One thing is clear, if the US wants to address the rising deficit, the entire budget must be on the table. What, you say? But that means I’ll have to make some really tough choices and deal with some really tough realities. Well, you can’t always get what you want.

That is the message delivered by the two chairmen of the President’s Deficit Commission on Wednesday. The pragmatic approach, penned by former GOP Senator Alan Simpson and Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, attempts to put partisan politics aside and address that fact that, “America cannot be great if we go broke.”

The proposal totals nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction by 2020 and would:

1) Enact tough discretionary spending caps and cut discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015 to $200 billion below the requested (fiscal 2015) levels in the President’s budget request. Cuts are evenly spread across domestic and defense spending.

Further, the proposal would set up a “firewall” between defense and non-defense (or, they say, security and non-security – which is very different) spending, so money cannot move between the two. This way, as Newsweek points out, “a failure to cut defense could not be made up for with cuts to, say, food stamps.”

Defense Cuts ($bn)
Apply Gates’ promised overhead savings to deficit reduction $28
Freeze federal salaries, bonuses, and other compensation at the Dept. of Defense for three years $5.3
Freeze noncombat military pay at 2011 levels for 3 years $9.2
Double Gates’ cuts to defense contracting $5.4
Reduce procurement by 15 percent $20

This 15 percent reduction would end procurement of the V-22 Osprey; cancel the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle; Substitute F-16 and F/A-18Es for half of the Air Force and Navy’s planned buys of F-35 fighter aircraft; cancel the Marine Corps version of the F-35; Cancel the Navy’s Future Maritime Prepositioning Force; Cancel the new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), the Ground Combat Vehicle and the Joint Tactical Radio; and reduce planned levels for “other procurement,” a category that includes communications and electronic equipment, tactical vehicles, and other support equipment and spares.

Reduce overseas bases in Europe and Asia by one-third $8.5
Modernize Tricare, Defense health $6
Replace military personnel performing commercial activities with civilians $5.4
Reduce spending on RDT&E by 10 percent $7
Reduce spending on base support $2
Reduce spending on facilities maintenance $1.4
Consolidate the Department of Defense’s retail activities $0.8
Integrate children of military personnel into local schools in the US $1.1

TOTAL $100.1

Domestic Cuts ($bn)
Reduce Congressional & White House budgets by 15 percent $0.8
Freeze federal salaries, bonuses, and other compensation at non-Defense agencies for three years $15.1
Cut the federal workforce by 10% (2-for-3 replacement rate) $13.2
Eliminate 250,000 non-defense service and staff augmentee contractors $18.4
Reduce unnecessary printing costs $0.4
Create a Cut-and-Invest Committee charged with trimming waste and targeting investment $11
Terminate low-priority Corps construction projects $1
Slow the growth of foreign aid $4.6
Eliminate a number of programs administered by the Rural Utility Service (formerly REA)$0.5
Eliminate all earmarks $16
Eliminate funding for commercial spaceflight $1.2
Sell excess federal property $1
26 other options of $2 billion or less $17

These 26 other options include a cut in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS; a reduction in funds for the Smithsonian and National Park Service, to be offset by visitor fees; and the elimination of the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools.

TOTAL $100.2

2) Pass tax reform that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base, and reduces the deficit.

3) Address the “Doc Fix” not through deficit spending but through savings from payment reforms, cost-sharing, and malpractice reform, and long-term measures to control health care cost growth.

4) Achieve mandatory savings from farm subsidies, military and civil service retirement.

5) Ensure Social Security solvency for the next 75 years while reducing poverty among seniors.

You can see more of the specifics for options 2-5 in the CoChairs’ Proposal, and read over the finer details of the discretionary savings outlined above in the document titled, $200 Billion in Illustrative Savings. Both are posted here.

Of course, none of this is final – not even close. It will take the support of 14 out of 18 commission members for Congress to even consider the proposal.  Congressional leaders have promised they will do so regardless, but limited support from the commission will likely serve to justify limited support from Congress.

By now you all know that arms control bulldozer John Bolton and torture apologist John Yoo penned a mendacious op-ed attacking the New START treaty in Wednesday’s New York Times.  Though Bolton and Yoo have less credibility on national security issues than a three dollar bill, it’s still important to set the record straight.  

Enter Slate’s Fred Kaplan.  As he did with Mitt Romney’s disingenuous diatribe against New START, Kaplan patiently and cogently takes apart Bolton and Yoo’s claims.  Here’s how he begins:

You can read Kaplan’s full response here.  Ben Loehrke and Page van der Linden put together nice replies as well.

Though I don’t have much to add to Kaplan’s magnificent rebuttal, I want to quickly highlight the opening paragraph in the Bolton/Yoo op-ed.  They write:

As John has noted, New START (or any foreign policy issue for that matter) did not play a role in the recently concluded election.  In any event, the will of the voters appears to point in exactly the opposite direction of what Bolton and Yoo suggest.  According to an AP-GfK poll conducted just after last weeks elections:

It’s nice to know that a large majority of Americans are listening to our military, which has been telling them that New START is a good thing for the country.  It’s too bad that Bolton and Yoo would prefer to reject that advice.

Last Friday, the Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC) sent a memo to Republican foreign and defense policy staff with the message that “it cannot be the case that the time is now for the Senate to vote on New START.”  The RPC’s latest stale offering is a response to the Obama administration’s drive to secure Senate approval of the treaty before the end of the year.

Kelsey Hartigan over at NSN has a nice takedown of the memo, as does Max Bergmann at the Wonk Room.  As Kelsey notes, the RPC conveniently ignores the enormous support for the treaty from our military and retired Republican officials.  Indeed, one has to wonder why the Republicans are acting so anti-military.

What’s also revealing is that the RPC concedes that the substantive case against New START is largely baseless.  For example, note the following statements from the memo:

The only actual substantive concern the RPC can come up with is on the issue of verification.  The memo refers to classified objections raised by Intelligence Committee ranking member Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), some of which the Senator articulated in a recent appearance on Frank Gaffney’s “Secure Freedom Radio.”  The concerns are nothing new: New START drops START I’s requirement that both the U.S. and Russia exchange telemetry data from long-range missile tests; New START drops onsite monitoring of Russian missiles “coming out of the gate” at the Votkinsk missile production plant; Russia has a history of cheating on past arms control agreements; etc.

Of course what the RPC memo doesn’t tell you is that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified that “a key contribution of this treaty [New START] is its provision for a strong verification regime.”  Gates also noted that “we don’t need telemetry to monitor compliance with this treaty.”  The same goes for Votkinsk.  The memo also fails to mention that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen declared that he is “very comfortable with the verification regime that exists in the treaty right now.” Mullen has also pointed out that under New START “there are almost twice as many inspections per facility, per year than under the previous treaty.”  Re: allegations of Russian cheating, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) noted last year: “Our experiences over many years have proven the effectiveness of the [START I] Treaty’s verification provisions and served to build a basis for confidence between the two countries when doubts arose.”

The reality is that New START contains an updated set of data exchange and monitoring provisions that are more than adequate to verify Russia’s compliance with the treaty.  And let’s not forget:  We’ve had no on-site monitoring presence in Russia since START I expired last December.  If New START is not ratified we will continue to lack an essential window into the size and makeup of Russia’s arsenal.  Critics would do well not to confuse a different verification regime for a weak verification regime.  

In sum, the RPC admits that the treaty does not limit our ability to modernize our forces, does not prohibit the U.S. from deploying conventional prompt global strike capabilities, and does not contain meaningful constraints on missile defense.  And it raises concerns about verification that have been debunked over and over again.  

All the more reason, then, for the RPC to dispense with its senseless and politically motivated calls for indefinite delay and further concessions on issues peripheral to the treaty. It’s long past time for Republican Senators to support New START.  Not only would doing so demonstrate responsible leadership, but further delay or defeat of the treaty could blow back up in the GOP’s face (see here, for example).  As Robert Kagan put it in an op-ed aimed at his fellow Republicans in yesterday’s Washington Post, the GOP has very little to lose if it supports the treaty, but very much to lose if it rejects the treaty. 

DoD Buzz reports today that Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank G. Klotz (the man in charge of protecting, arming and delivering the Air Force’s share of nuclear weapons) can be added to the large list of experts and military personnel who support the New START Treaty.

“My sense is that the START Treaty ought to be ratified and ought to be ratified as soon as possible,” Klotz told reporters at a Defense Writers Group breakfast this morning.  

And on the claim that the Warren Air Force base mishap marks “one of the most serious and sizable ruptures in nuclear command and control in history?”  Klotz essentially yelled “bullshit”:

Here is how Klotz described it.  He said the missile crews “…temporarily lost the ability to monitor the status of 50 missiles…” The problem was caused by an “equipment malfunction in one of the silos.” Once the crews had gone through their checklist and isolated the problem they were able to fix it. Klotz told reporters at a Defense Writers Group breakfast today that this is not the first time such incidents had occurred. “I think it has absolutely no link at all to the START Treaty,” he said. Two “similar events” took place in 1998, he added. Senior Air Force leaders have been at pains to make clear that the US retained the ability to launch the missiles and never lost command and control between the silos and the national command authority.

Of course, you can bet that the Heritage Foundation will dismiss Klotz’ remarks as just another instance of a General toeing the Administration’s line.  Don’t listen to them.  As Travis noted a while back:

The fact is that numerous military leaders have affirmed that the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons initiatives were developed through close cooperation between civilian and military officials. Nothing was imposed on anyone….Military officials have endorsed New START because they were involved in its creation and believe in its substance. To assert otherwise is to question their integrity.

Update 11/10/10: That’s not all Klotz said. Cheryl Pellerin with the Armed Forces Press Service reports further:

There’s been a lot of good opining around the blogosphere today about how it’s important for the Senate to get serious on New START now that the midterm elections are behind us.  Actually, it was important before the midterms too, but such is life – Senate life in 2010, that is.  Here’s a sampling:

Via the State Department: The New START Treaty: It’s Time for the Senate to Vote
Highlight: “Prepared and Ready. The Senate has been provided extensive information – 18 hearings, dozens of briefings and meetings, answers to over 900 questions for the
record, and hundreds of pages of reports, analysis and testimony.”

Via the Council for a Livable Word: Council for a Livable World’s 2010 Senate Election Analysis
Highlight: “We hope that in the next coming weeks, the Senate will give its advice and consent to the New START nuclear reductions treaty. That would be one way to advance American national security interests in what will be a significantly difficult political environment.”

Via the Union of Concerned Scientists: New Senate, New START on Track
Highlight: “Yesterday’s election results do not alter the chances for the Senate to provide its advice and consent to the New START arms control agreement. In fact, the treaty provides an excellent test case for whether the Senate will listen to the small minority of “anti-any treaty” arms control opponents, or to the overwhelming advice of the country’s military leadership and intelligence community in favor of New START. It should be a no-brainer.”

Via the Arms Control Association: New START After the Mid-Term Election
Highlight: “Senate leaders now need to put a tough campaign behind them and put U.S. national security first by acting to approve New START this year and not delaying it until next year.”

Via Laura Rozen: Kerry urges START ratification by end of year
Highlight: “It will take a week or so to sort out the pieces, but prospects for Senate approval of the New START treaty still look good,” said arms control proponent Joe Cirincione of the Plougshares Fund. “This could be the first real test of whether the Republican Party is willing to govern responsibly.”

So will it happen before the end of the year?  To borrow a famous phrase: It’s too soon to tell.