I feel like we're banging our heads against a wall -- Repubs won't stop lying until the reward for doing so is removed. We have to find a way to change the incentive structure -- as long as the MSM is willing to repeat the blatant lies that the Repubs are telling (or until -- better yet -- everyone in America starts reading Steve's blog!), this seems to be working for Repubs whose constituents follow Fox News (and even some of the more mainstream but still lily-livered news sources). What to do??

Also interesting that for republican congressmen, defense spending produces jobs so cuts in defense would impact employment, but other government spending, say on infrastructure, is wasteful and does not produce job growth. Hard to reconcile...

But will the true facts get out there...or will the naysayers acheive their goal and set up false talking points.

Yesterday's piece on Inhofe of Oklahoma is the tipoff, if any were needed. To southern Repubs, defense spending isn't actually about defense, it's about propping up the military-industrial complex and bringing billions into their districts.

Congress, which at the time was largely controlled by Democrats still fighting the Civii War, redirected military bases and defense procurement to the south in the decades after WWII, and away from the union-friendly north and midwest. Now their descendents are Republicans and, once again, they think they're in danger of losing their heritage.

Which, of course, is paid for with our money. For these multigenerational white patricians, defense spending is the new agrarian economy. We've been picking their cotton for them, and paying them for the privilege.

It's hard to believe the political discourse could be this ridiculous.

Really? You must be new around here.

Anyone old enough to remember 1994 recalls the endless squabbling over whether Gingrich's GOP wanted to "cut" Medicare spending and the Washington press corps inability to puzzle it out.

Just like you, Steve, Mr. Gingrich pedantically told us all that X + Y dollars is a larger number than X dollars, and therefore anyone calling it a "cut" was just a big fat liar.

Mr. Gingrich was, of course, pulling our collective leg. His "increase" in spending would have necessitated a reduction in Medicare services.

Are the Republicans cited in this post way off base? It's likely, but you're not giving us much evidence. Let's not fall into the dishonest habits of our adversaries just because we're defending Truth and Goodness and Light.

Don't leave out the Democrat who wants his military pork too.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/democratic-congressman-questions-obamas-commitment-to-our-security/

Dan Boren shoudl get called out LOUDLY for this bullshit.

A lot of these "conservative friends of the tax payers" have ties to the defense industry and want the pork for their district, to hell with the US taxpayer in general regardless of actual defense benefit. And of course such lawmakers also think it's cool to invade other countries and then bungle the occupation, costing us hundreds of billions more. How about a "tea party" to protest all *that* wasted money? It was the TEA tax - treacherous entangling adventurism ...

Add "Obama wants to cut defense spending" to the list of conversation-enders, please.

There is nothing remotely complicated or nuanced about this. 534 in bigger than 513. The clowns know this but choose to lie anyway. They have just eliminated themselves from any discussion on this going forward. Sit down and shut the F up.

To understand why these nitwits are acting this way is simple: find out what defense contractor has a major program that is located in their district. It only took a day to find out that Senator Inhofe is so upset because he managed to put the major production facility for the Army's Future Combat System (which is high on the list of programs to be dumped) in Oklahoma, a $500 million a year bit of pok that was set to become a billion-a-year slice, and now it's going to be nothing.

My bet is each of these guys has a sub-contractor in his district working on the F-22, another non-performer.

Pentagon procurement is pure politics - they get as many different subcontractors in as many different congressional districts as possible, so that when there are problems, they can go to the congresscritter and shout "you're going to lose jobs!" and the critter jumps up and does what these are doing.

There's a reason why it's called the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex.

Alleged Democrat Dan Boren happens also to be from Oklahoma (as is Inhofe, remember?), and is crying about Obama for the same reason Inhofe is: $500 million a year now for setting up the production facility for the Future Combat System, which is going to be cut.

OK, here's a good example of what I was talking about. Following Steve's link to TPM, I find this:

Gates himself addressed this criticism in a conference call with reporters earlier today. "Some of these things we have put in the base budget we elected to put into the base budget to send a signal to the troops that these things were going to be a permanent part of the budget, that we weren't going to be dependent on a supplemental," Gates said. "[W]hat you chose to put into the supplemental and so on, is probably how Mr. McHugh gets to his numbers."

So take your pick, Steve. Present the issues honestly or tell the rubes how stupid and dishonest and ugly the other side is.

OT - ya all must be east coasters. Since I went to bed last night, there are 7 new stories. I don't have time to read them all before I go to work! When Kevin Drum was contributing, at least he was a fellow lazy Californian so stories didn't show up until later ...

I think the tack to take on this issue—after giving the Congress some more rope—is to have an analysis done of the change in the DoD budget going to workers and soldiers and compare this to the change on the amount going to Defense CEOs.

Yeah, lots of system pork in the State of Washington, as well.

But, where is voice of dissent to put this military spending in perspective by mentioning Michelle Obama's touching of the Queen?

I think actually cutting defense spending is a good idea. Why is it that we are spending more than China, Russia North Korea and Iran combined anyway? Why is it that Obama thinks pissing away more money than Bush on defense is a good idea? Dude, where's my party? Who cares what the republicans think or say? Do the right thing.

Steve Benen wrote: "In truth, this explains why Republican policymakers have so much trouble with budgeting. They've convinced themselves that $534 billion is less than $513 billion."

Wrong. Of course the Republicans haven't "convinced themselves" of anything so stupid. "In truth", the Republicans are trying to convince an ignorant, ill-informed public that Obama is cutting defense spending rather than increasing it.

Steve Benen wrote: "It's hard to believe the political discourse could be this ridiculous."

It's hard to believe that you continue giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt that they are "stupid" or "crazy" or "ridiculous".

Their "political discourse" is not "ridiculous". It is deliberately, calculatedly, viciously, sneeringly, dishonest.

Why do you seem to have such a hard time calling Republicans LIARS?

Vested interests v. public interests - oh my!
I wonder what side every Congressional representative will take - the interests of smart government, or the interests of campaign donors in his/her district? -Kevo

"The Obama administration...wants to spend more than China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran spend on defense combined -- times three."

Not doubting this, but do you have a link to the evidence for this remarkable statistic?

Of course there's the rumor that the White House is cutting the F-22 jet fighter program as well. However, Gates himself explained that it was disingenuous to categorize the end of F-22 production in such a manner because the actual contract had been completed in full. Gates doesn't want to build any MORE F-22s in excess of the government contract because he'd prefer to spend $1 trillion on the F-35 which is versatile in such a way that all branches of the military can use it.

That sounds like smart governance to me.

However, the Bush administration budget of $513 billion excluded the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama budget of $534 billion does not excluded these costs. Aren't apples being compared to oranges?

Why don't we give these districts stimulus cash for alternative projects and take out the middle man? A defense-to-green conversion would be a perfect solution.

I watch your political games from north of the border and may not understand all the rules. Isn't it standard practice for the Pentagon to put out its "wish list" budget, a number higher than the Gates budget; then, using this "wish list" number as the base, complain that anything less is a cut?
(Or, when those wanting higher defence spending, categorize any lower number as "savings" achieved by clever Congressional oversight).

I think this is standard Republican rhetoric, and they will be hurt and amazed that anyone would suggest their standard operating procedures displayed either ignorance or mendacity: it is how they always do it.

I would argue that since the wingnuts are calling Obama as "defense-cutter" anyway, he should have ACTUALLY CUT the defense budget.

For example, F-35 purchases will be doubled from 14 to 30 in one year - analysts had seen that as a logical place to make cuts.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46416

see, i have this strange nostalgia for the good ol days of Democratic leaders in Congress like LBJ.

we have a sizable majority in the House. If Pelosi had any spine, or any desire to avoid Dems feeling like they can routinely question the Dem President's patriotism in public, Boren should simply cease to exist on any committees or subcommittees by the end of the day. If he chooses to become an R over it, so be it. As it is he isn't a Dem; his presence only gives cover to the Republicans and MSM shills: "bipartisan concern over Obama's loyalty to America!" And then we put a ton of resources into running a D against him in the next election.

Seriously, Reid and Pelosi have to learn that there must be consequences for egregious breaches of party discipline, otherwise there really are no parties. While that might be a fine ultimate state, in the meantime the R's will continue to fight this along party lines - and we will lose because we cant enforce party discipline.

Ahhh, but you see, Gates IS proposing defense cuts in spending. It's just that the cuts hit only the Republican's (and a great many Washington Democrat's) favored big military contractors.

The new contractors who will get contracts to support special operations forces simply are not part of the favored group of big military defense contractors. About the only group of contractors who fit into both groups are the helicopter manufacturers and maintainers.

As for the rest, when one Aircraft Carrier Battle Group is eliminated, do you realize how many established big navy contractors are going to be hurt? Lockheed will get hurt by the cancellation of any more F-22's. Satellite and communications contractors will lose when the Army's modernization program is cut, as will a lot of heavy vehicle contractors.

Tell me, just how much institutionalized economic infrastructure is required to support those big military expenditures, all aimed at fighting a major nation-against-nation WW II type war? But the future is in asymmetric warfare, much as was foreshadowed by the Algerian and the Vietnamese rebellion against the French Empire IN THE 1950'S!

The expenditures for the new threats will be in people with the kinds of skills and knowledge that are parodied in the TV show "The Unit." They essentially carry what they need to accomplish their jobs in their heads, but it takes years to train special operations people, much like it does an Air Force top gun fighter pilot. But the special operations guys don't normally need a $135 million F-22 to support them if they can get a $1.5 million Predator. And if they don't have that, they are trained to find alternatives and to use the locals (whose language they better speak.)

Lockheed and the Air Force and Navy pilots union are going to be hurt, so to them, this is a defense cut. Intelligence organizations, language schools, and trainers of individuals are going to win. Where is their lobbyist? What media outlets speak for them in Washington?

So what do we need for American security? First, we need good effective alliances, not servile subordinate well-paid lackeys who are not respected or effective in their own nations. (See Pakistan, Somalia, and Afghanistan.) We will need American corporations which work to support America when they sell or buy overseas. We need bankers who don't selfishly destroy the financial system and American interests to feed their own greed (See, for example, ex-Senator Phil Gramm, currently working for the Swiss bank UBS which is under investigation [and under indictment, I think.] for concealing money that should have gone to pay $millions in American taxes. Gramm also, as a Senator, killed every effort to investigate and open up the secret overseas banks like those in the Caribbean Islands. He did a lot of that as a Democrat, but the Republicans were a better fit for him.)

The establishment which has destroyed the American finance system and economy sees the proposed Pentagon shifts in funding as taking money out of their pockets, so it is a Defense cut. It doesn't matter to them that others, not so powerfully connected in Washington, will see it as an increase in defense spending.

That includes the established Washington media. And we already know THEY are in the tank to the rich men who think they should run America.

Take a close look at some of the defense programs. Notice how some of them have components being made in dozens of states. The B-1 bomber is spread out into all 50 states. This insidious trend is how(and why) our defense budget is so bloated.

What other industry can claim such "spread-out" production?

Bombs and Bullets R Us.

"...it also wants to spend more than China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran spend on defense combined -- times three...."

Really, this is all that should be screamed at these goobers every time they say anything about defense spending cuts.