Tag: james jay carafano
A President Romney would not appease Putinist Russia, sign unequal treaties obligating only the US to cut its nuclear deterrent, give up missile defense deployment plans for no Russian reciprocation, stand silent about Putin’s human rights violations and intimidation of Russia’s Central European neighbors like Poland, or about Russia’s repeated usage of natural gas as a weapon of intimidation.
Check for yourself whether the existing or proposed budget topline (the total size of the defense budget) would be adequate to meet all of the above requirements: to pay for the missions that need to be carried out and for the weapons, units, and training the military will need to carry out those missions and counter our enemies’ current and projected capabilities.
So, folks, go time to roll up our sleeves and start campaigning. Call your Senators, send them emails and tweets, and post messages on their Facebook pages. Be firm, yet polite. Convince them to vote against the LOST. Here’s a list of Senators who do not yet oppose the treaty
The special interest groups (again, including ATR) who insisted, and continue to insist, that their sacred cows (tax loopholes in ATR’s and similar groups’ case, entitlements in liberal groups’ case) be off the table during any deficit reduction discussions, even though these are the real drivers of America’s deficits and debt and any proposal that doesn’t address them is not serious.
This would totally gut the military and render it completely unable to defend America (not to mention its treaty allies). This also totally disproves Larry Korb’s utterly false claim that a defense budget of $472 bn (which would be a whopping $59 bn smaller than it is today) would “more than sufficient to protect national security”. No, it wouldn’t be. It would be woefully inadequate. Not enough for personnel, operations, maintenance, procurement, R&D, missile defense, health programs, or administration.
The sequester, if allowed to proceed, would cut defense spending WAY too deeply (on top of all the defense cuts already implemented and scheduled, including the $487 bn in defense cuts unveiled by Panetta in January): by $600 bn. In total, the cuts would amount to $1.087 trillion over a decade, not counting the savings resulting from withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such deep cuts would gut the military.