Will the Republicans obstruct the Russian treaty?

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@smiling_bandit

First off, it’s Smiling BANDIT.

Sorry about that, I won’t make that mistake again!

@smiling_bandit

Third, even if it were a continuation of those treaties, that in and of itself would be foolish. Strategic needs and issues change. They have changed enormously from START days, when we had a specific reason, goal, and gain in mind. “Saving some bucks” doesn’t qualify unless we so desperately need to save the money that it affects our strategic picture. And let’s face it: Neither Obama nor the Democrats in general are all that interested in saving money.

Fine, let’s ignore those old treaties and what President Reagan said and focus on the:

[ul]
[li]National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (Issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense in February of 2006)[/li][li]Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Issued by the Secretary of Defense in February of 2006)[/li][li]The Report on National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century(Issued by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy in September of 2008)[/li][li]Nuclear Posture Review Report (Issued by the Secretary of Defense in April 2010)[/li][/ul]
(Warning these are all PDFs)

This treaty, to my reading at least, is in line with the goals laid out in these reports. Namely, to reduce and modernize our nuclear arsenal while also reducing the world stockpiles of nuclear weapons in order to limit proliferation and reduce the risk that a non-state actor will obtain these WMD. I think these reports lay out clearly the benefits of this treaty, and if you think these reports are wrong or the treaty misses the boat, please point out how.

Finally, regarding your opinion that President Obama and the Democrats are not interested in saving money, I think you are incorrect and I think you need to provide a cite. At least the Democrats have tried to institute paygo polices, first with theOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Democratic House and Senate, signed by President Bush breaking his campaign promise of no-new-taxes), then by Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 (Democratic House, Senate and Executive) in a party line vote. These policies were continued by the Republicans in 1997 with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, but allowed to lapse in 2002 with the Republicans in control of the House, Senate and Executive. When the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate, they made it a priority to reintroduce the pay as you go policies and made it a standing rule in the house (see page 36 of Rules of the House of Representatives, 110th Congress (note: pdf file)). They did renege on these rules as the recession got worse and they needed to pass President Bush’s 150 Billion Dollar Stimulus Package. The rule was modified by the 111th congress to have an emergency exemption, which allowed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by President Obama. Since then, President Obama signed the Statutory Pay as You Go Act of 2010 which passed on a party line vote. So, how about you show me how the Republicans are more interested in saving money than the Democrats, because I don’t buy it.