National defense receives unique and elevated emphasis under the Constitution. It is not “just” another duty of the federal government. Most government spending goes to purposes not mentioned in the Constitution, but defense receives not only explicit constitutional mentions but also more emphasis than any other purpose of government.

A proper debate about the size of the federal government should take into account the U.S. military’s unique and well-deserved emphasis within the Constitution. Yet defense needs are being subjugated to other spending that lacks an explicit foundation in the Constitution.

What the Constitution Says

Public understanding of accountability for America’s defense often revolves around media focus on the President’s role as commander in chief. But although the President’s role is clearly described, his military obligation is far less than the detailed role that the Constitution grants to Congress to fund and oversee national defense, set forth in more expansive and more explicit terms.

The President’s entire defense role is confined to Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

But Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress in 17 separate clauses. Six of these pertain to national defense. These include raising and supporting armies and a navy, making the rules that govern the armed forces, and organizing, arming, and disciplining the state-level militia as well as the army and navy.

Unfortunately, current budget discussions are lopsided when they place military spending on the same priority level—or worse—as other spending. It is the height of irony that social spending is considered “mandatory” whereas defense spending is considered “discretionary.”

As documented in The Heritage Foundation’s 2011 Budget Chart Book, even eliminating all defense spending would not solve the federal spending crisis.[1] Since 1976, annual entitlement spending has exceeded defense spending, even with the cost of wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Because entitlement spending has tripled while defense spending declined as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) is now 10 percent of GDP, whereas defense spending is only 5 percent.[2]

Defense spending is now 20.1 percent of federal outlays.[3] Yet some, such as President Obama, want the brunt of spending cutbacks to come from the military. Obama’s revised (but not detailed) plan for fiscal year (FY) 2012 calls for $400 billion in defense cuts over the next 10 years, mostly by canceling or delaying over 50 major weapons programs.

Budget Should Fit Needs

Rather than arbitrary cuts in the nation’s readiness, a proper course is to demand greater efficiencies in the defense budget but use those savings to apply toward other urgent military priorities. The Heritage Foundation has documented how this approach could undo the damage of recent downsizings of America’s army, navy, and aerial fleet that have occurred even as China and others have been beefing up their militaries.[4] The Pentagon is already telling Congress that the U.S. is not prepared for China’s aggressive buildup.[5]

The alternative is to acquiesce in the decline of America as the world’s greatest power. As the Associated Press recently reported:

Defense spending is about to enter a steep decline that may force the Pentagon to abandon some military missions, shrink the armed forces and perhaps limit America’s role in the world, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.… [Gates] said he has already reduced or eliminated spending in the most obvious areas. “The ‘low-hanging fruit’—those weapons and other programs considered most questionable—have not only been plucked, they have been stomped and crushed,” he said.[6]

Policymakers should avoid the temptation to design America’s national security to meet an arbitrary budget and instead find the budget to meet its security needs. This process is known as defining the requisite “force structure,” which is done every four years by the Pentagon in its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The most recent version was compiled in 2010 but was tainted by an effort to align it with the Obama Administration’s philosophy more than with military security needs.[7]

Finding that the QDR therefore was “inadequate to protect vital U.S. national interests,” The Heritage Foundation commissioned its own bottom-up look at the U.S. military and presented a highly detailed report of the manpower, ships, planes, logistics, and equipment that are needed.[8] The conclusion is that funding the core defense program would cost an average of approximately $720 billion per year for the five-year period from FY 2012 to FY 2016. This covers not only traditional military but also force structure to address cyberwarfare and terrorist threats.

The threat is not that the federal government will spend too much on defense but too little on defense while too much on everything else. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen has warned that the budget deficit is the number one national security threat to the United States.[9]

The First Priority

America’s priorities should be ordered as directed by the Constitution: to provide specifically for the common defense and then generally for the nation’s welfare.

As has been well stated by Heritage’s Mackenzie Eaglen:

The rights enshrined in our Constitution are only safe in practice when that constitutional order is defended by adequate power. It is the federal government’s responsibility to maintain that power and to bring it to bear against nations or enemies that threaten America’s security or interests and therefore its freedoms.[10]

 

---

About the author:

Ernest Istook was a U.S. Congressman representing Oklahoma for 14 years and served on the National Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. This article was first published by The Heritage Foundation, May 31, 2011.

Wow! I must be causing some people quite a concern as a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. The establishment skeptics are still stuck in the traditional campaign paradigm of immediate name ID, lots of money, and having held a worthy elective office before. The critics are pounding on what they perceive as my weaknesses. And the Democratic National Committee now has me on its radar and is sharpening its blades for a Cain attack.

No one is more emblematic of the Republican establishment than Karl Rove. He has an unmatched political record from his tenure with former president George W. Bush. I greatly respect and admire what he has accomplished in his career.

But I would suggest that he take a few minutes to review my record as a leader in business and as a problem-solver before he dismisses me as the radio talk show guy form Atlanta with not much to offer as a presidential candidate.  Mr. Rove’s perspective also suggests that successful business skills are not applicable to changing the “Titanic” course our federal government is on.

People outside the political establishment are starting to recognize that those business skills are applicable.  Maybe that’s why Cain is rising in the polls.

One of my favorite political commentators, Charles Krauthammer of Fox News, described my candidacy as entertainment.  I enjoy his perspectives because he is usually very thoughtful and often correct in his analysis. Unfortunately, this time he got it wrong.  Some people would describe being able to give an informative and inspiring speech as an asset, especially if one is running for president.

Or maybe Mr. Krauthammer was thinking of the announcement rally we held in Atlanta recently, which attracted over 15,000 enthusiastic supporters.  Then again, maybe it’s because we do not have the funds or the fundraising network that the more well-known candidates have.  And no, my campaign is not broke, as someone on Chris Wallace’s Fox News staff incorrectly concluded from a dormant PAC account.

My presidential campaign account is called Friends of Herman Cain, just in case Mr. Rove, Mr. Krauthammer and Mr. Wallace would like to make a contribution. I’m not mad! We just have temporary differences of opinions.

And to my critics who are scouting for more of my weaknesses to write about, I will give you three you have not discovered yet. I don’t know everything. I don’t pander to groups.  And I am terrible at political correctness. Like any candidate, I will make some gaffes and stumble in some interviews with the press.

On the other hand, my strengths include identifying problems, properly framing problems, solving problems, surrounding myself with good and great people, and giving those overly inspiring speeches to engage the people in my common sense solutions process.  Oh! I also like to smile, laugh and have fun with people.  I think people can handle those qualities in a presidential candidate.

Lastly, I’m surprised that the DNC already has me on its political radar screen when not all of the potential candidates have yet to even formally declare their candidacy for the Republican nomination.  Maybe the Democrats are taking my candidacy seriously, and if I win the nomination then they will not be laughing.

I realize that the road to the nomination and the White House is long and difficult.  I know we will encounter many new challenges along the way, and that many people see my chances as against the odds.

When one considers that I am up against the skeptics, the critics, the establishment, the Democrats, the liberals, gotcha journalism, a liberal-leaning mainstream media, the challenges of raising campaign funds and a host of other candidates seeking the same objectives, my candidacy is against the odds.

But then, that’s been the story of my life and my career.

Maybe my middle name should have been David. He defeated a giant against the odds.

To find more information on my effort to win the Republican nomination for president, click here.

This week in the beacon of online half-truths, Huff-N-Post, Sam Stein reports that one of his friends has been hired by the Obama administration in a new position to provide “rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community.”  Isn’t that special?

One would think a better plan would be to meet critics on the open
field of public debate with truth and transparency, but that was only
what candidate Obama promised, never what President Obama has delivered. 

Quoting an internal memo by White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer which was “provided” Stein writes, ”Jesse Lee will move from the new media department into a role in the communications department as Director of Progressive Media & Online Response.  For the last two years, Jesse has often worn two hats working in new media and serving as the White House’s liaison with the progressive media and online community.  Starting this week, Jesse will take on the second role full time working on outreach, strategy and response."

Apparently, this function was previously the responsibility of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  While Stein suggests the DNC will continue to mount a similar effort, this role will be directly within the administration’s control.

Stein writes, “Lee has played that role in the past, including writing a semi-infamous White House blog post that said Fox News’ Glenn Beck was lying about the administration on his show. His new gig comes with its own Twitter account, precisely for the purposes of disseminating push back.”

What lie was it that Glenn Beck fostered?  Don’t we love unspecific allegations by blog?  If there was a lie then what is the truth on whatever matter?  Speak up son!

Stein writes, “An equally telling requirement of Lee’s new job, however, is that of crafting strategy for outreach to the progressive community. Lee has been tasked with that responsibility in his previous incarnations, both as a member of the DNC online team during the ’08 election and as a senior new media adviser with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“His new post may require even more delicate hand-holding.  Instead of managing the administration’s web presence, he will be pressing to make the administration more popular on the web.  In that respect, his Twitter account could also become an interesting window into the status of the always emotional, occasional testy dance between progressives and the president,” Stein added about his friend.

It’s a shame really, that the administration doesn’t ever seem to focus on facts, but titillates illusions by twitter.  Then again, this is the administration that worships fame over substance and doesn’t really give a damn about the Constitution of the United States of America. 

The simple Conservative question:  What is “progressive” about central economic planning by a totalitarian government – in this case one that refuses to abide by the Constitution designed to limit such stupidity?  Tried countless times, even officials of Communist China have warned President Obama about the historic repeatedly proven economic failures of managed markets, but he presses on … oblivious.  It makes one wonder how Stein will spin such huge irony. 

This could be very entertaining.  Let’s toast during the national anthem as President Obama likes to do with the Queen of England.

Click here to read the original post by Sam Stein on his special friend. 

As first reported by Ben Hartman in the Jerusalem Post; a handful of Israelis marked Jordanian Independence Day last Tuesday by attempting to present the Jordanian embassy in Ramat Gan with a petition to make the country the official national homeland of the Palestinian people.

It is the Arab nations that have for decades refused to allow
Palestinian people to settle in an obvious effort to cause trouble for
Israel.  Many Arab nations with large land masses and immense oil
reserves, apparently feel using their own people as pawns is a worthy
method to attack the Jewish state – better pawns than bombs, maybe, but
still.

The initiator of the petition, Arye Eldad (National Union) said that the petition "requests that King Abdullah declare Jordan as the national homeland of the Palestinian people.  His father said Jordan is Palestine.  Palestine is Jordan.  Unfortunately Abdullah doesn’t want to follow in his father’s footsteps on this."

Eldad told Hartman, "there is already a Palestinian state in Jordan. 80% of the Jordanian people are Palestinians, and it is built on 65% of the Jewish homeland allocated in the Balfour Declaration and given to us at the San Remo conference. "

He also invoked the recent popular revolutions in the Middle East, saying "If what happened in Tahrir square happens in Amman we could find in a single day that on our eastern border there is no Hashemite Kingdom, but a Palestinian state controlled by 80% of the public."

According to reports, Eldad took an elevator up to the Jordanian embassy in an office tower on Ramat Gan’s Abba Hillel, but came back down minutes later after he was refused entrance to the embassy. Eldad’s spokeswoman said that he was able to enter the floor of the embassy but that police who had been called by the Jordanian staff prevented him from entering.

Dr. Ron Breiman from the "Hatikva – Zionist National Party" said that he didn’t think that making Jordan Palestine was nearly as far-fetched as the traditional solutions for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"First off, I think the solution of a Palestinian state in the West Bank is not relevant or realistic.  It is a lie and the opposite of peace." 

"The Palestinian state west of the Jordan River is impossible.  Peace cannot be based on transfer of Jews, on ethnic cleansing of Jews from the heartland of their homeland.  I am against transfer, against ethnic cleansing either of Jews or Arabs."

He added that the Palestinians who remain in the West Bank would be citizens of the Palestinian state and "can live wherever they like in the West Bank and vote for the Palestinian parliament in Amman."

"This is the real two-state vision."

To read the Jerusalem Post story, click here.

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today released a new oversight report, “The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope” that raises serious questions regarding the agency’s management and priorities.  The report identifies more than $1.2 billion the National Science Foundation (NSF) has lost due to waste, fraud, duplication and mismanagement and an additional $1.7 billion in unspent funds.  

“As a practicing physician and a two-time cancer survivor, I understand the benefits of scientific research.  Investing in innovation and discovery can transform our lives, advance our understanding of the world and create new jobs.  There is no question NSF serves an important –and legitimate – purpose in our society and has contributed to scientific discovery.  As the NSF accurately notes, advances like the Internet, cloud computing, bar codes and magnetic resonance imaging technology were supported with investments from NSF,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Unfortunately, in some ways NSF has undermined its core mission through mismanagement and misplaced priorities. For instance, spending taxpayer dollars to study why some college basketball teams dominate March Madness, funding trips for romantically-involved NSF employees and duplicating programs contributes to our debt rather than science,” Dr. Coburn said.

“As part of my commitment to conduct better oversight on how Washington spends your money, this NSF report is the latest in a series of oversight reports.  At a time when the U.S. is being both challenged as the world’s scientific and technological leader and threatened by a nearly insurmountable $14 trillion debt, we must learn to do more with less.  This report demonstrates how NSF can do both.  I hope NSF and the scientific community will welcome this oversight and offer insights on how to better prioritize our nation’s limited financial resources to advance science and reduce wasteful spending,” Dr. Coburn said.  

Examples of the more than $3 billion in waste and duplication outlined in the report include:
•  $80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness;
•  $315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships;
•  $1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names;
•  $50,000 to produce and publicize amateur songs about science, including a rap called “Money 4 Drugz,” and a misleading song titled “Biogas is a Gas, Gas, Gas”;
•  $2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends; and
•  $581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist.

Additionally, the report details examples of mismanagement including:
•  Hundreds of millions of dollars lost to ineffective contracting;
•  $1.7 billion in unspent funds sitting in expired, undisbursed grant accounts;
•  At least $3 million in excessive travel funds
•  A lack of accountability or program metrics to evaluate expenditures.
•  Inappropriate staff behavior including porn surfing and Jello wrestling and skinny-dipping at NSF-operated facilities in Antarctica.

The report also identifies duplication between NSF and other departments and agencies.  NSF is one of at least 15 federal departments, 72 sub-agencies, and 12 independent agencies engaged in federal research and development.  

NSF also duplicates the work of the Department of Education and other government agencies in the area of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education.  In 2010, there were 28 STEM education programs at NSF totaling $1.2 billion.  Across the federal government, there are 99 STEM education programs totaling $3 billion.

Finally, the report makes a number of recommendations:

•  Establish Clear Guidelines for What Constitutes “Transformative” and “Potentially Transformative” Science.   The agency has begun this process, but much more needs to be done to evaluate the merit of each project funded by the agency.

•  Set Clear Metrics to Measure Success and Standards to Ensure Accountability.  The agency clearly needs to improve its grant administration and evaluation mechanisms.   Addressing these areas will help set better priorities while also rooting out fraudulent and inappropriate expenditures.

•  Eliminate NSF’s Social, Behavioral, and Economics (SBE) Directorate ($255 million in FY 2010).  The social sciences should not be the focus of our premier basic scientific research agency.  

•  Consolidate the Directorate for Education & Human Resources ($872 million in FY 2010).  In addition to excessive duplication within the agency and across the federal government, spending on education and human resources comes at the expense of actual scientific pursuits.  Consolidation can lead to increased investment in transformative scientific studies.

•  Use It or Lose It: NSF Should Better Manage Resources It Can No Longer Spend or Does Not Need and Immediately Return $1.7 Billion of Unspent, Expired Funds It Currently Holds.  Better grant management and closeout procedures could increase available funds for research and provide savings for the federal government.

•  Reduce Duplication: Develop a Strategic Plan to Streamline Federal Research and Development.  With so many agencies performing research and development, the White House Office of Science and Technology should develop a strategic plan to better coordinate research and development efforts and make specific recommendations to eliminate duplication.

•  Provide the NSF Inspector General Additional Resources and Place a Greater Emphasis on the Office of Inspector General’s Findings.  Reducing outright fraud and inappropriate expenditures is an important priority.