ConservativeHome's The Republican

Let's make 2011 more conservative than 2010 - in four big ways

Ryan Streeter

The rest of 2010 in Washington will be spent working out the tax cut deal and batting around issues that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are eager to ram through before they lose their grip (if they ever had it) on the 111th Congress. 

So it's not too early to start thinking about 2011, a year all of us hope will be better than 2010. We could all use higher employment rates, more home sales, rising disposable incomes, and greater security.

Conservatives have the ideas needed to help these kinds of New Year's wishes to come true. But we need to get better at formulating, communicating, and implementing them.

Our ConservativeHome100 panel prioritizes comprehensive personal and business tax reform as well as reforming our burgeoning entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare. If more conservatives embrace these objectives in the new year, 2011 will be more conservative than 2010, even if we don't get all the laws passed we would like.

ConservativeHome will be pushing for a more conservative 2011. Here are some of the themes we will visit over and again toward that end:

Shared sacrifice now, so our children have growth later. If we are going to fix our fiscal mess, we are all of us going to have to support reforms that are perhaps more radical than we would like. ConservativeHome will be promoting the kinds of changes we need to embrace in Social Security and Medicare on everything from raising retirement ages to saving more now so the government spends less later. "Entitlement reform" is no longer the domain of policy wonks in Washington. It is something all Americans need to understand and embrace if we care about a growing economy for the next generation. Intergenerational justice, if you will, is not primarily about climate change these days; it's about reducing the deficit burden on our economy so that it can really grow again.

Growth measured by its effect on the average family and small enterprise. Middle class families should see their disposable income rise, and small businesses should be flourishing. Wages stagnated over the past decade in middle America primarily because of exploding health care costs. So for starters, we need a growth agenda centered on limiting and then rolling back Obamacare. But we can't stop there. We need to invest in human capital and a more favorable enterprise environment. We will revisit this theme over and again - but in a way that assesses the best policies and ideas not by how they enrich bankers and the upper class, but how they raise the incomes of middle income families and foster new business growth.

Commitment to security and winning our wars. Public support and understanding of what is going on in our ongoing struggle against our enemies around the world is at a low. This is not the time to retreat from resourcing our military and doubling down on our efforts to make the world safer for trade and democratic institutions. Tom Mahnken makes this point today on Platform.  If we are bullish on the middle class at ConservativeHome, we are hawkish about foreign policy and our armed forces. 

A smarter Republican party. The GOP needs to be the party of ideas again. At ConservativeHome, we will call out potential 2012 candidates if they are not being morally serious enough about ideas, as we have done here recently with Sarah Palin. We will call out Members of Congress if they waffle on the economy or confronting our entitlement challenge. And we will promote the hard-headed approach to problem solving by aspiring candidates and elected officials. 

Here's to a more conservative 2011.

Republican voters are much softer on protecting the defense budget than on other conservative priorities

Ryan Streeter

GOP defense budget hawks need to enter the public debate more loudly right now if they want to protect America's military commitments going into the 112th Congress. And given the noise on the Hill that Democrats want to generate by focusing on START and Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, defense boosters will probably need to shout. 

Here's one reason why they should be noisy. Defense spending is an issue that conservative voters are willing to treat flexibly - much more than on, say, tax policy or spending. ConservativeHome's Republican Panel, which consists of more than 2,000 self-identified conservative Republicans, sheds light on this important issue.  For example:

• 86% of respondents in a recent poll think the tax cuts should be extended for all income brackets
• 79% think that people under the age of 40 should be allowed to invest in private Social Security accounts
• 51% say Congress should only touch the defense budget as a last resort

The 51% who are open to defense cuts as a last resort compares to the 36% who said defense shouldn't be touched at all. So the good news in this for defense hawks is that a large majority of conservatives don't want the military budget treated like the rest of the government. 

But what is clear from our polling data is that conservative voters are much more willing to bend on defense than on other issues such as taxes and entitlement reform. These latter issues are a higher priority for voters right now (we see here that repealing Obamacare and lowering taxes, among other domestic priorities, far outpace concerns about winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Americans have a history of being split fairly evenly on defense spending, but they're also quite evenly split on domestic priorities. So while conservative voters favor protecting the military budget more than the general public, they trend more in the general public's direction on the issue more than on extending the Bush tax cuts, reforming our entitlement programs, and repealing the healthcare law.

Given the willingness of a significant number of Republicans to keep defense spending cuts "on the table" as we seek to put our fiscal house in order, proponents of protecting the defense budget need to get noisier. At the very least, they should hold colleagues who have expressed a willingness to entertain cuts accountable by asking them to answer questions about their intentions, such as I proposed here last week.

John Bolton 2012?

The former US Ambassador to the UN raised the possibility in a radio interview:

"Yes, I am considering it. And largely for the reasons we just talked about. I am very concerned about the direction of national security policy. I am concerned that we hardly talk about it at national-level debates in the mainstream media. The president, as they say, just seems to view national security issues as an irritation, as a distraction from what his real priorities are... Coming into the 2012 election cycle, I don't have the slightest doubt that while economic issues are very much on people's minds, as they should be, it is not in our interest to continue to ignore foreign and national security issues. So, if I did run — and I haven't made a decision; I have never run for office one way or the other, so it would be a pretty big decision to do it — I just think this has got to be more of priority."

It is difficult to see Mr Bolton doing well in any nomination race. Perhaps he just wants to be one of the people on the stage when debates are held to decide the nominee, ensuring national security concerns are at least part of the Republican conversation. He certainly has important things to say about missile defense, North Korea and Iran.

Right from the start, lawmakers are in for a busy December

Natalie Gonnella

After a week’s break for the Thanksgiving holiday, Congress reconvenes tomorrow for the final weeks of the 111th term.  Anticipated to be a very busy end to the lame duck session, lawmakers appear to be in for a long December right from the start.

Here’s a look at what’s on the agenda for the week ahead:

• “As early as Monday night, the Senate could pass and send to the House a measure that gives the Food and Drug Administration greater authority to order food recalls and inspect imported food.” – Associated Press
• Obama has scheduled a meeting at the White House for Tuesday, with Republican leaders to discuss Bush era tax cut extensions.
• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has suggested that the chamber hold two votes on tax cuts, one on the Republicans plan to extend the cuts for all, the other on the Democratic proposal, which excludes cuts for taxpayers from high income tax brackets.
• December 3^rd is the deadline for Congress to vote on a temporary spending bill in an effort to avoid government shutdown.
• The bi-partisan deficit commission is scheduled to release its proposal for long term cuts to Medicare, Social Security, defense and other federal spending projects.
• The Pentagon will release their review on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", accompanied by a two day Senate hearing with Department of Defense officials.

Next week's Senate Services Committee hearing could mark the start of the end for "don't ask, don't tell"

Natalie Gonnella

In 2006, during an interview at Iowa State University, Senator John McCain discussed his views regarding a repeal of the military's "don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, stating:

I understand the opposition to it, and I‘ve had these debates and discussions, but the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.

Well that day may be December 2^nd, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen are confirmed to testify before the Senate Services Committee during a two day hearing on the current policy.

Commenting, on ABC’s This Week, Adm. Mullen said that he personally believes in a repeal of the rule “because…it belies us as an institution. We value integrity as an institution.” Mullen went to further note “asking individuals to come in and lie about who they are every day goes counter to who we are as an institution.”

Robert Gates also stated, during a recent joint interview with Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that “leaving 'don't ask, don’t tell’ behind us is inevitable” (Politico).

Gates and Mullen are scheduled to testify on the first day of the hearing, which will be lead by Committee Chairman Senator Carl Levin as well as ranking member Senator John McCain.  Also giving testimony over the two days are Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson, Army Gen. Carter Ham, Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James E. Cartwright, Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey Jr., Naval Chief of Operations Adm. Gary Roughhead, Marine Commandant Gen. James F. Amos and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz.

According to Ed O’Keefe in the Washington Post, “attention will focus especially on the Marines' Cartwright and Amos, who lead service members who reportedly are the most concerned about ending the ban, according to sources who shared details of the forthcoming report.”

The release of the report on November 30th, in conjunction with next week’s hearing, may prompt the Senate to move forward on a vote for the Annual Defense Authorization Bill, which currently contains language for a repeal of "DADT".  

Although McCain has threatened a filibuster, independent Senator Joseph Lieberman says that he already has the 60 votes needed to overcome any opposition (Connecticut Mirror). Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post) points out that Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski, John Ensign and Susan Collins have indicated that they may support the repeal, which would, as Liberman says, assist in securing the magic number needed to pass the bill and overturn the current policy.

However, as Senate debate on the annual bill usually takes up to two weeks, with only one month left in the current lame-duck session, time may run out, and come January, with GOP gains in the Senate, changes to "DADT" will likely prove even harder to pass.

With Republicans having successfully blocked the initial vote on the Defense Authorization Bill in September, next week’s hearing will definitely be one to watch.

Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates continue their advocacy efforts for the ratification of START, urging Republicans to sign on board

Natalie Gonnella

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, continued to urge Republican lawmakers to back the new START treaty this weekend.  In the current Congressional session, six Republicans need to sign on board in order for the legislation to pass by the required 67 votes.

On today’s Face the Nation (video not yet available), Secretary Clinton reiterated her support for a US commitment to the START treaty:

There is no doubt that the START treaty is in the interests of the United States. Don't just take it from me or from the President; look at what the Europeans - people like Angela Merkel or the foreign minister of Poland or the president of any of the Baltic countries or so many others are saying - they live next door to Russia, they know that this is in their interests, and they also know that because we have no treaty, there is no inspection going on, there is no verification going on – CBS News

With regard to the treaty’s stall in the US Senate, Clinton further commented on Fox News Sunday:

What we're arguing is that we'll find the time in the lame duck … I understand the legitimate concern that there might not be enough time to debate, to make sure that everybody is well-informed. But as Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), who is one of the leading experts in the world on the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, said we cannot wait and I agree with him. – The Hill

Secretary Gates, on Saturday, also pushed for policymakers to consider the impact of the treaty’s potential defeat on US - Russian relations.  At a news conference in Chile, Gates pointed out that Russia has been extremely cooperative over the past two years with respect to Afghanistan and Iran. Gates asked Senators to consider how non-ratification could impact international relations:

So what happens to all of these political relationships, the impact on the internal political situation in Russia if this treaty is voted down? These are all unknowns, but I think potential worries, if the treaty isn't ratified…The reality is, despite what anybody says, I as secretary of defense and the entire uniformed leadership of the American military believe that this treaty is in our national security interest. - Reuters

As the Washington Times points out, if the treaty is not ratified during the current session and delayed until next year, midterm gains in the Senate would then require 14 Republicans to agree to it's passage, which is likely to prove an even more difficult task.

To cut or not to cut: the Washington Post features an online mini-symposium with only a few new ideas

Ryan Streeter

The Washington Post features an online mini-symposium on whether and how to cut the defense budget. Most of the contributors are known, and most of them make arguments one would expect from them. Where one ends up on this issue is a function of where one starts. If you think managing the federal budget is the starting line for any public policy discussion today, then defense needs cutting. If you think the current threats in the world and our military's obligations to confront them precede all other obligations in priority, then you need to protect defense from cuts.

The most thoughtful take is from the least known participant, MacKenzie Eaglen, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Her argument basically goes:

• The military is engaged on more fronts than it was in World War II. This will not likely change simply because of the nature of the threats we face.
• The military is working with aging equipment.
• If we cut spending now, we will have to spend drastically more in the future to rebuild.
• Therefore, let's look at some cuts around the edges but protect the budget and find savings elsewhere.

This is a reasonable argument. We can reform entitlements by asking our citizens to live with higher retirement ages and to consider new options for funding their future benefits now. But we can't ask Islamic extremists and fanatical tyrants to stand down for a few years while we take care of our domestic finances. 

How will the tea party movement affect the growing tension in the GOP over defense spending?

CNN reports on the growing rift in the GOP on defense spending.

The report quotes mainly past statements from the likes of Tom Coburn, Rand Paul, Mark Kirk and Pat Toomey on why the defense budget cannot be off limits to budget cuts.

And the article also quotes Buck McKeown, the ranking House Armed Services member

The growth in the department's top line is insufficient to address the future capabilities required by our military. One percent real growth in the defense budget over the next five years is a net cut for investment and procurement accounts. A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline.

This is the money quote right now, however, since it seems that November 2's results have huge repercussions for the defense community: 

The Tea Party movement is going to have more fights with the status quo Republican leadership than it will with the Democrats," said retired Col. Douglas Macgregor. "And what we're going to witness over the next two years is whether or not this political movement, which is quite powerful, will succeed in asserting itself and taking control of the Republican party.

It seems that someone should draw up a list of what the actual effects of certain considered cuts would be. If x were reduced in the budget, y would be the effect on the ground. Without some such tool, the debate will be driven by interest and ideology. The freshman class, driven to Washington almost entirely by domestic concerns, could benefit from some clear-headed analysis like that.