Hey, sorry I’ve been AWOL last few days. Slammed at work… and then my cat died. She was 17. No one was really surprised, but still sad. Anyway, not looking for sympathy, but I just didn’t want you to think I was shirking so soon after coming on-board.
So, Zandar had a post on the 24th, a picture of Rand Paul on the cover of Reason with some snark about Paul’s predilection for cutting even programs that help his constituents. But I was intrigued by the quote… and by the lack of follow-up in the comments section. The quote that got me interested was Paul saying:
“They seem to say, ‘Well, we are for certain revisions to make the military more efficient,’ ” said Paul. “I’m of the belief that nothing around you will ever be efficient unless the top line number is lower. So, they don’t like what they call sequester. To me, that means that the top line number is lower, and if you really believe in savings in the military budget or else you’d have to find the savings, you’d be forced to find the savings.”
What do you all think of that? I mean, I think most of us here would agree defense spending can be cut. Paul seems open to it, under the notion that cutting defense will lead to greater efficiencies. Am I misreading Paul, do you think? And if not, why not embrace that part of his agenda? Why not make common cause with him on this issue if not others?
I had a similar debate with Josh Mull and others about Grover Norquist and Afghanistan. Josh’s view was, essentially (and I am paraphrasing here): We need to get out of Afghanistan, and if Norquist can help with that goal, we should work with him. My view was, “The man is not just amoral, but actively immoral. I’d call him a traitor, except he has not meant to give aid and comfort to our enemies, but solely to his own greed. In some ways, that is actually worse. Traitors sometimes believe in ideals greater than themselves.”
So, my view is, we shouldn’t embrace guys like Norquist or Paul tactically. They are just too destructive to ever legitimize. But I’d be curious about what the BJ community thinks about that.
I will say, though, that while I support defense cuts, I think Paul’s argument is idiotic. Sequester will not improve efficiency. Indeed, the costs of implementing sequester could be greater than the savings because of the costs associated with terminating contracts early and closing facilities and so on. We can cut defense, I would argue, because there are sound strategic reasons to do so. But changes in strategy, such as rethinking the security commitment to Taiwan, for instance, need to come first if you really want to make sound decisions. Paul’s efficiency fairy argument is, I think, laughable. But that is a separate issue.