Rebecca Kheel
The HillFri, 07 Dec 2018 16:20 UTC

© REUTERS/Romeo Ranoco
A group of 70 House lawmakers is urging President Trump not to cut next year's defense budget, warning of "disastrous consequences" for the military if he does.
"We, the undersigned, strongly urge you to uphold your commitment of $733 billion to restore our nation's military as you complete the fiscal year 2020 president's budget," the lawmakers wrote to Trump in a letter to be delivered next week.
"Cuts to defense spending will have disastrous consequences for our military readiness, as was proven by sequestration."The letter was organized by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio).
The co-signers are all Republican, save for one Democrat: Tom O'Halleran (Ariz.).
Trump has ordered the Pentagon to prepare a $700 billion defense budget for fiscal year 2020,
a $16 billion cut from this year and $33 billion less than originally planned for 2020.
Defense hawks have launched a full-court press to convince Trump to reverse course and return to the $733 billion budget. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services committees, penned an op-ed for the
Wall Street Journal last week on the issue and went to the White House this week to lobby Trump in person.
Inhofe
also gave a speech at the National Defense University on Thursday laying out his case for a defense budget increase.
Those who want the higher budget argue that cutting defense spending now would reverse progress made on addressing readiness issues after two years of budget increases.
In their letter, the House lawmakers cite the recently released National Defense Strategy Commission report, specifically its
warning that U.S. military superiority is "increasingly in doubt" and that "the consequences will be grave and lasting" without quick action.
The letter also highlights Trump's boasts about rebuilding the military, quoting his August remarks when signing this year's annual defense policy bill that "we are going to strengthen our military like never ever before."
In a statement accompanying the release of the letter, Turner called out the contradiction between Trump's remarks and his plan to cut spending.
"President Trump cannot claim he is rebuilding our military while cutting the funds necessary to do so," Turner said. "We've seen the devastating effects on readiness when our military is forced to make arbitrary cuts as our adversaries continue to aggressively invest in their national security operations."
Comment: The American leadership's idiocy is on full display here - and no, that's not a reference to Trump. Cutting the military budget as actually one of his better ideas. And how much would you want to bet that the signers of this op-ed are on the pay of MIC contractors? The fact is, the American military budget is vastly inflated. The idea that you can just pour money into a failing institution in order to make it better is ridiculous. The military needs cuts. Money is wasted, no-bid contracts do no one any good except the companies getting the contracts (the goods they produce are sub-par), the entitlement system is broken... The U.S. spends more money on their military than most other countries combined, and they still can't compete with Russia, who operates on a fraction of their budget. Maybe you're doing things wrong?
Comment: The American leadership's idiocy is on full display here - and no, that's not a reference to Trump. Cutting the military budget as actually one of his better ideas. And how much would you want to bet that the signers of this op-ed are on the pay of MIC contractors? The fact is, the American military budget is vastly inflated. The idea that you can just pour money into a failing institution in order to make it better is ridiculous. The military needs cuts. Money is wasted, no-bid contracts do no one any good except the companies getting the contracts (the goods they produce are sub-par), the entitlement system is broken... The U.S. spends more money on their military than most other countries combined, and they still can't compete with Russia, who operates on a fraction of their budget. Maybe you're doing things wrong?