Governments are inherently run inefficiently without much regard for cost effectiveness. The US government is no different and this includes the Defense department. It is accurate that America will have to include defense cuts in order for us to get out of this fiscal disaster that is fast approaching as our debt continues to spiral. However, I believe the automatic $600 billion dollars that would be cut from our defense spending if the Super Committee cannot come to another agreement, is going too far. The main duty for any government is to provide for the safety and defense of its citizens and interests and these proposed cuts, which of course go on top of the hundreds of billions already cut by Secretary Gates and the Obama administration, are too drastic and are the wrong target for budget savings. Robert Samuelson brings some much needed perspective on this issue:

People who see military cuts as an easy way to reduce budget deficits forget that this has already occurred. From the late 1980s to 2010, America’s armed forces dropped from 2.1 million men and women to about 1.4 million. The downsizing — the “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War — was not undone by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1990, the Army had 172 combat battalions, the Navy 546 ships and the Air Force 4,355 fighters; today, those numbers are 100 battalions, 288 ships and 1,990 fighters.

True, Iraq and Afghanistan raised defense budgets. As these wars conclude, lower spending will shrink overall deficits. But the savings will be smaller than many expect because the costs — though considerable — were smaller than they thought. From fiscal 2001 to 2011, these wars cost $1.3 trillion, says the Congressional Budget Office. That’s 4.4 percent of the $29.7 trillion of federal spending over those years. In 2011, the cost was about $159 billion, 12 percent of the deficit ($1.3 trillion) and 4 percent of total spending ($3.6 trillion).

Then Samuelson takes on a few myths about defense spending, including:

We can’t afford today’s military. Not so. How much we spend is a political decision. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the country was much poorer, 40 percent to 50 percent of the federal budget routinely went to defense, representing 8 percent to 10 percent of our national income. By 2010, a wealthier America devoted only 20 percent of federal spending and 4.8 percent of national income to the military. Social spending replaced military spending; but that shift has gone too far….

The Washington Post came out against the Super Committee defense cuts as well and highlighted some of the testimony of America’s military leaders:

Since the congressional supercommittee is reportedly at an impasse, let’s hope its members have used some of their idle time to catch up with the testimony of the nation’s military chiefs at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. The chiefs were asked to assess what would be the consequences if $600 billion in across-the-board cuts were imposed on the defense budget — a sequestration currently required by law in the event the supercommittee fails to agree on a debt reduction plan or Congress fails to pass it.

Their answers were blunt: “Cuts of this magnitude would be catastrophic to the military,” testified Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, a former Iraq commander. “My assessment is that the nation would incur an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk.”

“A severe and irreversible impact on the Navy’s future,” said Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, chief of naval operations.

“A Marine Corps below the end strength that’s necessary to support even one major contingency,” said Marine Commandant James Amos.

“Even the most thoroughly deliberated strategy may not be able to overcome dire consequences,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz.

There is much waste and superfluous defense programs that should be found and uprooted. I have personally seen defense sector waste and am very sympathetic to the American tax payer who may feel that he is being taken for a ride far too often by its profligacy, but the current proposed cuts on the table would start digging into real and necessary defense programs, personnel, and technology. America’s budget deficits and debt are major threats to our future, but believing we can solve them by mostly cutting our defense spending is numerically and philosophically wrong. Numerically speaking, our financial position is in dire straits because of runaway entitlement spending, not a bloated defense sector. Philosophically speaking, well, I’ll let Robert Samuelson have the last word:

Defense spending is unlike other spending, because protecting the nation is government’s first job. It’s in the Constitution, as highways, school lunches and Social Security are not.

Rep. Paul Ryan, who should do the country and a favor and run for President already, stars in this short and sweet video about how our current federal tax system is flawed and more importantly, how it can be fixed. Enjoy:

When it comes to explaining the American conservative viewpoint, few are as articulate, convincing, and engaging as Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Rubio has only been a Senator for about a year, but he is definitely making a name for himself. I have watched him in action (aka Youtube) several times, including his campaign victory speech, on the Senate floor, and on the sides of Florida’s streets and come away impressed every time. This week he spoke at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and once again failed to disappoint. The twenty-three minute speech is full of heartfelt conviction clearly laying out the conservative political and social message and includes some great lines, including my favorite; ‘Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up.’ Check out the whole speech:

Here are this week’s Top 5:

1. American’s Desire for Earned Success – Pollster and pundit Michael Barone pontificates on why Democrats’ plans for winning over the majority of Americans – by buying them off with entitlements and benefits – isn’t working:

Why aren’t voters moving to the left, toward parties favoring bigger government, during what increasingly looks like an economic depression?…

I think the larger mistake the Obama Democrats have made is that they suppose ordinary voters want government to channel more money in their direction.

But ordinary Americans don’t want money as much as they want honor. They want what the chance to achieve what American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks calls “earned success.

2. Wisconsin Recall Elections Bring Disappointment to Unions – As expected by political insiders, last Tuesday’s recall elections involving six Republican state senators yielded only two new Democrats, falling one shy of what was needed to turn the State Senate. This affirms the voters’ general support for how things are going in the state. It also comports with the good news coming out of Wisconsin in the last few months showing the positive effects of Governor Walker’s collective bargaining law – cities able to re-negotiate with unions and save their budgets from a lot of red ink:

Someone has to be pretty deep in the Land of Denial to spin the Wisconsin recall elections as good news for Democrats. But the Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas rose to the occasion yesterday.

Republicans managed to keep four of the six seats that Democrats and their public union allies had targeted for recall, thwarting Democratic plans to wrest control of the state legislature from GOP hands. Of the two seats that Republicans lost, one was in a solidly Democratic district that a Republican happened to hold only due to a fluke of nature, David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner notes. And the second was held by an alleged adulterer whose wife revealed that he had moved outside his district to live with his young lover.

3. Getting Serious with the Super Committee – The Super Committee was chosen this week by the respective Congressional leaders and the positioning has already begun over spending cuts, defense cuts, new tax revenues and entitlement changes. But like we saw with the previous budget deals, there seems to be little willingness to make structural or permanent changes. Yet a cursory review of current programs with the question in mind – do they serve a valuable purpose – could go a long way toward debt reduction:

But what many of these media accounts will inevitably fail to do is ask fundamental questions about these programs: What were they designed to do? And is there any evidence they accomplish their purpose? Those questions are significant because much of discretionary spending that our government introduces is speculative in nature. That is, there is little or no evidence when we begin this spending that the money will actually accomplish what we want it to. That’s why we wind up funding anti-poverty programs that don’t reduce poverty, and job training initiatives that don’t get people jobs. We justify tax expenditures to make homes more affordable or to reduce our energy dependence, when there’s little evidence they accomplish either. And yet, once begun, we often can’t get rid of this spending, even when the evidence against its effectiveness is substantial.

4. Britain is in Disarray – Despite the hullabaloo caused by S&P’s downgrade of the U.S., this last week saw even more turmoil in the European economies and even violence in Britain:

5. Are US-Sino Relations Destined to Fall Apart - As the U.S. economy continues to stumble, questions and fears continue over the Chinese and their long-term desires. The relationship is made even more tense by the Chinese military buildup as evidenced by their first naval battleship completed this week. What some are arguing is a serious focus on improving and maintaining better relations with the Chinese:

I would like to recommend that you watch this fascinating and poignant interview with Ken Langone, co-founder of Home Depot. Mr. Langone discusses the debt ceiling debate, President Obama’s damaging class welfare rhetoric, and America’s poor job market. Mr. Langone’s words and advice should be heeded in Washington. Enjoy

1. ‘Give Greece What It Deserves: Communism‘, Bill Frezza, Forbes

No real need to provide an introduction to this bitingly fun take down of modern Greece. Just read it!:

What the world needs, lest we forget, is a contemporary example of Communism in action. What better candidate than Greece? They’ve been pining for it for years, exhibiting a level of anti-capitalist vitriol unmatched in any developed country. They are temperamentally attuned to it, having driven all hard working Greeks abroad in search of opportunity. They pose no military threat to their neighbors, unless you quake at the sight of soldiers marching around in white skirts. And they have all the trappings of a modern Western nation, making them an uncompromised test bed for Marxist theories. Just toss them out of the European Union, cut off the flow of free Euros, and hand them back the printing plates for their old drachmas. Then stand back for a generation and watch.

2. ‘Some Federal Workers More Likely to Die Than Lose Jobs‘, Dennis Cauchon, USA Today

A major indictment of the efficiency of our Federal government bureaucracy is found in this study done by USA Today. In the study, it was found that only .55% of federal employees were fired in the 2010 calendar year. So we tax payers are supposed to swallow that our federal bureaucracies are having a 99.45% success rate in finding effective and worthy employees? It seems that if a department wants to replace someone, they just have to wait for them to die, that’s all:

Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.

The federal government fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 — 11,668 employees in its 2.1 million workforce. Research shows that the private sector fires about 3% of workers annually for poor performance, says John Palguta, former research chief at the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, which handles federal firing disputes.

3. ‘Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery‘, John Merline, Investor’s Business Daily

An informative interview with a man who built a small business into a giant, hiring thousands of Americans along the way:

IBD: What’s the single biggest impediment to job growth today?

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we’d tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It’s become stifling.

If you’re a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What’s your take?

Marcus: His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that’s probably going to end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.

4. ‘Obamacare’s Raid On the Medicine Cabinet‘, John Graham, Washington Times

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week. The subject was the impact the new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will have on doctor’s reimbursement rates and whether that would lead to denied care for seniors on Medicare. She denied that there would much impact because savings would be found elsewhere in Medicare Parts C (Medicare Advantage) and D (prescription drug plans).

John Graham provides hard figures showing even if you took all the “savings” from these other programs, the Board would still be far short of reaching it’s cost-cutting mandate. All this to mean that the Board WILL have to cut physician reimbursement rates significantly because it simply has no where else to look:

Although IPAB can theoretically cut Medicare Advantage, the private program used by one-quarter of Medicare beneficiaries, Obamacare has already subjected Medicare Advantage to $145 billion in cuts this decade. This analysis suggests that IPAB will have to carry a lot more weight than expected. In 2019 alone, Medicare spending will likely be about $75 billion higher than officially estimated – or 7.5 times greater than what IPAB is called upon to save in the official estimate. For the entire decade, Medicare spending will be more than $400 billion greater than Obamacare estimates.

5. ‘The Half-Trillion Plan‘, Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

With the debt ceiling THE issue in national politics right now and several plans floating around, Charles Krauthammer has an interesting (and in my view, most persuasive) take on the options facing Congress and the President. He calls it the Half Trillion Plan:

— The G6, proposed by the bipartisan Gang of Six senators, reduces 10-year debt by roughly $4 trillion. It has some advantages, even larger flaws.

— The Half-Trillion raises the debt ceiling by that amount in return for an equal amount of spending cuts. At the current obscene rate of deficit spending — about $100 billion a month — it yields about five months’ respite before the debt ceiling is reached again.

If you have other articles you want to recommend or have an opinion on our choices, let your voice be heard in the Comments.

The Washington Post chart above (H/T Cato) clearly lays out three key truths: 1. The United States government has a structural problem controlling it’s level of debt and spending 2. The growing size of the federal government and its debt has been a bipartisan affair 3. President Obama’s tenure has greatly exasperated America’s short and long term financial situation.

In 30 years the United States’ debt has increased from $1 trillion dollars to $14 trillion and if the chart continued into the projected future, well, you would have had to scroll even further down to read this. I may not be an economist or an expert on Congressional budgets, but I don’t have to be to know we are on the wrong track. The past few weeks we have constantly heard the President and numerous other political leaders strongly defend the status quo. Sure there is much talk about ‘cutting spending’, but where are the details?

We need much more than gimmicks and baseline budgeting tricks to solve our real problems. We need leaders to tackle the transparent challenge shown in the aforementioned chart and we just aren’t getting it from this White House and Senate. For gosh sakes, the US Senate has put a constitutionally mandated budget in over two years! Why haven’t they? It’s pretty simple: If you never take a stand, you never have to take responsibility. I’ll finish with the first and last entries on Congressman Paul Ryan’s (a man who put out a budget all by himself, are you listening US Senate?) timeline of the Obama administration’s financial stewardship:

January 20, 2009
President Obama sworn into office

• President tells the American people in his Inaugural Address: “Those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”
• Debt Held By Public = $6.31 trillion

……..

July 15, 2011
President Holds Press Conference: “We’re Running Out of Time” to Deal with Debt

• President Obama tells reporters: “I’ve got reams of paper and printouts and spreadsheets on my desk, and so we know how we can create a package that solves the deficits and debt for a significant period of time.  But in order to do that, we got to get started now.”
• The American people have still not seen any “paper” or “printouts” of what specific spending cuts the President supports.  The American people have still not seen any “spreadsheets” from the White House to corroborate their claims of having offered a deficit reduction plan.
• While it’s long past time for Washington “to get started now” on tackling our debt problems, President Obama has still not proposed a credible budget, and Senate Democrats have still not proposed any budget.
• Debt Held by Public = $9.75 trillion

Saturday’s lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal poignantly identifies the problem with the President and the liberal elite’s mindset in today’s politics: let’s focus on new programs and bury any discussion of how we’re going to pay for them or the current ones we already can’t afford. The WSJ says it best:

“Maybe the most unknowing moment from President Obama’s debt-limit press conference the other day was when he said that, ‘I’d rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes, like new programs.’ Define everybody—and, please, let us know when the new programs are going to stop.”

Yes, Mr. President, please tell us when we can finally start addressing the record debt and deficits. Or the impending bankruptcy of Medicare. Or the several trillion dollar shortfall in the Social Security Trust Fund. Or the rising interest that we have to pay to service our massive debt to foreigners (41 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed!). Or a handful of other disastrous budgetary issues we have ignored over the past several years (like pensions, for starters).

In light of this deep hole we are in as a country – and the very real display in Greece of what our future might look like if we stay on this current path – it is absolutely stunning to think we are still pondering new government programs. Just a cursory look at the several thousand federal programs and agencies that we have now should put to rest the thought that we need any more government or that the government we currently have is somehow cost-effective.

Yet this is the guiding light of modern day liberalism. As Thomas Sowell recently put it when discussing President Obama’s advocacy for a new high-speed rail program, “One of the most successful political ploys is to promise people things without having the money to pay for them. Then, when others want to cut back on the things that have been promised, blame them for lacking the compassion of those who wrote the checks without enough money in the bank to cover them.”

Nevertheless, with an ever increasing percent of the American population paying no federal income taxes, receiving government-run health care and cashing in on welfare programs (e.g., unemployment benefits, food stamps), the argument for a fiscally sane federal government is becoming a more difficult sell.

Sadly, it might take a default on the national debt before Americans realize we are on an unsustainable path. In the meantime, it appears the conductor (President Obama) will be sitting in the caboose figuring out how to add more cars to the train.

Senator Barack Obama, March, 2006:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Senator Obama was right. Too bad, he’s now the President and appears to have not meant a word of that statement above. Too bad for all of us. President Obama has tried to portray himself as the adult in this debt ceiling debate, but when it comes to taking care of our nation’s fiscal well being his administration has made a drunk teenager in love look responsible and mature. Just months ago he released a budget so unserious that his own party and the entire Senate disowned it 97-0. He came into office to lead a country facing massive debt and managed to make the situation even worse as our debt has sky rocketed in the past 3 years. He not only has failed to do anything to rectify our coming entitlement crisis, he has actually made them even worse by passing a new health care entitlement and vilifying anyone who is willing to address Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, all of which are facing major funding shortages.  Barack Obama is many things, a good leader, he is not.