Interesting read - Rep. Rigell in the New York Times defense vs. spending cuts...

Interesting reading in the New York Times story about an emerging split in the GOP over Pentagon cuts, which includes a nice sized take out on U.S. Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Virginia Beach.

The story focuses on Republican vows to cut spending even in the ballooning militayr budget, but then notes that many GOPers aren't quite sure where to make those cuts. This is a dicey subject for Rigell because of the district he represents in Hampton Roads, and because of the budget cut mantra he puts out.

Rigell beat former Rep. Glenn Nye over the head about Pentagon cuts to Joint Force Command and also about Nye's inability to completely derail plans to move a Norfolk-based aircraft carrier to Mayport, Fla. But when you start to talk serious about spending cuts in the federal budget, it's impossible to avoid talking about the massive amounts that the country shells out for the military.

So Rigell is walking on treacherous territory here. And from his comments to the NYT - you can see it.

But so far, few Tea Party-backed members on the House Armed Services Committee have said specifically where they would cut. In public remarks at the hearing on Wednesday, several spoke up in favor of favorite military programs or of protecting military installations at home, illustrating the difficulty of balancing their overarching philosophy and goals with the immediate concerns of their districts.

And later.

Representative Scott Rigell, a Republican newcomer from Virginia who at first sparred with the Tea Party but then signed a pledge supporting many of its positions, said that he, too, was committed to a strong military and the spending it required. In an interview after the hearing, he said that “as a very first priority, it is our constitutional duty to stand an army.”

Mr. Rigell said he supported in the Pentagon budget “any responsible, wise reduction that can clearly be identified as waste,” but needed more specific information before he could judge where to cut. His son, he said, is a member of the Marine reserve and drives an amphibious assault vehicle, an earlier version of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. On Mr. Gates’s decision to eliminate the E.F.V., Mr. Rigell said, “The abruptness of the decision is concerning me.”

Mr. Rigell, who represents a district that is economically dependent on its military installations, spoke against plans to move one of five nuclear aircraft carriers based in Norfolk to Florida, taking with it 10,000 jobs.

 

Comments

[Jeremy Aldrich]

"As a very first priority, it is our constitutional duty to stand an army." - more ignorance of the Constitution and the founders, who gave Congress the right to raise an army on an as-needed basis, not to keep a bloated military force around in peacetime. In fact, the founders HATED the idea of a standing army:

James Madison: "As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.”

Thomas Jefferson: "I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies." and "A statement has been formed by the secretary of war, on mature consideration, of all the posts and stations where garrisons will be expedient, and of the number of men requisite for each garrison. The whole amount is considerably short of the present military establishment. For the surplus no particular use can be pointed out. For defence against invasion, their number is as nothing; nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for that purpose."

Elbridge Gerry: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”

Several early state constitutions, including NC, PA, VT, MA, and OH explicitly linked the right to bear arms with the danger to liberty of keeping a standing army in peacetime.