Something odd happened a few months ago as I weighed the various aspects of the dreaded Sequester Monster, a creature vilified across party lines.
A nation's choice between spending on military defense and spending on civilian goods has often been posed as "guns versus butter."
Just because the sequestration cuts are bad doesn't mean the defense budget should be sacrosanct.
With no time to recover from a thorough election day whooping, Republicans in a lame duck Congress are facing an even worse budgetary nightmare than last year.
The next president of the United States must do right by our men and women in uniform. Our troops put their lives on the line to protect our right to vote, but untold thousands of them were unable to cast their own ballots on Tuesday. For shame.
A year before Mitt Romney picked him as a running mate, Paul Ryan gave a speech in which he discussed the promise and peril of the Arab Spring. More generally, Ryan said, "American policy should be tempered by a healthy humility about the extent of our power to control events in other regions."
President Obama tanked in the last debate. Good. But then Romney responded to Obama by essentially saying: I want big government, too!
The U.S. National Debt has surpassed $16 trillion. Out of control spending habits of both Republicans and Democrats got us into this fiscal mess. The only way out is through dramatically slashing spending across the board—no exceptions.
In 1989, the year President Ronald Reagan left office and the Berlin Wall came down, total spending by the Department of Defense equaled $468.7 billion in constant 2005 dollars, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
If you don't count Clint Eastwood, whose rambling, Bob Newhartesque conversation with an empty chair included implicit criticism of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rand Paul may have been the only speaker at the Republican National Convention last week who questioned his party's mindless militarism. The Kentucky senator said, "Republicans must acknowledge that not every dollar spent on the military is necessary or well-spent."
On May 23, President Barack Obama told more than 1,000 jubilant, uniform-prepped-and-polished graduates of the U.S. Air Force Academy that the world has a "new feeling about America."
One of the memorable slogans from the Reagan administration was "peace through strength." Reagan believed a strong defense was a safeguard against enemy attacks and the best hope of victory should America go to war.
President Barack Obama’s vision for modernizing the U.S. military is little more than an exercise in “back to the future.”
President Obama just ordered massive cutbacks in defense spending, eventually to total some $500 billion. There is plenty of fat in a Pentagon budget that grew after 9/11, but such slashing goes way too far.
Listening to Barack Obama laying out what he calls his new defense strategy, my first reaction was, "Here we go again." Having basically written off the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Obama is falling prey to a temptation several of his predecessors found irresistible in peacetime: Cut defense expenditures. Shrink the military. And hope the rest of the world will neither notice nor take advantage of our weakness.
President Obama is calling for dramatic defense cuts that could threaten our national survival while obstructing structural reforms to our entitlement programs that are essential for our national financial survival. It just doesn't get much worse than this.
The Craziest GOP Debate of The Cycle: Trump Defends Planned Parenthood, Cruz and Rubio Spar, Audience Boos | Katie Pavlich
McConnell Makes a Stand: Vacancy Shouldn't Be Filled Until America Has a New President | Katie Pavlich