This week, Americans for Tax Reform released a letter, signed by a strong coalition of conservative leaders, asking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) to reject, “the notion that spending cuts can be avoided in certain parts of the federal budget.”

From the letter:

Proponents of a larger Department of Defense budget have argued that security outlays should be weighed against mandatory spending levels, suggesting that explosive entitlement growth serves as an appropriate metric for defense spending. This not only ignores the unsustainable nature of entitlement spending but also the reality of defense spending, which has increased by 86 percent since 1998.

[snip]

And yet, defense spending continues to enjoy protected status. The Pentagon is slated to spend $6.5 trillion over the next ten years – equal to the current projected deficit spending in the same time period. Ignoring the burden military spending places on the taxpayers promotes the same reckless spending ethos that led to failed “stimulus” policies, government bailouts and a prolonged economic recession.

[snip]

True fiscal stewards cannot eschew real spending reform by protecting pet projects in the federal budget. Any such Department of Defense favoritism would signal that the new Congress is not serious about fiscal responsibility and not ready to lead.

This is a serious statement from the likes of Grover Norquist, Brent Bozell, Richard Viguerie, and others.

The full list of names is after the jump…

Al Regnery, The American Spectator
Bill Pascoe, Citizens for the Republic
Bob Barr, Liberty Guard
Brian Burch, CatholicVote.org
Chip Faulkner, Citizens for Limited Taxation
Christopher Preble, Cato Institute
Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach
David A. Keene, American Conservative Union
Duane Parde, National Taxpayers Union
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Jim Martin, 60 Plus Association
Joe Seehusen, Liberty Guard
John Tate, Campaign for Liberty
Karen Kerrigan, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
L. Brent Bozell, Media Research Center
Lewis K. Uhler, National Tax Limitation Committee
Lisa Miller, Tea Party WDC
Matt Kibbe, Freedomworks
Mattie Corrao, Center for Fiscal Accountability
Richard Viguerie, ConservativeHQ.com
Rick Watson, Florida Center-Right Coalition
Seton Motley, Less Government
Susan Carleson, American Civil Rights Union
Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity
Tom Giovanetti, Institute for Policy Innovation
Tom Schatz, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
William Greene, RightMarch.com

John and I visited the online pages of The Hill today to make the case for New START in 2010.  Here’s the trailer:

CQ Today reports that Senate and House appropriations panel aides have completed an informal conference of the fiscal 2011 Defense spending bill.  The agreement is set to be included in a Senate omnibus proposal that Senate Democrats hope to pass as early as next week.  At the same time, Democratic appropriators are hard at work on Plan B: a long-term continuing resolution that would keep the government funded through the entire fiscal year.

At this point nothing is certain.  Senate Republicans oppose an omnibus and could block the proposal, and in that case, even a yearlong CR is not assured.  In the end, Congress could choose to pass a short-term CR and defer any decisions to the next Congress, effectively wiping the slate clean and throwing out any progress that was made this year.

Another approach, supported by Susan Collins of Maine, would be to pass a “minibus,” that covers only the bills dealing with the Defense Department, veterans’ programs and Homeland Security.  Collins said yesterday that she opposes bringing an omnibus to the Senate floor.  Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also said that he opposes the omnibus approach, but Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye said Tuesday that the chances of securing GOP support for the omnibus are “beginning to look good.”

Whatever the case, the current CR is set to expire December 3, so the House is reportedly preparing to vote this week on a second CR that will fund the government through December 17.  After that, it’s anybody’s guess.

New START just might win approval in the Senate by the end of the year.

Should that happen, mark November 30, 2010 as the key turning point.

But don’t count on it just yet.

A number of Republican Senators said good things about New START today, following weeks of criticisms from the same bunch.

Starting from the top:  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Says McConnell: “I think the view – the unanimous view of Senate Republicans is let’s take care of the tax issue; let’s take care of how we’re going to fund the government for the next 10 months; and then if there’s time left for other matters, it will be up to the majority leader, Senator Reid, to decide whether we turn to other things before we adjourn for the year.”

Sure, he is holding New START hostage to tax cuts and appropriations bills.

Details, details.

But that the biggest opening he has left all year.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the once and future President, added:  “I believe that we could move forward with the START treaty and satisfy Senator Kyl’s concerns and mine about missile defense and others.”

It might not be “I Love You,” but it is a good, well, maybe I will like you in the morning.

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker joined the chorus. Cornered by reporters, he said:
“I thought they [the Obama administration] did a good job. I think it’s continuing to evolve in a good way as it relates to modernization . . . Could we finish? I think it’s possible that we could.”

Good for him.

Retiring Ohio Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), who has railed against the treaty as undermining Central European countries that once were Soviet satellites, now has changed his tune.

“In an interview with Washington Wire, Mr. Voinovich said unified support out of the Lisbon summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization this month convinced him that Europe, especially Eastern Europe, wants the treaty. He had based his concerns on his belief that the treaty’s ratification could bring a return to Russian dominance of Eastern and Southeastern Europe. ‘There seems to be a lot of coming together there and a lot more comfort [with the treaty] among our friends and allies in Europe,’ Mr. Voinovich said. ‘I think I’d be supportive.’”

Finally, there is the brand newest Senator, Mark Kirk (R-IL), ever cautious but sort of semi-positive: “I’m open-minded and this is one of the issues I’ll raise with the State Department briefing teams coming up to talk to me.”

Does this add up to 67 votes? Not yet, but stayed turned.

It’s not over until the fat Senator sings.

Sources for these quotes:
http://yhoo.it/gdit8u
http://on.wsj.com/hfs3If

Center head honcho John Isaacs has a timely piece in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists today on the impact of the recent midterm elections on key nuclear and other top national security issues over the next two years. John writes:

While the campaign locked in politicians’ views on budget deficits and health care, there was minimal debate on national security issues. This could signal that there might be more latitude for negotiations on issues such as nuclear weapons reductions and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For John’s full analysis on “What the 2010 elections mean for national security issues” click here.

Below are some highlights from the piece:

New START
The issue of nuclear reductions was not a key issue during the campaign; largely, candidates touched upon the topic of New START only when presented with specific questions about the treaty.
CTBT
Eight Republican senators are needed for Senate approval of New START; 14 will be needed for the CTBT.
Cutting military spending
During their election campaigns, the new Republicans virtually unanimously called for reductions in federal budget spending. While most of that fire was trained on domestic spending and entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, there is newfound Republican inclination to consider cuts in the Pentagon budget as well.
Iran
There has been talk that Republicans will press for a harder line on Iran. On November 6, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham expressed strong support for military strikes on Iran.
Non proliferation spending
If Congress makes across-the-board reductions to match levels in previous years, as is likely, the Defense Department and Energy Department nuclear safeguard programs are likely to suffer.
War in Afghanistan
Opposition to US troops in Afghanistan has been bubbling in Congress, with opposition led by Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Jim McGovern and outgoing Wisconsin Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold.