When Chairman Randy Frelinghuysen of New Jersey open’s Thursday’s hearing of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will very much be in the room.

The Russian president has invaded a neighboring country and seized a huge chunk of it –for the second time in six years.  The Chinese president is presiding over a massive arms build-up –a 12.2%  increase in the PRC’s already substantial public budget was announced las week– and the PRC is taking increasingly hostile actions in the South China Sea. (Robert Kaplan’s Asia’s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific which arrived this week could not be more timely.)

The combination of the Murray-Ryan budget accord of late last year and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s incoherent defense budget has left the Subcommittee a very difficult job: Reintroducing reality to the military budget. Todd Harrison, an analyst  Harrison at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments provides some background on the Subcommittee’s dilemma, but the short version is this: We don’t know what the Joint Chiefs say we need to protect America, our allies, and the international waters through which commerce flows and by which freedom expands.

For three years now, since the infamous Super Committee and the “sequestration machine” that followed in its failure, the Pentagon has not been funded according to its needs but according to a formula imposed because of the failure of the president to deal seriously with the domestic spending mess, primarily as it connects to entitlements.  The president got his tax hike in January of 2013, but he did nothing to bring long-term domestic spending under control.  So the sequester mechanism kicked in, wrecking havoc on our national security budget.

A handful of neo-isolationist Republicans have combined with a handful of strategically-placed deficit hawks to pretend that the cuts to the military have not been that horrible, and are in fact necessary.  ”Waste, fraud, and abuse” is their combined rallying cry, but they do not represent the country.  The country spoke –very loudly and very clearly– when the Congress attempted to cu the retirement pay COLA earned by the active duty or recently retired military with an aim or a record of at least 20 years of service.  The Congress’s decision to target that group woke the sleeping giant of support for a strong American military and the men and women who serve in it, and very few elected officials missed the message of what awaits representatives or senators who try to balance the budget on the backs of the military.

The repeal of the cut to the COLA of the career military should not be mistaken for a repudiation of the GOP’ drive to reform entitlements.  It wasn’t.  The repeal was, however, a giant flashing sign that entitlement reform is not an excuse to gut the military further and that in fact the Regean coalition was built on three legs, one of which is peace through the strength provided by the world’s most competent and well-equipped military.  Canards about our budget being bigger than the next ten combined do not answer the question of what America’s military needs to do its job?  That’s the answer that should drive the budget and nothing else.  If the military’s many jobs add up to a budget 20 times larger than the next ten nations combined, so be it.  That is how the peace is maintained and would-be adversaries kept far and firmly at bay.

A corner in this debate has been turned and the Murray-Ryan budget accord overtaken by events, both political and international, especially because of Putin’s adventurism and the PRC’s growing threat.

It is up to Chairman Frelinghuysen and his colleagues to get some mission statements out of Secretary Hagel –do we intend to deter China from seizing more space and islands, keep international waterways open, respond to aggression against a NATO member or an ally like Japan?– and then ask Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey if the Pentagon has the resources it needs to accomplish all the missions the secretary agreed to?  Dempsey is a straight shooter, and the Service chiefs are becoming increasingly candid that they are beyond cutting into bone but are now carving out marrow.  The cutting has to end and in fact be reversed.

This will require the Committee on Appropriations to bust the caps imposed by Murray-Ryan, and to do so only for Defense and to do so openly and with an argument as to why each specific increase is being funded.  Deficit hawks will scream, but Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor should put the bill on the floor and vote on it and then send it to the Senate and see which members of both bodies want to face voters in the fall having shrunk from the challenges of Putin and the PRC.

The Party of Reagan is regaining its voice and now it needs some Members of Congress to do the same.  Starting Thursday.

CNN’s Jake Tapper joined me and today’s co-host Jamie Weinstein of the Daily Caller to discuss the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines 370, Senator Rob Portman’s and Joe Scarborough’s viability as 2016 candidates.

Audio:

03-11hhs-tapper

Transcript:

HH: If you’re just joining us, co-hosting with me today, Jamie Weinstein of the Daily Caller. Jamie will be filling in for me tomorrow when I go to see an advanced screening of Noah. And we are joined from Washington, D.C. by Jake Tapper, host of CNN’s The Lead. Hello, Jake.

JT: Hey, Hugh, how are you? Hey, Jamie.

JW: Hey, Jake, how are you?

HH: Now Jake as of tomorrow, you will be closer to 50 than you are to 40. How you feeling on your birthday eve?

JT: I was wondering if tonight was my last moment in the key demographic for television viewing. I think I have until 49, actually. But oh, I don’t know, after 40, it’s all creaks and moans. You know, I’m a pretty lucky guy.

HH: It’s your first time on the air when you are hosting The Lead on your birthday. Have you got a keen eye on your production staff, who I now know to be very sneaky about these things?

JT: They are sneaky. But I assume they won’t do anything on air. But one never knows. One never knows.

HH: All right, let’s get…

JT: They’re always up to no good, those meddling teenagers.

HH: I just proved to Jamie who’s out from D.C. under the classic of watch, do, teach, that you are my show prep. We were watching you earlier with your two experts on the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines 370, and on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I began my show talking to Portman about that. But okay, putting everything aside, Jake Tapper, do you think this is terrorism?

JT: No, I guess I don’t, just because nobody has claimed responsibility for it, yet. And generally, that would be the case, although I know it has happened that there have been dry runs. But it just feels like somebody would have announced that they had something to do with it. And in general, when it comes to life, when given the choice between something happening because of just bad luck or incompetence versus evil, generally, it’s incompetence or bad luck. Continue Reading

Ohio’s Rob Portman opened the show today, talking about the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines 370, the alleged spying by the CIA on the Senate, and 2016.  Portman, as my in studio co-host today, The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weintsein pointed out in the course of the conversation, gave us an answer that far from Shermanesque, was a ”maybe.”

Audio:

03-11hhs-portman

Transcript:

HH: Sitting in with me as my co-host all day today, Jamie Weinstein of the Daily Caller. Jamie will be guest hosting for me tomorrow, so the old rule of watch, do, teach is in effect, Jamie with me throughout the show. And we open with United States Senator Rob Portman from my great state of Ohio. Hello, Senator, welcome, good to talk to you.

RP: Hugh, good to talk to you again, my friend. You’ve got to come see us in the Buckeye State.

HH: I’m going to be back there when the Browns get to the Super Bowl, Senator. That’s when I’m coming back. Actually, I’m there a lot, and I’ve got to run into you.

RP: I don’t think that’ll happen soon, but I don’t know.

HH: Oh, it’s going to happen this year. We just signed a great linebacker today for the Browns. But I want to begin with a…do you on Homeland Security know anything about Malaysian Air that we don’t know? Jamie and I have been talking about it.

RP: No, I really don’t. I’m on the committee as you know, and we’ve looked at this pretty carefully. But it appears as though the investigation is now leaning more toward a non-terrorism possibility. But we just don’t know enough, yet.

HH: All right, second question, your colleague, Ron Wyden, is on as we speak with Jake Tapper after your colleague, Dianne Feinstein, blasted the CIA today.

RP: Yeah.

HH: Are you concerned that the CIA has been snooping on the Senate?

RP: Well, yeah, I mean, there’s an investigation going on, so I don’t know what it’s going to come up with. But according to what Dianne Feinstein said today, it sounds like she’s pretty concerned about it. And look, Hugh, as you know, I’ve worked for the Bush administration, I worked for the first Bush administration and the second one, and there’s a good relationship on both sides of the aisle with the intelligence communities. That seems to have broken down. And if, in fact, there’s been, as you say, some CIA activity up here on the Hill, that’s going to cause a lot more problems. So what you want to have is a classified relationship where you can have some effective oversight of these agencies from people on the Hill, and there’s got to be a good trust relationship between the two.

JW: Senator, Jamie Weinstein from the Daily Caller here.

RP: Hey, Jamie.

JW: I want to ask you about something that I think we’re seeing within the Republican Caucus. I think it has been percolating for some time, but it’s coming to the fore now, this kind of growing foreign policy rift between what you might say the Rand Paul non-interventionists versus those like, well, Ted Cruz is taking the lead, but Marco Rubio, John McCain, the more interventionist side of the Republican party. What do you make of this rift? Do you see it in the Senate on a daily basis? Where do you think the Republican Party is moving?

RP: Yeah, look, I think the whole country has moved a little bit on this, to be honest with you, Jamie, because there’s a lot of fatigue coming off of Iraq and Afghanistan. And it’s understandable. On the other hand, I think most Republicans still take the position that America’s place in the world is indispensable. There is no other superpower that’s going to step in and create stability and freedom around the world, and we have a role to play there. So I agree not just with the party, but frankly, within the country, there are, you know, increasingly more isolationist instincts where people are saying gosh, you know, we went to Iraq, we went to Afghanistan, it seems like we lost a lot of troops, and what do we have to look at as successes? But on the other hand, if the United States does not have the ability to project force and the credibility with regard to our actions and what the president says with regard to his red lines and so on, then the world’s a more dangerous place and chaos will ensue. And I think that’s a reality. So maybe I find myself more along the lines of those who say look, we don’t want to be building up our national defense for empire building, but we do want to do it to keep the peace. And if we’re not out there doing it, don’t expect anybody else to.

JW: I think there’s no question this debate’s going to play out in the 2016 Republican primary. Can you imagine yourself a non-interventionist, someone who defines himself as a non-interventionist, being elected the nominee of the Republican Party? Or do you think the base is just, you know, believes in a strong presence in the world?

RP: I think, I mean, and by the way, I do believe in a strong presence in the world, and I do believe that’s where most Republicans still are, certainly when you have situations like what just happened in Crimea. It gets people’s attention. And conversely, I mean, you know, coming off of, again, Afghanistan and Iraq, there are a lot of people saying gosh, you know, what good are we doing over there? So I think it depends on what the sort of the topical issues are, Jamie, and what’s happening around the world for a lot of folks who might be more in the middle. But I think most Republicans still believe that the U.S. role ought to be the one that we’ve had traditionally, certainly under Ronald Reagan and George Bush, we had it, which is let’s have a strong national defense to avoid war, to avoid chaos, to avoid the kinds of conflicts that lead to even more problems. And also, frankly, if we’re not out there in terms of protecting people’s human rights and their right to a democratic future, don’t expect anybody else to do it. And there are a lot of conservatives like myself who believe that is part of what the United States role ought to be, which is in our own self-interest, as well as in the interest of those individuals.

HH: Senator, Hugh again. I haven’t talked to you since Mitt came out, the Netflix special on Governor Romney…

RP: Yeah.

HH: …and the amazing sort of debate prep views that we got. You’ve done more debate prep than anyone in the country, I think.

RP: Yeah.

HH: And it causes me to ask you this. Have you ruled out running for president yourself in 2016?

RP: You know, Hugh, I am focused on one thing right now, and that is 2014. And as you may know, I’m the vice chair, the national finance chair, for this effort to take back the Senate for the Republicans, because I really believe that is the best thing we can do for the country right now. And if we don’t do it, I think we’re in deep trouble. So to be frank with you, I haven’t really given it serious consideration, because I’m totally focused on getting this majority. And by the way, we’re making pretty good progress. We’ve got some good candidates we’ve recruited around the country. You’ve had some of them on. I know you follow this pretty closely. And I think folks who thought gosh, the Republican Party has seen its best days are going to be surprised.

HH: No, you’re going to have a great fall, but that was not a Shermanesque statement, Senator Portman.

RP: Well, look, it’s not something that I am considering right now. I’m considering focusing on my job as a senator and Ohio, and then second, trying to be sure that we are successful in 2014.

HH: I’ll try and land the plane one more time, then I’ll go to the jobs plan. When would you have to make up your mind about running for president, because a lot of us from Ohio know your record, know your executive branch experience, know your legislative success…

RP: Yeah.

HH: …and would be, you know, thrilled if either you or Governor Kasich got in or both of you. But not many people put you on the list. And I’m just curious if you have a deadline in your mind when you have to decide by.

RP: Well, you know, I purposefully haven’t put myself on the list, and I don’t think there’s a deadline in particular, but the way these things go, Hugh, it seems like the election starts sooner and sooner. And frankly, that, I think, does not serve the American people well, because we should be focused on dealing with this incredibly weak economy, with this record level of debt, with these problems as you have pointed out in some of your online stuff I saw today about national defense and how it’s being weakened. And yet here we are talking about, you know, is it going to be Hillary Clinton or is it going to be somebody else, or what’s the latest with regard to the presidential candidates on the Republican side. I think it’s kind of premature.

HH: The reason it happens is people just want placeholders for their points of view. Now you’re out trying, I was just watching you on Neil Cavuto…

RP: Yeah.

HH: …talking about the jobs program you put forward.

RP: Yeah.

HH: It’s hard to get traction for a jobs program, because you guys are in the minority…

RP: Yeah.

HH: …and it’s hard to get anything going there. But it’s necessary to talk about it. But people like me and Jamie, we want to talk about getting the Senate back so that we can get a jobs plan passed.

RP: Exactly.

HH: Are you frustrated by this?

RP: No, it’s actually what I said on Neil, as you saw, was this is a blueprint for economic growth and prosperity. It’s also a blueprint for governing. In other words, if we did get the majority, I’m not predicting it, because I think sometimes, we get way ahead of our skis on the Republican side. We raise expectations and you know, we end up in the last two election cycles disappointing people. But if we were to get the majority, Hugh, this is the kind of thing we could do. And I said that on Neil’s show, because the House has already passed dozens of bills that would fit nicely within these seven principles, you know, regulatory relief, tax reform, doing something to get health care costs down actually, rather than Obamacare, dealing with trade, dealing with energy, producing more energy at home. They’ve actually passed legislation, and so we know the House is going to stay Republican. At least I think I believe it will. If we were to get the majority, with this agenda, we could actually get some stuff done, actually land some bills on the President’s desk. Would he sign them? Some he would, some he wouldn’t. But at least then we’d have the contrast we need going into 2016.

JW: Senator, Jamie here again, and by the way, Senator, given your answer to Hugh, I’m putting you as a maybe on my list for 2016. I think that’s a clear maybe to me. But let me ask you about Obamacare, Senator.

RP: Yeah.

JW: There’s a remarkable study out by McKenzie saying that only 14%, from their study, that signed up for Obamacare were previously uninsured, which just seems amazing to me. So most of the people that signed up were either thrown off their plan or for some reason switched from a plan they had to Obamacare. What do you think that means? How do you interpret that study?

RP: I think when people find out about that, they are shocked. I said on Neil’s show it’s less than a third, because I’ve seen different numbers, and I’ve seen as high as mid-20s. But it’s, you know, maybe less than a third, maybe less than a quarter, maybe it’s in the teens. The point is most people who have signed up for Obamacare already had health care insurance. And a lot of them, by the way, were very happy with their plans. I hear from them, Jamie, as you can imagine. I had a tele town hall last night. I had about 25,000 Ohioans on at any one time, and I heard a lot about it, because people are really frustrated that they can’t keep not just their plan, but their network, their doctor of the hospital they like. And so this is not meeting the expectations that the administration laid out. Two other things I will say. One, the number of young people signing up according to that McKenzie report and others, is far fewer than was projected, and far fewer than is necessary in order to keep the costs within the ranges that the Obama administration were suggesting. So the costs are going to be even higher, because if you don’t have these young, more healthy folks signing up, it’s going to result in everybody’s premiums going up higher. And then finally, the number of uninsured who will be covered, the Congressional Budget Office here gave us some interesting information, which is a third party source, as you know, they are not partisan. They are saying that 30 million Americans will still be uninsured ten years from now under Obamacare.

HH: Senator Rob Portman of the great state of Ohio, thanks for joining us. We look forward to getting more than maybes from you in the future.

End of interview.

On Thursday the Subcomittee on Defense Appropriations of the House Committee on Appropriations will meet for a hearing at which Secretary of Defense Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey will testify.  (A second closed oversight hearing follows Friday.)

Here is the background on the Department of Defense spending caps for 2014 and 2015.  These “caps” are destructive of our nation’s defenses and dangerous for the country.

They are also largely illusory, as Todd Harrison explains in this excellent op-ed for The Hill from today.  The budget for DOD is essentially in chaos, and this is terribly damaging on the ability of the Pentagon to plan and prepare.  Unlike every other part of the federal budget, the Pentagon’s budget truly does need to have long-range spending plans locked down and priorities and weapons systems selected and funded, and not weapons acquisition systems, but also for career military personnel who have to develop skills sets over the 20+ years of their service that equip them to be the leaders of the nation’s military in the 2030s and beyond.  One example of the complexity of the budgeting issue: The Navy has 18 Ohio class submarines, 14 of which carry ballistic missiles, 4 of which have been converted to carry a variety of weapons systems including cruise missiles, and these have to be refurbished or replaced over a 15 year time frame.  This force becomes more and more important as does our carrier fleet as the People’s republic of China surges out a blue water Navy, as does our fleet of submarines.  The Marine Corps –funded either at 175,000 or 182,000 depending on which page of the budget you look at– also needs a clear horizon and if the Army is being slashed, the USMC must at least be maintained at its levels of recent years to provide an expeditionary force

Not since the nadir of the Carter years has military spending fallen into such confusion and uncertainty.  The Subcommittee has to begin the process of turning that around by sending a serious budget to the full Committee and the Committee forwarding it on to the House.  The caps have to be set aside and the focus put back on the Congress’ first job of protecting the United States.  If the events in Ukraine have had any good effect, it will be the light shed on the fact that the world isn’t the way President Obama has long asserted it was.  There will be more terrible surprises ahead –from Iran, the PRC, the Norks.  The Congress needs to do its job even if the president won’t.  Send him a Department of Defense appropriations bill that is serious about national defense, and make 2014 a referendum not just on Obamacare but also on president’s radical plans for the nation’s military.