OP-ED | Super Committee Consequences: Our Nation’s Security and 40,000 Connecticut Jobs
by Linda McMahon | Oct 23, 2011 5:30am
(28) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2012, Opinion
Twelve men and women have 30 days to do the job 535 members of Congress, including members of Connecticut’s delegation, have failed to do for years. Runaway spending has led to staggering deficits that will create cascading economic and national security issues. At stake is the security of the American people here at home and fighting for our freedoms around the world, and for Connecticut, nearly 40,000 jobs could be on the line.
For years, Congress has abdicated their responsibility to produce a spending plan that balances both sides of the ledger. And now Congress has left a closed-door committee, referred to as the Super Committee, with a task that seems more focused on providing political cover for the professional politicians in Washington than for making the difficult decisions needed.
To refresh your memory, the budget deal struck last July by the Obama Administration and Congressional leaders called for the creation of the Super Committee to identify $2 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years to offset the $2.4 trillion increase in America’s debt ceiling. While $900 billion of those cuts were identified, a second round of reductions must be targeted by November 23.
If the Super Committee fails to reach agreement, or if Congress does not enact its recommendations by Dec. 23, the resulting “trigger cuts” would cause $1.2 trillion in automatic reductions, half of which would come from the Pentagon’s budget, beginning in January 2013. Let’s take a closer look at the consequences of the potential cuts that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, a Democrat, said would “do great damage.”
Cutting spending is going to hurt, but any pain must be worth the gain. With little to gain by misplaced cuts on defense, the pain of arbitrary defense reductions could be devastating for Connecticut, putting potentially 40,000 people out of work. Jobs at stake include those at East Hartford’s Pratt & Whitney building engines for the Joint Strike Fighter; Stratford’s Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. manufacturing military helicopters; and Groton’s Electric Boat. Given the potential of failure on the part of the Super Committee, Connecticut stands to pay a heavier price than most other states. For us, failure to act is not an option for the Super Committee.
In April, the President touted $400 billion in cuts at the Pentagon and praised Secretary Gates for courageously taking on wasteful spending. All of this and yet domestic cabinet agencies had not been asked to carry out comparable cost cutting. Shockingly, spending grew from $513.7 billion in 2008 to $825.6 billion in 2009, representing an appalling increase of 58.5 percent.
I’m all for cutting wasteful spending in Washington, but the implementation of across the board cuts to defense are disastrous – it could leave our fighting men and women without the equipment they need to save their lives and protect our country.
Another grave concern over the consequences of the Super Committee’s failure to reach agreement on cost cutting is the mismatch between the perceived upside and very real downside of arbitrary reductions to defense. Defense spending is currently only five percent of the nation’s total economy.
Now I’m not an expert in the ways of the Washington games that got us here, but in the business world, we know that when spending cuts need to be made, a nonstrategic approach such as this that compromises the core objectives is both irresponsible and counterproductive. The professional politicians have said they are hopeful that the Super Committee will reach an agreement but acknowledge there is no certainty. As we have found out over the last three years, hope is not a strategy and change is not leadership.
Linda McMahon is a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.
Tags: Linda McMahon, U.S. Senate, CT jobs, Supercommittee, Congress, spending, Washington
(28) Comments
posted by: TomJefferson | October 23, 2011 9:44am
Well Linda…its a sad day when a person who’s only success has been to exploit large men wrestling with each other thinks they are competent to run for Senate. But hey - it’s your money.
I’m no fan of the Super Committee but for the Republican obstruction of the raising of debt limit, we wouldn’t have the Super Committee.
It’s also pretty funny how a person who can throw 50 million away on a failed candidacy - can state how cuts can hurt but its somehow ok.
You are right that you don’t know anything about Washington..you might add you don’t know anything about real people either.
posted by: AndersonScooper | October 23, 2011 11:36am
Okay Linda. You don’t want to see the defense budget cut, but you’re completely on board with the GOP’s efforts to demonize the President for both the deficits and the unemployment rate??!!
Why don’t you show some leadership and line out the billion dollar plus in spending cuts that you would like to see made?
If you’re not willing to do that, (and you’re not), isn’t it obvious that you are just as phony and dishonest as the rest of them?
PS—you flunk the Buffet test. As a self-employed person, my FICA contributions of 15.3% are greater than your effective federal tax rate. Yet the problem is runaway spending?
PPS—what’s up with your final cheap dig at President Obama? Smack-talking might be great for TV ratings, but it hints that you might not be US Senate material.
posted by: Enfield Gets It | October 23, 2011 12:14pm
It is clear that success in the business world is JUST what is needed in Washington. Many elected Washington reps. have never held a REAL job and have no idea how to make a real cut to a budget.
I can only point to Enfield where we (for the last 4 years) have business people running our town - who do understand how to cut a budget with thoughtfulness and a plan - and didn’t raise our taxes, but kept all our services and expanded others.
Mrs. McMahon understands accounting practices. With the success of her business she has proven her expertise is exactly what is needed in Washington.
Linda provided many people with PAYING jobs during her last campaign and hired CT people - not like other folks who still run outstanding balances on previous campaigns.(I wonder when those vendors might get paid - 2020).
Linda you are right on in this article. The Democrat majority in Washington (which includes our elected officials) just don’t want to do the job.
Defense spending may need a trim but that is just a cop-out to make that line item the only cut.
The whole budget needs review and maybe the idea of zero-based budgeting will be considered - thus cutting all line items and making government smaller and more streamlined.
New ideas mean new people. Not the “old boys” doing the same old thing.
posted by: Disgruntled | October 23, 2011 1:20pm
Linda,
I am no expert on being rich but I would suggest you save yourself millions and give up trying to join the club.The two losers who held office,Criminal Chris and Puppet-for-Israel Joe were bad enough.
Go back to Greenwich and,as Kinky said,
“Get your biscuits in the oven and your buns in the bed.
posted by: ... | October 23, 2011 1:24pm
Overall not a bad opinion piece trying to argue about the dangerous costs of not solving the 2 trillion in cuts to offset the debt-ceiling increase.
However, if Linda McMahon wants to get a better image towards women voters, she should have argued the other hundreds of billions cut to social programs that benefit society (education, welfare, etc.), as those tend to be issues the general female voting populous focus on more than military policy/spending.
I would only point out to the flaw in this op-ed is Linda McMahon’s attempt to make the issues of defense spending cuts bi-partisan by using Leon Panneta as an example.
He’s the Secretary of Defense (and former CIA director), he’s going to be dissatisfied in reductions in his budget for the most obvious reason: its less money for the DoD. You could go to any Secretary in Obama’s cabinet, tell them they’re loosing a few hundred billion in a budget and respond by fighting for every buck.
posted by: PAULINE | October 23, 2011 2:25pm
Why is it that folks like “Tom Jefferson” cannot understand that Linda McMahon is a smart and savvy business woman?
The entertainment and sports industry is a legitimate business and a very complicated one at that. If Linda was the owner of the Texas rangers, would “Tom” have the same negative view?
As for knowing about Washington…isn’t that the problem. Isn’t it about time we send representatives to Congress who are not “steeped” in the ways Washington currently works? The “guys’ have really “mucked it up”...let’s send good women in to make this country strong again!!
posted by: JFK | October 23, 2011 2:50pm
Well Tom “not Thomas” Jefferson, your disdain for successful businesswomen is clear. Your hate for capitalism is what drove you to Obama and it is shocking that you don’t seem a bit worried about this debt crisis. I have had the opportunity to meet many political candidates and the same arrogance and dismissiveness which most displayed, you also seem to have; perhaps you hold an office in CT, you would fit right in. Face it, you would have been as offended if my octogenarian friends or my seventeen year old daughter had written a similar op-ed as Linda McMahon. You just don’t like debate and discussion, do you? Especially if disagrees with your socialist leanings. We are not electing enough experienced citizens to our highest offices. I do not consider Dick “how do you create a job” Blumenthal experienced, but you do. Don’t get me wrong, both major parties have inexperienced people in office, but your comments about Linda McMahon’s wealth and her “investment” in my future are disturbing.
posted by: Careful | October 23, 2011 3:09pm
AndersonScooper: You don’t really care about the disastrous nose-dive our country is in. Your only feelings appear to be, to keep a political imposter—Pres. Barack H. Obama in office. Finally, 52% of Connecticut voters recognize Obama as a failure he is.
God bless America!
posted by: Careful | October 23, 2011 3:46pm
TomJefferson: I’m not surprised by your disdain of Linda McMahon because she is a non-socialist, unlike your dictatorial idol, Barack Obama. You belittle Linda McMahon’s successful business background, as compared to Obama’s past Democratic political-hack-work- sponging in the crooked-politics-State of Illinois - as “a community organizer”—is really grasping at straws.
Obama has always been a financial drain on taxpayers, While McMahon has earned her keep by being a REAL TAXPAYER! There’s no comparison.
posted by: TomJefferson | October 23, 2011 5:12pm
Pauline:
I don’t care whether Linda made her money in the WWF or the Texas Rangers like GWB (ps- that worked well). I have disdain for her because she thinks that merely because she made money she has the talent or experience to govern at the Senate level.
Her op-ed shows exactly how inexperienced she is. Nowhere do I see any thought other than “protect all military spending”. But go ahead and cut all other things (doesn’t matter to her if it hurts..because its not her hurt). Beyond naive…dangerously stupid and typically cynical politics…always tell the plebes you want to cut “wasteful” spending but never tell them what “waste” you are talking about specifically.
As to knowing about Washington - why is it only in politics do we want to hire the most inexperienced of people - if I wanted a good plumber I wouldn’t hire someone with no experience with plumbing but happens to be a great accountant but I guess conservatives would…no wonder the country’s in such a mess. Thanks Teabaggers - keep sending your totally inexperienced but ideological hardheaded people to congress…must be working great because that’s what gave us the Super Committee.
JFK: You don’t have any idea of my economic views. Sounds to me like your a holdover from the Cold War always looking for Reds under your bed by calling anyone with whom you disagree a Socialist.
posted by: bigpoppa | October 23, 2011 6:09pm
Well written and well said. I’m disappointed at the negative venom being thrown at Linda McMahon. It demonstrates those people have no command of the issues or substance of the op ed but choose to sling mud with a success hating attitude. The article makes tremendous sense as CT as outlined is a major state of defense contractos.
posted by: WTFpolitics | October 23, 2011 6:14pm
Attack, attack, attack. Who cares who or how she made her money - that misses the point entirely and is nothing but a straw man tactic. Whether she made her money building alien spaceships or on pro-wrestling, she is right when she says that run-away federal spending must stop. If you have a comment that ACTUALLY bears on that conclusion, I would love to hear it.
posted by: Martha H | October 23, 2011 6:52pm
The 1% scold….
Sorry, but the 99% are busy right now, and they have no time or attention to waste….
posted by: perturbed | October 23, 2011 7:16pm
Now I’m not an expert in the ways defense contractors deliver their services, but a simple reality check would seem to indicate the defense industry should, indeed, be a place to look for reduced spending, without compromising any core objectives.
From a “Daily Chart” in The Economist from last June, the US spends more on the military than the next 17 biggest spenders—combined.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia’s data confirms the statistic I had read a few years ago: The US spends more on the military than the next 20 countries—combined. (Yes, I checked this in an Excel column.)
Are we getting our money’s worth, Linda?
—perturbed
posted by: TotalNewsJunkie | October 23, 2011 7:45pm
God only knows how much dirty dealing is going on in DC behind closed doors… From what I have read, they aren’t even close to an agreement. It sickens me that our own government cannot set a budget or spending agenda.
I agree with Linda that blind trigger cuts across the board are not the solution.
In the real world, employees are given performance evaluations. If someone isn’t doing their job, then he or she are are fired. But in Washington, politicians and bureaucrats are exempt from this common sense approach. Now they are on the clock to figure out how to reduce spending by Nov. 23. If they fail, then the 2012 elections will be a referendum against anyone associated with this nonsense.
The people of Connecticut will not stand by and watch more jobs be lost just because the cronies in Washington aren’t doing theirs.
I hope to see more thoughtful commentary from Linda, and I am glad to see her running again.
posted by: CitizenCT | October 23, 2011 7:59pm
Mr. Scooper, assuming you make less than $106,800, the FICA tax rate as a self employed person is actually 13.3% this year, not 15.3%. The continual inaccuracies of your comments, including previous comments not understanding the taxation on dividends Vs salary leave doubts to the credibility of your comments. Our Government at both the state and federal level would benefit greatly with representatives having more business experience. Successful businesses know how to manage a budget, adapt to change, and hire tax professionals to comply with the myriad of tax laws. Linda’s not perfect, but offers favorable contrast to the more of the same, tax and spend Pelosi puppet, Chris Murphy. She’s also correct that decimating the defense budget is bad for the US and CT jobs.
PS. If you’re really paying 15.3% FICA tax, you’d benefit from hiring a tax professional too.
posted by: ... | October 23, 2011 8:12pm
There’s been a bit of discussion here about how McMahon is not a political insider to Washington. I’m open to seeing if Linda McMahon can run a more sensible campaign this time around, but she has this issue that will face her again http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/contrary-to-campaign-of-senate.html . She may not be personally an ‘insider’, but has put a lot of change from her company to lobby to Washington for her interests.
A second point would be the leading intellectual she uses to attempt at bi-partisanship on this issue of defense spending cuts. Leon Panetta was a U.S. House Rep. for at least 7 terms, White House Chief of Staff, and other positions in Washington.
She’s not an insider, but she does rely on those who to help her explain her policies, and to help her business stay successful and dominant.
But again, if she wants to run again and wins the primary, lets hope she tries to formulate her own political ideology off of research and core beliefs, not off the repeats of more experience “insiders” that she claims to be fighting against.
posted by: Careful | October 23, 2011 8:48pm
TomJefferson: You claim disdain against Linda McMahon. Why are you that clueless? Why aren’t you attacking the motley crew we elected in Congress, as they are responsible for the bad shape our country is in—and none of them belong to the Tea Party.
Ironically, we should have elected some certified plumbers to Congress— as our current sad lot of politicians—have left many poorly installed pipes, leaking badly throughout the United States and the world.
We sorely need Linda McMahon, and many more like her to replace the sad lot of politicians— in Congress at present.
Perhaps “Joe the Plumber” makes more sense than our elected politicians—who have left us stuck “between rock and a had place!”
Why are you so careless with the truth, Tom Jefferson?
posted by: TomJefferson | October 23, 2011 10:50pm
Careful:
I do disdain the motley crew of politicians currently holding power in Congress. Let me enlighten you as to whom I think they are.
First - The 100 or so Teabaggers that were voted into office on the idea that ignorance is a virtue and that compromise is weakness or at best a lack of passion in your beliefs rather than a necessary component of governance as my namesake knew very well. You know, the ones you tell me are innocent. The only virtue I think that their supporters value is complete inexperience in governance and ideological purity…kind of reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition or of anarchists.
The “establishment” Republican Party who seem to have lost its mind along with its soul. Both Goldwater and William F. Buckley would have nothing to do with current crop of know nothings populating this venerable party. A Party that once honored the working man (See Teddy Roosevelt) and valued the environment (see same above).
Most importantly, the many Democrats who didn’t and don’t have the spine to stand up against the obvious harm that this runaway Party is causing or, even worse, see a political advantage in going along with such harm whether to gain votes or worse, to gain campaign contributions (Yes - you Ben Nelson).
Now as to the Debt - The Republican Party cut taxes by several Trillions of dollars in 1992-3. That alone brought us from surplus to deficit when we were on our way to seriously paying down the deficit. Then the Republican Party mismanaged us into wars (WMD anyone?) then they did not increase taxes to pay for such wars…the first time in our history that taxes were not raised in time of War. Too many spineless Democrats went along for the ride (A Pox on their houses). Those that didn’t were called traitors and worse.
Then Republicans increased Medicare to cover prescription drugs (laudable) that again no revenue was raised to pay for such an increase(stupid)...oh and by the way did not even negotiate a group discount on those drugs(criminally stupid).
Now you tell me that its not their fault? Sounds to me like someone can’t admit when they were wrong.
Linda tells me that everything but Defense must be cut. That the cuts that will happen will hurt but gee she knows what’s best for us. Why is that Linda? Is there no other way? Have you somehow been endowed with complete omniscience that only you know all things?
Seems like the Republicans ran up the credit card and now want others to pay for the extravagances on which the Republicans spent.
Linda McMahon either is too dim, too naive or too politically cynical to see and acknowledge these truths for surely they are self-evident.
Tom J.
posted by: Careful | October 24, 2011 11:13am
Tom J.: You candidly blame Republicans for all the political sins of the past two decades, yet have obviously given absolution to Democrats for their heavy contribution to burying our country in disastrous debt. You even blame Linda McMahon, who hasn’t been one of our elected failures in Congress.
posted by: Irritated In CT | October 24, 2011 3:00pm
I for one am glad to see so many irate people. However misplaced some of their view points are there seems to be sincere interest in the governmental goings on at both the state and federal levels. When the economy tanks and hits people in their pockets suddenly we start paying special attention and always with the goal of placing blame for our woes.
One thing is quite obvious and that is both state and federal governments need to balance the budget and live within their means. Everyone knows that robbing peter to pay Paul will always catch up to you in the end. Everyone that is except for the career politicians that continually caves to special interest groups. Government is business, big business. Tax dollars provide the funding for the business. Occupy Wall Street is screaming for the heads of Corporate leaders responsible for the present state of our economy. People are screaming over the mismanagement of retirement plans and huge bonus payouts to corporate executives but hardly get upset at all over the gross mismanagement of their tax dollars.
We have created a generation that expects government handouts and free rides. I am generalizing a bit because there are still enterprising, hardworking individuals that will look for solutions to the crisis “we” got ourselves into. I see and hear a lot of whining about the problems but very few realistic solutions. Especially from the pot shot takers. I for one will be standing up for those looking for a solution. Linda is definitely one I look forward to seeing what she is able to accomplish. Go for it Linda.
As a quick side note: The pot shot about Linda creating a very successful venture with WWE and insinuating that it was negative because of the associated violence has never watched a game of hockey or football. Get real, there is no WWE empire if there are no sports fans like you even if you watch it only in secrete.
posted by: ASTANVET | October 24, 2011 3:59pm
I thought this was the loving state of Connecticut, I guess not if you don’t follow the not so thin blue line. All you socialist wanna be’s just want to spread your hate and contempt on those of us who just want to have an adult conversation about budgets. I don’t agree with everything in the article, there is plenty of waste in the defense budget, i’ve seen it first hand - but for every penny of waste in the DOD, i can assure you the the Dept of Energy is wasting BILLIONS - saw a great ad for Cfc lightbulbs paid for by the DoE - tax dollars at work there baby! woo hoo! how about our Crackerjack Department of Education??? Awesome! How about the Department of Homeland Security (huge administrative lathargic mess). You want to have a conversation about the 1.8 TRILLION dollars we need to cut EVERY YEAR going forward at frozen spending levels, i’m all ears. Everything else is just rhetoric.
posted by: counting it up | October 24, 2011 8:51pm
Clearly Linda has it right. All anyone has to do to make a list of cuts is get serious…
Here are a few starters…
1 - Cut the foreign aid to China and Russia (that’s right, AID not debt payments).
2 - close small Military bases we have around the world, and I would say this is easily done by saying if we have less than 10 persons there, it is not worth having and it can be closed. A base still requires money to maintain, and closing some seems like a prudent step. Here are some examples, but the list I looked at is at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1009.pdf
especially the ones that simply eat costs and are not critical like in Canada, those throughout the Carribean Islands (Can’t we just use Gitmo and Miami?)
3 - Stop giving $500 million dollar gifts to green tech companies. I certainly support our government supporting R&D, but $500 million a clip is over the top. Trust me on this, I worked for a large R&D pharma company (and nobody can spend like pharma), and $500 million in research grants is out of control for one company in one year!
4 - Level the playing field for social security. If you look at two families both making $225K a year, but one family has a working Dad and a stay at home mom, and the other has two working parents, the two working parents pay twice as much into Social Security as the family where the mom stays at home. Why? Because it is employer driven, and not tax return driven. However, when those two couple retire, guess what, the benefits are the same. What a rip off. Making a level playing field would increase contribution to social security and make it fair too!
5 - Make our Congressmen and Senators and public employees (union and non union) have a 401K and eliminate the Pension they are currently getting. Companies in the private sector are not offering these plans because they cost too much. Let’s get some of these cost savings in government too! Also reset the retirement to be a formula that encourages people to work until they are 65 to get the full benfit. That keeps them from retiring too early and then coming back to be a “consultant” while they collect full retirement benefits. (Oh this is a big one, just ask folks who live in the beltway). Cha ching
and that does not even begin to address the regulatory waste that has a strangle hold on our economy.
I will let the super duper committee bring those changes…
posted by: Dau Tieng 59 | October 25, 2011 12:13am
T. Jefferson, have you seen the crop of supposedly qualified Senators? How about a “community organizer” from Chicago? What were his qualifications? He was good at holding up governments for money, bring people, who had been told the money would be for their benifit and then it all went to admin costs.
The qualification for most of the pols is they can’t get or hold a private sector job so they need to work for the government, which becomes a family business.
The government needs to learn economics and n ot think that the wealth bvelongs to the government. We fought two wars against the Brits in the 1700s and 1800s to eliminate that concept from the Americaneconomy.
posted by: Jesterr72 | November 15, 2011 11:36am
I see the Libs are out in force on here…Linda must have hit a nerve, huh?
Obama and his drones are destroying the country. Time to cut off the gravy train.
posted by: Careful | November 15, 2011 1:23pm
PAULINE: Your comments are truthful, and intelligent. Don’t try to reason with Tom Jefferson—as he refuses to recognize that our country has essentually gone down the tube—and continues to praise and support the ilk that put us there!
Linda McMahon for Congress.
Let’s start trying to save our country from our current path of no salvation. Many of our ‘GOOD OLD BOYS’ must be replaced in Congress!
posted by: Dave from SundayMorningCoffee.webs.com | November 15, 2011 1:59pm
Interesting. The economy tanks, and folks start casting blame and venom towards “the other side,” regardless of whether the facts and the truth support the blame and venom or not. Ms. McMahon’s approach has been too simplistic, and it appears the same could be said of the Republican party line approach. There is no escaping the economic truth that increasing spending (especially when it is “off the books” like the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan) while cutting revenue streams will creat a LARGER deficit, not a smaller one. Then offering to cut into the revenue stream even farther to stimulate economic growth is PURE folly. Then to balance things, cutting necessary social programs (MADE necessary by the current economic crises), which if properly implimented would bring more money INTO to economy is just political insanity. On the other hand, demonizing a segment of the population (the 1 percenters), hiking taxes to the degree that would be necessary to address ALL of the economic issues and making n NO cuts in government spending is ALSO political and economic folly.
The truth is, there needs to be a balance of cuts and tax hikes just to BALANCE the budget. To address the deficit, there need to be long-term cost reductions that are CAREFULLY planned out, in ALL areas (NOT just Defense, NOT just Social Security, but in ALL areas) of government. That is what the Super-Committee was charged to do. We need to tell the members of THAT committee what we hold to be true, and eschew party slogans, party promises and come up with a bi-partisan approach. This is something that Ms. McMahon has little experience in, as it appears (and yes, appearances CAN be deceiving) that her approach has been “my way or the highway.” Let’s STOP being myopic, stuck with the slogans of the partisans, and START thinking for ourselves AND for our country. That is what our Founding Fathers did so well, despite having divergent opinions on how to best get things done. Thus far, both parties, and WE THE PEOPLE, have failed in that regard. Time to roll up our sleeves, put our “big-people pants” on, and make the hard choices. That includes NOT electing folks who take a simplistic approach to the problems that face us.
posted by: Dau Tieng 59 | November 15, 2011 6:26pm
The reason we spend more than the next 17 countries on defense ids that they do not spend enough to defend their own country and we have been providing the gap filler for 60+ years. Why do you think we went in to Lybia? The French and English couldn’t take a third world country on by themselves. We provided much of the personell and most likely all of the fuel and munitions.
Isn’t it amazing that when a “comprimise” isn’t reached it’s always because of conservative obstruction and the Dems are just trying to get things done?
I’ve heard the “we need to keep the professional politicans in there because they are the only ones, who know how Washington works.” Two rebutals to that idea is that 1) Washington doesn’t work and 2) if they know how to make it work, why are we in this condition?
We need to get rid of the “profesional” politicians and get people, who know what they are doing.
The comparing plumber, accountants and pols is bs. It doesn’t take a specific education to be a pol, just take a couple of civic classes.