• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Defending Defense: The Threat of the "Super Committee"

    The situation looks bleak. The military faces hundreds of billions of dollars in defense cuts while being involved in three military engagements. On the horizon is the new Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction—a.k.a. the “Super Committee”—and the possibility of a $1 trillion “trigger” that would change the military as we know it.

    This Thursday afternoon, the Defending Defense project will host an event on the future of defense spending in the face of this deficit-reduction “Super Committee.” Featured speakers include Senators Lindsey Graham (R–SC), Jon Kyl (R–AZ), and Kelly Ayotte (R–NH) and Representatives Randy Forbes (R–VA), Duncan Hunter (R–CA), and Allen West (R–FL).

    The event will begin at 12:15 p.m. at the Rayburn House Office Building room B-339 located at 45 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, D.C. 20515.

    To RSVP for the event, please click here.

    This event comes during a crucial countdown in 2011. After enacting the so-called Budget Control Act, Congress formed a new Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to make recommendations on getting spending and borrowing under control with a statutory goal of reducing the deficit by “at least” $1.5 trillion over fiscal years 2012 to 2021. Join key Senators and Representatives as they discuss the future of defense spending.

    Defending Defense is a joint initiative of American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and the Foreign Policy Initiative to promote a sound understanding of the U.S. defense budget and the resource requirements necessary to sustain America’s preeminent military position in a dangerous world.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Defending Defense: The Threat of the "Super Committee"

    1. West Texan says:

      I'm very happy to see HF on board with the initiative "defending defense". Sadly, the nation's leadership lost their way following a twisted path toward unconstitutional social progressive "reforms". If we continue to follow this crazy way of thinking, then why bother with individual state governments?

      Let the federals have total power over all foreign and domestic affairs. Small localized government would be completely dependent on and answer directly to big daddy fed. Of course, such an arrangement would require a large nationalized police force to control the vast coast to coast populations. And to help keep society in-line, the military and citizenry would be required to swear allegiance to the socially engineered federal state. There should be zero tolerance for individual incentive and entrepreneurship. After all, the fed's numerous bureaucracies would control the economy and by extension people's livelihoods. Any disagreement would be crushed making socialists like Maxine Waters proud.

      Sorry folks. The Europeans have proven that such big social justice "reforms" always end in the worst kinds of subjugation and brutality. To share a friend's advice, "keep your powder dry".

    2. Lloyd Scallan says:

      Do we really expect Dems such as the likes of John Kerry and Patty Murray to ever agree with anything a Repub. might suggest? Those that were appointed to this so-called "super committee" were installed NOT to reach an agreement, but gridlock, thus force the "trigger" that would cut massive defense funds from the budget. This is excactly the way it was designed to work. This "super committee" is yet another back door scheme by both Dems and RINOs to gut our national security then use that money, not to reduce the deficite, but to add to more government give-away programs in exchange for votes.

    3. HARRY SNYDER says:

      It is frightening to note that the Government has, in effect, placed the country's defense in the hands of a quasi-Politburo with extreme powers to gut the Defense Department. Defense of the nation is the prime responsibility of our government under the Constitution, and I believe that deliberately shrinking the Defense Department borders on TREASON. Perhaps not "de jure," but certainly "de facto."

    4. Ryan D says:

      Pro-defense bias aside, we should not be cutting any more of the DoD budget and I'll give you my reason why. Defense is a jobs engine, yes. I will not discount that somewhat controversial fact… However, defense spending is being put into desperately needed R&D to help give our country the advantage over other countries. This tax money, which would otherwise be spent on paying drug-induced low life welfare recipients, is being spent on well educated, dedicated and hard working people to help better everyone's quality of life, all around the world. In addition, contrary to popular belief, defense spending as a percentage of our GDP is actually shrinking as our economy grows, not increasing as everyone has been led to believe (or will grow eventually..). And that is not a good trend.

      The fact that this supercommittee is even THINKING of reasons to cut defense spending over entitlement spending is absolutely ludicrous. Entitlement spending is and always should be the pincushion of US government spending. When budgets need to be cut, they should be the first and foremost source of funding reductions. It makes absolutely no sense to take the jobs away from educated, hard working people trying to keep our country secure and reward those who are doing nothing to deserve the money. This isn't good for our economy nor the future security of our country. If we're going to spend tax money, spend it on the people who are working for it!

      Needless to say, I really hope the committee agrees to forgo additional cuts to our nation's defense budget. Cutting DoD will not benefit anyone in the long run.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.