Should Cuts Be Made to Domestic Social Programs to Protect the Defense Budget? >
Commonsense Cuts Will Keep America Safe
House Republicans propose commonsense cuts that will keep America safe
May 10, 2012
About Brian Darling:
Brian Darling is senior fellow for government studies at the Heritage Foundation.
The House is working on a plan to substitute about $300 billion in cuts from waste in domestic programs over 10 years to replace the approximate $100 billion "sequester" of cuts scheduled to gut defense programs next year. This is a good idea.
Late last year, Republicans in the House negotiated an agreement to increase the debt ceiling in consideration for the creation of a "super committee" to make recommendations on $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years and a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. The law had a provision that would implement $1.2 trillion in cuts, equally divided between defense and domestic programs, if the super committee failed to find savings.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]
The super committee failed. Now the Pentagon is facing across-the-board cuts that will make America less safe. Looking back, the debt-limit increase was a terrible deal for conservatives who believe in Ronald Reagan's vision of "Peace through Strength."
One of the big problems with the scheduled sequester is that it would implement automatic defense cuts that would slow important Pentagon programs. America's aging defense infrastructure is in dire need of an update in a world with emerging threats from Iran and North Korea, not automatic cuts that will weaken important programs. Military weakness will not be rewarded and may provide an incentive to foreign powers to challenge a weakened U.S. military—making us less safe.
The specific cuts proposed by House Republicans seem like common sense. A few of the reported cuts are caps to medical malpractice awards, repeal of some provisions of Dodd-Frank regulatory law, and cuts to the food stamp program.
[Check out our collection of political cartoons on defense spending.]
The food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, has exploded under the Obama administration to become the fourth-largest entitlement program on the books.
The cuts proposed to food stamps include an elimination of something called "categorical eligibility" to the program that does not use income and assets as a means to test whether these programs are going to people in need. Also, states are rewarded for increasing the welfare rolls; providing an incentive for states to increase participation regardless of need. That may explain why participation has increased since 2000 from 17.2 million to 44.7 million, according to the Heritage Foundation.
The efforts by conservatives in the House to get rid of the defense sequester is a good idea.
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.
- Other Arguments
-
#111564
No — Republicans in Congress talk big about defense—they just don't want to pay for it
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, U.S. Representative
-
#210376
Yes — Cutting the defense budget puts the country at risk while ignoring the true source of government overspending
MACKENZIE EAGLEN, Fellow at the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute
-
#46781
No — Republican budget is not about defending the country, but defending defense contractors' profits
DEAN BAKER, Author of 'The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive'
-
#54875
No — GOP budget proposal is fiscally irresponsible and morally wrong
JOHN GEHRING, Catholic Program Director at Faith in Public Life
