February 1, 2011--The Education of Congressman Chris Gibson
Among the many changes we are already seeing in Congress as the result of the recent midterm election and the Republican resurgence is their struggle with how to cut the deficit by spending less.
After the Tea Party rhetoric (hopefully) subsides, where there were simple-minded calls to slash everything by dramatically reducing spending and the size of government, as all thoughtful commentators have been asking--"Show us the details."
Everyone knows that there are the big-three areas of the budget that represent at least 85 percent of all federal spending—Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending. Unless we were to suck it up, cutting deeply into these, even eliminating all so-called discretionary spending would not get the job done.
And then we would have no loans for college students, no medical research, no space program, no food or drug safety oversight, no national parks, no airport security, no interstate highway repairs, no housing program, no money to clean up after floods and hurricanes, no money for veterans benefits and care, no $4.0 billion a year in subsides to oil companies, no . . .
You get the picture as to why we have so few specifics from the Republicans who say they are determined to cut spending and the deficit.
There are, though, some who have stepped forward with bold, if, some would say, crackpot, proposals. As I have written here, Congressman Paul Ryan, the newly installed chairman of the House Budget Committee published a Roadmap that includes radical ideas for cuts and changes in Medicare and Social Security. But they are non-starters even within his own party because they would undermine parts of these very popular and essential programs.
On the other hand, a few of the newly elected Republicans are calling for responsible cuts in defense spending. In the Senate, Rand Paul is demanding the quick end to both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In part to save money but in truth more because, like his father, he is against these wars of choice.
And in the House things are getting tricky. At least one member of the Armed Services Committee, retried Army colonel, newly-elected Congressman Chris Gibson said, “The deficit we have threatens our very way of life and everything needs to be on the table.”
He was taking specifically about the Marine Corps $14.4 billion Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a combined landing craft and tank that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates claims we don’t need and thus wants to eliminate. He notes that these vehicles would have been useful in World War II but since we haven’t landed Marines on beaches since the Korean War he does not see the need to spend so much on something so retro. (See linked New York Times article.)
Armed Services Committee chairman Howard McKeon is in a quandary as what to do about troublemakers such as Colonel Gibson. He has been meeting quietly with him and other committee members “to educate” them about security issues. At least as he sees them.
Since Chairman McKeon represents a California district that is home to many defense contractors, I assume that this “education” involves pointing out to the likes of Congressman Gibson that if he goes along with the program his upstate New York district might be similarly blessed. Defense jobs, defense jobs, defense jobs are undoubtedly part of that education.
Some other freshman members of the ASC already have gotten with the program. Representative Vicky Hartzler, for example, strongly backed by Sarah Palin, is quickly on record as being opposed to any cuts in the defense budget. I assume especially those that might affect her Missouri district where there are currently two huge military bases, including one, Whiteman, home of the B-2 stealth bomber.
So maybe Chairman McKeon doesn’t have all that much educating to do. He can thus get back to the spending.
I, on he other hand, will be keeping an eye on Congressman Gibson. If the next time we hear from him he is calling for no cuts in defense spending I'll know the Tea Party represents just more of the same. Or, that Chairman McKeon is a great teacher.
After the Tea Party rhetoric (hopefully) subsides, where there were simple-minded calls to slash everything by dramatically reducing spending and the size of government, as all thoughtful commentators have been asking--"Show us the details."
Everyone knows that there are the big-three areas of the budget that represent at least 85 percent of all federal spending—Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending. Unless we were to suck it up, cutting deeply into these, even eliminating all so-called discretionary spending would not get the job done.
And then we would have no loans for college students, no medical research, no space program, no food or drug safety oversight, no national parks, no airport security, no interstate highway repairs, no housing program, no money to clean up after floods and hurricanes, no money for veterans benefits and care, no $4.0 billion a year in subsides to oil companies, no . . .
You get the picture as to why we have so few specifics from the Republicans who say they are determined to cut spending and the deficit.
There are, though, some who have stepped forward with bold, if, some would say, crackpot, proposals. As I have written here, Congressman Paul Ryan, the newly installed chairman of the House Budget Committee published a Roadmap that includes radical ideas for cuts and changes in Medicare and Social Security. But they are non-starters even within his own party because they would undermine parts of these very popular and essential programs.
On the other hand, a few of the newly elected Republicans are calling for responsible cuts in defense spending. In the Senate, Rand Paul is demanding the quick end to both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. In part to save money but in truth more because, like his father, he is against these wars of choice.
And in the House things are getting tricky. At least one member of the Armed Services Committee, retried Army colonel, newly-elected Congressman Chris Gibson said, “The deficit we have threatens our very way of life and everything needs to be on the table.”
He was taking specifically about the Marine Corps $14.4 billion Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a combined landing craft and tank that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates claims we don’t need and thus wants to eliminate. He notes that these vehicles would have been useful in World War II but since we haven’t landed Marines on beaches since the Korean War he does not see the need to spend so much on something so retro. (See linked New York Times article.)
Armed Services Committee chairman Howard McKeon is in a quandary as what to do about troublemakers such as Colonel Gibson. He has been meeting quietly with him and other committee members “to educate” them about security issues. At least as he sees them.
Since Chairman McKeon represents a California district that is home to many defense contractors, I assume that this “education” involves pointing out to the likes of Congressman Gibson that if he goes along with the program his upstate New York district might be similarly blessed. Defense jobs, defense jobs, defense jobs are undoubtedly part of that education.
Some other freshman members of the ASC already have gotten with the program. Representative Vicky Hartzler, for example, strongly backed by Sarah Palin, is quickly on record as being opposed to any cuts in the defense budget. I assume especially those that might affect her Missouri district where there are currently two huge military bases, including one, Whiteman, home of the B-2 stealth bomber.
So maybe Chairman McKeon doesn’t have all that much educating to do. He can thus get back to the spending.
I, on he other hand, will be keeping an eye on Congressman Gibson. If the next time we hear from him he is calling for no cuts in defense spending I'll know the Tea Party represents just more of the same. Or, that Chairman McKeon is a great teacher.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home