Gary Johnson Grabs the GOP’s Third Rail: Cutting Military Spending

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Every political epoch has one: a third rail, an issue so electric that any mention of it tends to close discussion and slam doors rather than broaden discourse and widen debate. For 65 years, increased military spending has been the sacred cow no politician hoping to capture the Republican presidential nomination dared question. Although GOP stalwarts favored cutting every other area of government, the Cold War required massive expenditures on national defense. As the Communist threat crumbled — tellingly, under the weight of the arms race, a stagnant economy, and the costs of empire — conservatives flailed about to find a consensus on the new “unipolar” world. Then the terrorist attacks of 9/11 acted as a booster shot for national defense. Over decades of political convention, greater military outlays became the distinguishing mark of a patriot. However, the signs of an impending financial meltdown and the fatigue of never-ending nation-building have the American people demanding our fiscal house be set in order — even if it means cutting defense spending in ways consistent with our national security. At this moment, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson — the darkest of dark horse candidates in this year’s Republican presidential primaries — hopes the electorate is willing to reconsider one of his party’s most settled questions: that military cuts should be out-of-bounds.

Governor Johnson (no relation) sees a looming threat to our national well-being. “My fundamental belief is that the biggest threat to our national security is the fact that we’re bankrupt,” he said. “Forty-three cents out of every dollar we’re spending is…being printed. If we don’t balance the federal budget, I maintain we’re going to have a monetary collapse.”

Johnson promises to introduce a balanced budget in 2013, a feat requiring a 43 percent cut in spending. Only a few budget items can be cut deeply enough to realize those kinds of savings: entitlements and national defense. “I do not know how you can have a discussion on cutting what we spend nationally without talking about military spending,” Johnson confessed. “I like to start off by talking about Medicaid, Medicare, and military spending.”

While reforming entitlements has become a hallmark of political courage in the GOP, that final program could endanger his political health. Undaunted, the very libertarian governor is doing plenty of talking. He has called for a 43 percent cut in defense spending.

“Can we provide a strong national defense for our country and still reduce military spending by 43 percent?” he asked. Answering his own question, he said, “My answer is: Yes. And the operative word would be ‘defense,’ as opposed to offense — as opposed to nation-building.”

Cuts that deep require a reassessment of the defense apparatus and America’s place in the world. Johnson would immediately end our interventions in Iraq, which he opposed from the beginning, and Afghanistan, where he says the United States long ago met its military objective and is now bogged down in the fractious and perilous infighting between domestic factions. Johnson opposed Barack Obama’s war in Libya from the outset.

Balancing the budget requires more than extracting ourselves from perpetual war. Johnson would end the Cold War-era policy of providing other nations’ defense against a non-existent threat — e.g., U.S. troops protecting West Germany from an invasion by East Germany. “We have 100,000 troops on the ground in Europe. I’m just going to go out on a limb here and say that 57,000 might cut it,” he said. ” That would be a 43 percent reduction.”

Providing the national defense of foreign nations drains American resources while disfiguring European economics. Since they do not have to protect their own borders, foreign nations have diverted those funds to constructing a cradle-to-grave welfare state. Johnson refers to this as “a massive transfer of American dollars to Europe with little enhancement to our security.” “I think other countries need to take up the slack that we haven’t even allowed them to take up,” the governor told me. This includes nations like Japan and South Korea, where our presence has been a longstanding source of tension.

Ultimately, no corner of the Pentagon would go untouched. His campaign’s proposals for force reductions largely reflect….

Read more.

"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >


  1. Alll departments in the government, including the military, are given an allowance to run their department. If they don't use it all, the next year they are cut back, so they buy anything to use up the money. New uniforms, new office furniture, new equipment, etc. If the government let them buy just what they need each year instead of the yearly allowance, they would save millions. Also, if they need a shovel or a hammer, let them get it at the Ace hardware and bill the government instead of going thru channels and all the red tape, which makes a ten dollar hammer cost several hundred. I am against any necessary spending to keep our military strong, but the needless waste should be cut out. The same with welfare and social security, Investigate before giving out the money. There are too many people on welfare that know how to play the system. They still collect for children that are no longer at home, and even children that are not theirs, and able bodied men that are either too lazy, or get more on welfare than working. Are government would have plenty of money for the budget if it were not for fraud, graft, theft, bribery, and the way they run things.

  2. Mr Gary Johnson is absolutely correct. We do not need to be trying to support half of the world. We are borrowing money for our children to pay back for this. Now, if ever, is not the time to be sending monies out of the country! I hope I have a chance to vote for this man.

  3. If the gov would collect a flat 12 percent tax from ALLwalks of life the monies generated would be astronomical . If they were subjected to the same medical care as everyone on medicare they would definatey get that straight .all of the commities watching commities watching commities that is alot of wasted monies. Then they get extra monies for each commity they are on hay that is there job why should they take and take when the only thing we get out of the whole deal is more taxes and less gov.for the price. We really need to stand together put our differences aside and vote everyone of the gov. Out and start anew that is the only way they will actually listen to the people. I mean if they want to find cuts they need to tighten the ole boot straps and start with them selves.not the people who actually there dues and are told there will be no ssi when we are to old to work. I bet they dpnt loose a penny when there time comes. Now they are discussing taking my 401k from to balance the budget. I donot trust the gov. They could care less about the people of this great country

  4. Most seem to forget that Clinton gutted the Military Budget and what you presume as over spending was money that beefed up the Military after 9/11, so all you anti military, go ahead and reduce the Military and when you have another attack from Obama's followers in the Middle East, don't scream for the Military, they won't be able to answer the call. Look for your cuts in our UNAMERICAN POLITICANS.

  5. mingrabudsa says:


Speak Your Mind