What Does the Super Committee Lineup Mean for Defense?
House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., did not get his wish to have a hawkish GOP member of his panel on the joint committee charged with coming up with a plan by Thanksgiving to cut the nation's deficit by $1.2 trillion. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, instead picked lawmakers with decidedly different interests and priorities. Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference, will co-chair the super committee, while the House GOP will also be represented by Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp and Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, both of Michigan.
But the Defense Department, whose budget will almost certainly be on the table for cuts during the months-long negotiations, does have some strong boosters on the panel. They include co-chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, sits on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and is a strong Boeing backer. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a well-known proponent of missile defense programs, is also on the panel, as is Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
What does the lineup mean for how the Defense Department will fare during the committee's negotiations? A senior Pentagon official recently told reporters that he hopes the committee will not look to the Defense Department, which the White House already plans to cut by $350 billion over the next decade, for more savings. Considering who will sit on the super committee, is that realistic? Or will the Pentagon's budget, which makes up more than half of all discretionary spending, be a prime target?
August 15, 2011 9:44 PM
CRY HAVOC
By Michael Brenner
Professor of International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh
Gordon Adams assessment is on the mark. So where does that leave us? A few points.
1. All American politcs has become a roulette. Anything is possible. That should be obvious from the surreal events beginning in 2008. No one is in control - even the Congressional leaders - on this, I diverge from Gordon's appraisal of things.
2. We have no political SYSTEM. Our politics lacks any coherence. Do we have parties with a modicum of structure? an identifiable program? On this last, yes the Teapartiers do. (What if anything does the Democratic Party represent? What does Obama represent?) Do we have a monitoring of what is said and done - by the press, by the Washington cognoscenti, by anyone in public life with a conscience or sense of the commonweal? (I can think off-hand only of Paul Volcker and Bernie Sanders). Do the media represent an independent check on government and politicians? Is the Supreme Court majority anything but a bunch of ideological dogmatists who make up constitutional law to suit their feelings and impulses?
Due to the above, our governm...
Gordon Adams assessment is on the mark. So where does that leave us? A few points.
1. All American politcs has become a roulette. Anything is possible. That should be obvious from the surreal events beginning in 2008. No one is in control - even the Congressional leaders - on this, I diverge from Gordon's appraisal of things.
2. We have no political SYSTEM. Our politics lacks any coherence. Do we have parties with a modicum of structure? an identifiable program? On this last, yes the Teapartiers do. (What if anything does the Democratic Party represent? What does Obama represent?) Do we have a monitoring of what is said and done - by the press, by the Washington cognoscenti, by anyone in public life with a conscience or sense of the commonweal? (I can think off-hand only of Paul Volcker and Bernie Sanders). Do the media represent an independent check on government and politicians? Is the Supreme Court majority anything but a bunch of ideological dogmatists who make up constitutional law to suit their feelings and impulses?
Due to the above, our governmental system is losing its coherence.
3. We have no coherent military strategy and therefore no coherent debate - as we discussed last week. Therefore, no reference points for any one to decide how much to spend and for what.
4. All this can be vastly entertaining if you have no interest or stake in the outcome - which excludes most of us. never before in our public life has Stoicism been our one recourse
Read More
August 15, 2011 11:21 AM
Impact of Panel's Work Up to Leadership
By Gordon Adams
Professor of International Relations, School of International Service, American University
The impact of the panel's work on defense is up to the leadership, who named them. The Master's Voice is what matters. This is not Simpson-Bowles, not a cross section, not an independent commission. It is a creature of the appointers.
If the leaders want a deal, there will be a deal. Everything is on the table, including defense, which is likely to be reduced more than the President has proposed. As Alice Rivlin has said, the defense number will be a top line projection. It will be a residual number: how much does the commission need from defense to get an overall deal.
The commission will not provide program details; those will be up to the appropriators, once the number is set.
But will there be any such number? Seems to me there is no incentive for a deal. The Administration may have slightly more incentive than the Republicans, but both would rather duke it out next year. The commission's work will be driven the the race to November 2012, not the race for a deal.
Fear not the dreaded sequester. Even if the commission fails, which is likely, the sequester does not kick in until January 2013. Everyone is betting on November 2012.