Republican Senator John Cornyn Accepts Cuts In Defense Spending
Another Republican Becomes a “Flip-Flopper”
Ever since Saint Ronald Reagan became President, Defense spending has been the Republican “sacred cow”. But today Sen. John Cornyn of Texas has backed away from Republican claims that the “sequester” will weaken our military. He joins others of his party who backtrack when it is politically expedient for them to do so.
Cornyn claims he knows more than Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that claim our country’s security will suffer. He claims that with the United States virtually out of Iraq, and our participation in Afghanistan winding down, a reduction in defense spending will not affect national security.
There’s something wrong here. I actually agree with a Republican, and he’s from Texas. I must be dreaming. Public opinion should trump political ambitions, and the majority of Americans favor reducing Defense spending before cutting benefits from social programs such as social security and Medicare.
Some Republicans have suggested that the President be granted a certain amount of control over spending cuts. Senate Republicans are considering a proposal this week that could alleviate some impacts of the cuts by giving the president flexibility to decide where they would occur.
“I say to my Republican friends, if you want to give the president flexibility as to how to exact these cuts in defense spending, then why don’t we go home and just give him the money? I am totally opposed to that,” Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We spent too long on defense authorization and finding out what this country needs to secure this country without saying, ‘Hey, well we’ll just let the president have the, quote, flexibility.’”
It is increasingly obvious that the Republican Party is divided on three levels. It is also obvious that they are out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. Ignoring the polls, ignoring the concerns of the working class will eventually eliminate the GOP as a viable second party. If President Obama had focused all of his energy towards the destruction of the Republican Party, he could not have been nearly as successful as what they have done to themselves. Maybe the November elections devastated the three factions of the party more than any of the “politicos” could have imagined. They are without leadership and direction. If we judge them by their leaders in the House and Senate, they have no defined course of action. Boehner’s vote is a resounding “no” to any proposal by the President. McConnell’s focus was to make Mr. Obama a “one term President”, and we know how well that worked.
Columnist-The Guardian Express