To be sure, we at CFIF do not deny that inefficiencies and waste exist within the defense budget... While dollars within the defense budget could be allocated more effectively, however, that does not justify risking national security in favor of hiring more IRS enforcers, 'green' energy money pits or other pet recipients of Obama’s largesse.

Tweet

In February 2009, Barack Obama unequivocally pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term: 

“As our interest payments rise, our obligations come due, confidence in our economy erodes and our children and our grandchildren are unable to pursue their dreams because they’re saddled with our debts.  That’s why today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” 

For good measure, here was Obama employing that same trademark arrogance one month later on March 24, 2009: 

“Both under our estimates and under the CBO estimates, both the most conservative estimates out there, we drive down the deficit over the first five years of our budget.  The deficit is cut in half.  And folks aren’t disputing that.” 

Two years later, we’ve learned many things about Obama.  One is that the surest sign he’s saying something preposterous is that he’s claiming nobody disagrees with him. 

This week, Obama acknowledged a record $1.65 trillion deficit for 2011 as he unveiled his proposed budget.  That follows deficits of $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009 and $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2010.  For purposes of comparison, the 2008 deficit was $455 billion. 

Perhaps raising the deficit to record highs is all part of Obama’s curious master plan to cut it in half.  After all, he still has two years to miraculously make good on his pledge.  Keep in mind, however, that when he made that promise he projected that the deficit would be down to $912 billion by now and $581 billion next year. 

The festering problem is reckless spending.  Since entering the White House, the Obama Administration has increased domestic discretionary spending by 84% when one includes the failed “stimulus.”  In his latest budget proposal, Obama even seeks a 9.4% increase for the Internal Revenue Service and 5,100 new agents. 

When it comes to national defense, however, Obama suddenly discovers what he labels “unnecessary costs”: 

“At the Department of Defense, for instance, we are reducing its funding by $78 billion over the next five years on a course for zero real growth in funding.  To do this, Secretary [Robert] Gates is pursuing a package of terminations, consolidations and efficiencies that include, for example, the elimination of the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle; the consolidation of four Air Force air operations centers into two; and reducing the number of Generals and Admirals by more than 100.” 

Accordingly, Obama’s budget cuts national defense for the first time since 9/11.  Troublingly, Secretary Gates warned that the budget reductions are “becoming increasingly distant from strategic and operational reality – distant, in other words, from the real world.” 

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reported last week that China has increased its defense budget 358% since the previous decade: 

“The world’s military balance appears to be shifting in tandem with its economic balance.  China is beginning to create a military to match its powerful economy.  This is happening as the U.S. and its staunchest allies, including Britain, are looking at flat or falling military spending – and as Russia is struggling to revive its armed forces in the post-Soviet era.” 

China unveiled a copycat stealth fighter this year, is preparing to deploy its first aircraft carrier and now can threaten security throughout the critical western Pacific, according to a report from Australia’s Kokoda Foundation: 

“This is potentially the most demanding security situation faced since the Second World War.  This is not Mickey Mouse.  This is dead serious stuff.” 

To be sure, we at CFIF do not deny that inefficiencies and waste exist within the defense budget.  In fact, we actively oppose the duplicative alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, a classic example of critical defense dollars wasted on earmarks.  While dollars within the defense budget could be allocated more effectively, however, that does not justify risking national security in favor of hiring more IRS enforcers, “green” energy money pits or other pet recipients of Obama’s largesse. 

National defense is the federal government’s foremost obligation, and history repeatedly demonstrates that we sacrifice it at our peril.