Virginia: Ward Of The State

I have conflicted feelings on George Allen's broadside on Tim Kaine over the federal jobs that could be lost if we do not get a budget.  The whole deal struck was a joke to begin with.  Four President and Congress have spent last 25 years spending us into oblivion and for years there were a few voices for restrain that constantly got pushed aside.  The problem for me is Allen has voted for big government, and while Kaine hasn't voted you know he will.  So is Allen saying he's for governmnet or against it?  Shouldn't defense cuts, even if it means some public sector jobs are on the line, be fair game?  Lord knows enough of the private sector has made sacrifices.

According to reports, Virginia is scheduled to lose 207,000+ jobs if these cuts are implemented.  I'm not heartless about the consequences of this.  I live in Virginia because my father got a job as a foriegn service officer when I was three, moving from New Mexico.  So I'm not some cage-rattling conservative who won't understand the toll this would put on these families.  

Yet the complete dismissal by the Republican Party big-shots all over the country towards any kind of Defense cuts is both puzzling and troubling.  We argue that it is a waste of money to throw federal dollars at domestic programs yet we use the same logic to justify unregulated defense spending.  There seems to be an attitude that the military "knows best," and we should just give them whatever they want.  Of course, in Virginia the politics runs deep on this because of the power of the defense industry in Northern Virginia.  Its like we are for small government except we are not.

True conservatives want to truly tackle our national debt.  A huge part of that are federal mandates like Medicare and Medicaid, but defense spending is a conversation we are having.  The problem I have with George Allen's ad is that it appears to be one more part of the government that is "off-limits."  Too many Republicans think we can solve our problems by eliminating pork spending and the Education Department.  We can't keep electing candidates who say they are for eliminating our debt and making the hard choices while at the same time completely refusing to budge on pet industries they favor.  

I almost hate to say it but I actually agree more with Kaine on this.  It makes for easy ads and easy attacks on television, radio, and blogs; but a responsible senator cannot wipe off an entire section of government from scrutiny.  There is a difference, in my opinion, between spending to secure our country and "defense spending," whatever that means.  And not to get too Ron Paul here, but if we are always spending money and growing our military the pressure builds to actually use it.  Wars cost money, and they can bog us down for a decade.  Constantly electing people who can't connect the dots, or refuse to do so, and think about the cause and effect of our country's decisions is a problem we have been repeating for a generation.

Comments

[A Facebook User]

I’ll agree that NoVa is hypocritical when it comes to calling for smaller government, but I can’t agree that we should evaluate defense and entitlements as equal responsibilities. If we had decent leadership, the debate would start with priorities and not this false choice. The Not-So-Super Committee resulted in both entitlement and defense cuts, but as always, we are only talking about defense cuts. And I didn’t hear George Allen say defense is “off limits”, at least in this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjtSjw5Ju7o&feature=youtu.be

In my view, defense is at the bottom on the list to be cut for the following reasons:

• Defense is a defined responsibility; whereas federal “charity” and the plethora of hand-outs are not constitutionally authorized and are therefore illegal – ongoing evidence that government is the worst law breaker.
• Our Congress supported two concurrent wars and there has been no serious legislative attempt to withdraw support – so pay for them or defund them, just stop trying to have it both ways.
• The defense budget is scrutinized, debated, and micro-managed by the Hill more than any other department.
• The Defense Department does in fact cut major weapons systems such as the F-22, the US fleet is down to 300 vessels, half of the cold war days, etc.

Meanwhile, no one is making serious proposals about how to gracefully phase down entitlements, which continue to grow on autopilot. And no one believes that any politician in a leadership role will take the initiative. Lip service to reducing entitlements is where both parties deserve our criticism.

This is how it been for the last 60 years; and this is how it will continue unless America renews its commitment to the Constitution and personal responsibility (unlikely) or until we have an economic collapse or languish until John Galt exits the US for good (likely).

And regarding our former Governor Kaine, we can rest assured that his social justice ideology will always justify increasing entitlements as he did throughout his term. Tim Kaine often says that, “we can’t cut our way to prosperity” while he advocates for spending (investing) our way to prosperity.

Who can seriously say that Tim Kaine will ever respect Constitutional limited government or be fiscally responsible? And please let's not hear again about his half-hearted and half-baked biennial budget that was unanimously rejected as an example of being fiscal responsible.