Does the federal government have too little on its plate these days, or too much?  The American public…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
FCC Micromanagement Could "Blow Up" Planned Spectrum Auction

Does the federal government have too little on its plate these days, or too much?  The American public is unequivocal on that question, with a record 60% telling Gallup that bureaucrats are wielding too much power.  Only 7% say "too little."

Despite that ugly reality, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeks to increase its level of micromanagement over our telecommunications market.  The auction of spectrum from television stations to wireless carriers is obviously long overdue, and ideally would improve service quality and speed within that growing market.  Unfortunately, the FCC intends to limit participation in bidding on highly valuable low-frequency airwaves by excluding the largest and most successful carriers in many markets.  As Bret Swanson observes at TechPolicyDaily…[more]

April 22, 2014 • 03:13 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary: The Best Conservatives Can Hope For? Print
By Ashton Ellis
Wednesday, December 19 2012
It may be more prudent to let the Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee...put Hagel on the record about his principles as Defense Secretary.

This week the White House let the press know that President Barack Obama is considering Chuck Hagel, the former Republican Senator from Nebraska, to be the next Secretary of Defense.  The trial balloon touched off an interesting debate among conservatives and libertarians about whether to support the choice. 

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, is cheering on Obama to pick Hagel because of the Vietnam veteran’s skepticism over foreign interventions, and openness to “paring down” the Pentagon’s budget. 

In a speech to the non-partisan Atlantic Council which he currently leads, Hagel argued for more use of so-called “soft power” in foreign relations, such as a greater emphasis on engagement through diplomacy. 

Hagel’s principles may make him appealing to the Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party, who would like to see less military involvement in foreign affairs, and a unilateral reduction in federal spending.

But some others on the Right aren’t nearly so excited.  The Washington Free Beacon quotes William Kristol of the Weekly Standard as saying, “If Chuck Hagel has his way, Iran will get nuclear weapons and Israel will be thrown under the bus.”  Kristol was referencing Hagel’s past statements in favor of unconditional direct negotiations with Iran, and a tougher line on Israel’s relationship with Palestinians. 

Kristol and others raise some good points about Hagel that should be examined in more detail.  A future Defense Secretary should be made to articulate his understanding of America’s role in the Middle East; especially his stance toward Israel, the United States’ most consistent ally in the region.  That’s what Senate confirmation hearings are for.  But if nominated, hopefully Hagel will also get a chance to elaborate on a statement he made last year in an interview posted by the Council on Foreign Relations:

“Our Defense Department budget, it is not a jobs program.  It’s not an economic development program for my state or any district.”

Hagel is right on this point.  National defense spending should be premised on securing Americans’ safety, not necessarily on creating American jobs.  Defense spending is still the government spending taxpayer money, so if the primary justification for a Pentagon budget item is that it creates jobs or otherwise economically stimulates a specific region or industry, fiscal conservatives should be wary. 

Newt Gingrich is fond of saying that there’s enough waste and missed efficiencies in the Pentagon’s budget to turn it into a “Triangle” without jeopardizing America’s security posture.  Whether the real shape is a triangle or a square, it’s likely that any major deal on long-term spending reforms will have to include some reduced share of federal tax receipts going to the Defense Department. 

The question is how much.  During his first term, President Obama sliced $500 billion out of the military’s budget.  If the federal government goes over the fiscal cliff this January, the automatic spending cuts poised to hit the Defense Department are estimated to total another $500 billion.  While $1 trillion in cuts in less than four years would certainly trim at least one of the Pentagon’s corners, it’s hard to imagine that there is $1 trillion in wasteful or inefficient spending to pare down in such a short timeframe. 

All of which brings us back to a possible Hagel nomination.  Conservatives who resist the idea of Hagel as Defense Secretary might want to consider what scuttling his nomination would produce in the way of an alternative.  U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice’s proposed nomination to be the new Secretary of State crashed on the shoals of the Benghazi scandal.  Her replacement might be Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.  If Hagel goes down without a chance at confirmation hearings, is it likely President Obama will nominate someone more conservative? 

It may be more prudent to let the Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee – John McCain (R-AZ) chief among them – put Hagel on the record about his principles as Defense Secretary.  While conservatives might not like everything he says, it’s almost certain that another nominee would be even worse. 

Question of the Week   
How much is the Internal Revenue Service expected to pay out in employee bonuses for fiscal year 2013?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Justice Sotomayor argues explicitly that Michigan’s voters would have been within their rights to, for example, lobby university authorities to adopt race-neutral admissions standards but that by adopting a constitutional amendment insisting on race neutrality, thereby transferring the decision from the education bureaucrats to the people themselves and their constitution, they 'changed the…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, National Review
— The Editors, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

Is ObamaCare “working”?