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.