy.

We need to make serious cuts in federal spending, but we are not in a stable world that would allow for cuts in defense. Let's not be totally stupid.

[dzaffina]

your all for big cuts bob, so where do we cut? no raiseing revenue from the corporate wealthy that the military is protecting overseas.

[RobAla]

actornaught: Actually the majority of the federal spending is outside the defense budget. We are drowning in entitlement spending. We need some of it, but it has gotten out of control.

[Bobarama2323]

Stop the wars. Tax the rich, feed the poor. Create green jobs. Call out the GOP as liars and greedy, self centered SOB's. Tax the rich the same as their employees. 999 is a total joke. Then the rich would only pay 9%. ***? And middle class would pay more. And sales tax would increase 50% from 6% to 9%. That will affect the poor and middle class directly in the pants. Education and health care should be free because that is what we as a society should want. Healthy and educated citizens.

[selz523]

I don't think it's our job on this committee to do the super committee's work of solving their problem," McKeon said. "Their problem is to come up with 1.2 trillion in cuts out of entitlements. That was their mandate, that's what they're supposed to do."

I don't know what world this guy is living on, but the mandate of the super committee is to seek deficit reduction. They can do that in a variety of ways, cutting spending on entitlements is only one.

[rightbehind]

They can find money to put drones in US skies but can't find the money to keep teachers employed.

[doctor_know]

CUT DEFENSE SPENDING NOW!!!!!

[warsux]

Where are the righties? Where is their outrage? I think they actually like it. They like sitting back on the couch and watch the good ole military bombing some place they couldnt find on a map. We all know that no congressmen or senators send their kids to die. Either party for that fact.

Pathetic.

But, oh no!~ We might spend our tax dollars on something other than a bomb! That is stalinism. God forbid anyone in this country benefits from our taxes. Lets spend it on bombs and funding corrupt regimes until they outlast their usefulness. Saddam Hussein worked out great for the military. First, we sell them weapons. 10 years later, we are bombing the very dictator we kept in place for out own interests. Trillions there. Just there. That doesn't count all of the other wars we start up for the same reasons.

[Waltarrr]

This is an incoherent rant. Defense is enumerated in the Constitution. We have an all-volunteer military and no one likes seeing them die in combat.

But there is a reason that both Republican and Democratic Administrations continue the war - and that is we still face a tough threat from a tough enemy.

[jimbom121]

Does the constitution say the defense spending needs to be 40% of the budget? There's room to cut.