Skip to main content

"It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and our air force has to have a bake-sale to buy a bomber."

I was just a kid, probably in kindergarten or first grade when I first saw a poster of the above words hanging in my classroom.  I didn't even know what a bomber was.  I had no idea that schools didn't have the money they needed.  I liked the idea of a bake sale though.   These were the days before prop 13 defunded California schools.  Ronald Reagan was  the Gov. of our state.  The Republican revolution was a long ways off.

As i grew older and began to pay attention to politics, that poster would come back to me from time to time, as the notion of cutting defense spending became one of the central refrains of my fellow travelers and I.  But it also came to be seen as an impossible dream as Republicans used such talk to help create a perception of weakness from it to hang around our neck.  This perception continued to haunt us throughout most of my political life - dissipating only when a Democratic president ordered the mission that killed Osama Bin Laden.  

So keep in mind, it was with that context latent within my political DNA that I regarded the details of the proposed debt ceiling bill and its emphasis on defense cuts.

Here is what Ezra Klein said about it tonight:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Behind the deal is a creative way out of the impasse that’s held up the negotiations: how do you get “balanced approach” if Republicans refused to consider revenues? The solution that both sides seem to have settled on is to substitute defense cuts where taxes would otherwise have gone.

In the initial $900 billion in cuts, almost half will come from “security spending” (which includes defense, homeland security, veteran’s benefits, the State Department, etc). Defense is the big money there, and, according to the White House’s fact sheet, it will take a full $350 billion in cuts on its own. But the real hit comes in stage two: if the second round of deficit reduction isn’t signed into law, the “trigger” that will make automatic spending cuts absolutely savages defense spending.

Let’s stop there and talk about the trigger, as it’s arguably the most important part of the deal. In his remarks on Friday, President Obama said he would support a trigger if it was done in “a smart and balanced way.” The implication was that it had to include tax increases as well as spending cuts, as a trigger with just spending cuts wouldn’t force Republicans to negotiate in good faith. The trigger in this deal does not include tax increases.

What it includes instead are massive cuts to the defense budget. If Congress doesn’t pass a second round of deficit reduction, the trigger cuts $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Fully half of that comes from defense spending. And note that I didn’t say “security spending.” The Pentagon takes the full hit if the trigger goes off.

The other half of the trigger comes from domestic spending. But Social Security, Medicaid and a few other programs for the poor are exempted. So the trigger is effectively treating defense spending like it comprises more than half of all federal spending. If it goes off, the cuts to that sector will be tremendous -- particularly given that they will come on top of the initial round of cuts. Whether you think the trigger will work depends on whether you think the GOP would permit that level of cuts to defense.

Sounds like a lot of defense cuts to me.  

Now don't get me wrong, I wish we weren't talking about cuts at all during a time of such economic worry.  But I also get the confluence of events that made some form of cutting back almost impossible to avoid.  Much as we all agree that Keynesian spending is the only sane response to the predicament we are in, our fellow countrymen and countrywomen disagreed with us and voted to install the current congress.  And given the willingness to throw the country into a ditch in order to extort us all, some kind of a deal seemed likely.  

With that in mind, I' understand the strong disappointment at seeing a deal without revenues included.  As in the quote on that poster, it is not enough for the pentagon to need to have a bake sale to buy a bomber -  the schools must also have all the money they need for it to be a truly great day.  So perhaps this day is not great.  Still, if cuts had to be made and revenues were impossible to include the little nascent progressive in me cannot help but think back to that poster and feel basically okay with the idea that defense cuts would be the balance we'd be settling for.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    WARNING: Your diary/comment/attitude/etc may dishonor Ted Kennedy!

    by snout on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 02:21:59 AM PDT

  •  Love the Defense Cuts..... (6+ / 0-)

    I'm absolutely thrilled about that.  My problem is that there is nothing here about jobs.  With the cuts come more lost jobs.

    How does this bill put America back to work?  

  •  Can't believe that defense cuts will happen. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Dream, that's the thing to do (Johnny Mercer)

    by plankbob on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 03:00:22 AM PDT

    •  I might have agreed with you until (4+ / 0-)

      recently, but I think defense has lost some of its sacred cow status.  Many teabaggers are in favor of defense cuts.  The public is sick of ten years of wars and sick of paying for them.  The Republican party has just agreed, at least in principle, that cutting defense is a legitimate goal and a legitimate part of a deficit cutting deal. This is a BFD.

      •  Well yeah, but... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1

        We still needed to cash in on it.  A single incident of terror (or even attempted terror) could render it a sacred cow again.  We got it done once and for all.

        It just seems to me that this deserves to be included in the plus column.

        If Kucinich, Grayson, Sanders or Fiengold were President, you'd be accusing them of betrayal right now.

        by snout on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 07:18:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Worth Noting: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, gramofsam1

    This deal enshrines the end if the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The baseline for all of these numbers is the assumption that the Bush tax cuts will expire as scheduled. That is what the GOP leadership has just signed on to.


    "I play a street-wise pimp" — Al Gore

    by Ray Radlein on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 03:23:44 AM PDT

  •  He needs to get some sleep (0+ / 0-)

    First of all.  Boehner said no tax hikes (rate increases).   White House said revenue can be discussed (loopholes).

    Republicans will argue again, close loopholes but lower rates.  Revenue increases come from broadening the base (i.e job creation).

    The WH and enablers just want to confuse the issue for now.  The talking points are easily reconciled.

    Second, the total of defense spending cuts can be achieved by ending the wars...which Republican Presidential candidates are literally already running on.

    Ezra needs to get some rest, block his WH sources email and phones numbers, and reanalyze.

    And Lawrence O'Donnell needs to do a rewrite of the last month on his show tonight.  But he may try to spin and lose any remaining credibility.

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 03:40:08 AM PDT

    •  Defense cuts (0+ / 0-)

      Can't be done by ending wars I believe unless next year, the only one that really matters, the President sends home at least twice as much people as schedule, and even then it will be hard to come up with 500 billions.

      The trigger will not be enacted, I'm completely convinced. The problem is the kind of deal the Supercongress may get, that is the scary part

      •  I saw the bill earlier and it seems to (0+ / 0-)

        separate war and DoD spending...so the second point is inaccurate from what I can tell...

        But as I stated earlier, this triggers are the baseline...it can only get worse, otherwise Republicans just hold the line.

        An absolutely horrific deal...

        "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

        by justmy2 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:16:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm glad to see Klein writing about this. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeyMikey, johnny wurster, snout

    I didn't trust my own reading (second- and third-hand, of course...legislation itself is just gibberish to me).  The non-trigger cuts are much too small as any kind of "shared sacrifice" but those trigger cuts really are something.  It's terrible that Democrats have sacrificed their future ability to defend entitlements and fair taxation, but it's cool that Republicans have sacrificed their future ability to defend massively frivolous defense spending.

    I'll Rochambeau you for it.

    by Rich in PA on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 04:08:01 AM PDT

  •  Didn't Reid's plan (0+ / 0-)

    also include defense cuts and weren't they mostly a projection of significant winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan?  

    Then is that the kind of cuts we can anticipate being applicable in this new agreement instead of Star Wars or other wasteful programs?

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 05:19:12 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site