“Calling something “national defense” doesn’t mean that it is.” – Grover Norquist

Norquist is quite refreshing here. The defense budget is bloated. The Pentagon is full of waste. There are probably hundreds of thousands of “make work jobs” in the military which should be cut.  There are bases to close. There are civilian employees (huge numbers of them) who should find work in other parts of the economy. Though “defense” is enumerated in the Constitution, it is defense which is enumerated. Not Keynesian FDR-style jobs programs draped in camouflage.

Yet some conservatives will defend to the end the massive waste which is in our military. Anyone who is for cutting the fat around the middle of the world’s largest fighting force is somehow anti-defense. Nonsense.

Norquist in the above video is exactly right when he explains that productivity gains need to be realized at the Pentagon. We could have a much smaller military with the same level of “service.” Anyone who has been in the military (and I have not though I lived around the military my whole life) knows this is true.

That some are bemoaning the sequestration cuts coming up to the military as somehow “gutting” the services is absolutely ridiculous. Some don’t know better. Some absolutely do. The “defense” budget is now twice what it was in 2000. It has doubled. The proposed cuts reduce the military by 7% over 10 years.

Yet some people are complaining about a cut of less than 1% per year. I’m sorry, but no one who calls themselves a “conservative” can be against such cuts. Frankly any conservative worth his/her salt should be calling for a lot more.

There’s a lot of (taxpayer) money in “defense” and conservatives need to get over their love affair with the armored state.

President Eisenhower warned of us this dangerous infatuation 60 years ago.