Ripon Forum


Vol. 49, No. 3

View Print Edition

In this edition

The rise of ISIS. The expansion of China. The very real danger that Russia poses to the West. With the possible exception of China, these threats were unimaginable before 9/11. Yet today, they represent perhaps the three greatest challenges we face around the world.

Putin’s Push for Power

In 2009, the Obama administration “reset” relations with Russia, an attempt at unilateral withdrawal and concession to gain cooperation from Vladimir Putin’s regime. Unfortunately, the reset has proved to be a miserable failure because Putin respects only strength.

Is Time Working for or Against Putin?

Even though Vladimir Putin faces no political opposition at home, he is presiding over a troubled economy that would keep any politician up at night. What ails the Russian economy? Take your pick.

Separating Fact from Fiction

As Russia attacks the post-World War II security structure, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is cutting through the haze of propaganda to make sure the truth is told and the message of freedom and democracy is promoted in oppressed regions of the world.

The War on ISIS: Getting Beyond Stalemate

One year after the President announced a campaign to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, an examination of what the campaign has — and has not — achieved, and what more needs to be done to restore some semblance of order in the Middle East.

Why the Stakes are so High in the South China Sea

The South China Sea lies at the nexus of a global economy on which the prosperity of all major trading nations depends, which is why China’s expansion in the region is so alarming, and why the United States must stand with its allies and partners across the region.

The Price of Our Security

In the face of growing budget constraints, lawmakers must find a way to bridge the partisan divide and reach agreement on a plan to guarantee the nation’s security in an increasingly dangerous and volatile world.

The Indispensable Nation

A generational struggle is underway to win a battle of ideas around the world. As the battle rages on, one country must lead the way to victory — America.

A Lesson in Hope from Dharavi

In the past 20 years, free enterprise has transformed India. Between 1965 and 1975, per capita income in the country rose by just 0.3 percent annually. But from 2005 to 2013, that figure has more than doubled, from $740 to $1,570.

Tackling a Troublesome Tax Code

More than 40 states currently impose a personal income tax on income earned within their borders, regardless of the earner’s state of residency. With more Americans traveling out of state for their jobs, two Members of Congress have introduced legislation to ease this burden.

The New Epidemic

With the price tag for heroin, alcohol and other drug abuse totaled more than $6 billion annually in Kentucky, a look at how one community in the state is trying to fight the problem and prevent this scourge from ruining — and ending — more lives.

Ripon in the Reagan Years

With THE RIPON FORUM celebrating its 50th year of publication, one of the journal’s longtime editors looks back at the accomplishments of The Ripon Society in the 1980s and how the organization fought to keep the vision of “broad Republicanism” alive.

Ripon Profile of Larry Hogan

The Governor of Maryland discusses his first year in office, which has been marked not only by his successful effort to roll back the “rain tax,” but by his courageous battle to defeat cancer.

The Price of Our Security

Gray & Hoff photo

With victories in the 2014 midterm elections, Republicans took control of both houses of Congress promising to pass the first budget in six years.  And they did—but it wasn’t easy. Republican leaders in the House and Senate faced tough negotiations with the party’s so-called defense hawks, whose top priority is national security, and deficit hawks, whose top priority is fiscal discipline. Reaching a compromise to keep this tenuous coalition in tact was difficult, but it was only the first step in a lengthy budget process. Republicans in Congress still have the appropriations process ahead of them, and passing any spending bills, especially ones they hope the president will sign, takes another layer of negotiation and compromise—with Democrats.

A congressional budget is an important document: it is a statement of priorities. This is an important distinction in understanding what it is not: law. The budget resolution is a compromise between a majority of Representatives and Senators, and it provides a framework that is supposed to establish limits on spending, tax, and debt related matters. The budget resolution passed by the House and Senate reaches balance by 2024. This dramatic alteration in the nation’s fiscal trajectory is achieved through reduced spending. The FY16 congressional budget largely adheres to reduced levels of defense spending called for under the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011. The congressional budget passed this year takes non-defense discretionary spending lower still. But the real savings come from reforming entitlement spending. Reaching balance by 2024 was an important aspect of gaining the support of Republican deficit hawks.

Lawmakers must bridge this partisan divide to guarantee the nation’s security—and both parties will need to pay a price.

Republican defense hawks, however, argued that the reduced military budget under the BCA caps had already significantly damaged national security and that increasing military spending was the only way to keep the country safe. To meet this need, the budget resolution includes an increased level of Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, essentially the place holder in the budget for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, to make up the gap between the current spending caps and the president’s funding request. Both sides agreed that this is an imperfect solution, but the OCO plus-up threads the needle for Congressional Republicans who need to balance fiscal discipline and funding defense. Congress has proceeded with this approach for appropriations bills; the House has passed 6 of the 12 funding bills—including defense.

The difficulty of negotiations and compromises to gain majority support among Republicans is only a precursor to the efforts to reach bipartisan agreement with Democrats in Congress and the White House. The Senate functionally requires 60 votes to pass anything, so the 54 Republicans need at least some Democratic support for any appropriations bills. All of the House-passed appropriations bills have met veto threats from the White House. Lawmakers must bridge this partisan divide to guarantee the nation’s security—and both parties will need to pay a price.

Cynics should actually take heart at the likelihood of a bipartisan solution. Congress has reached a compromise to alter the spending caps before, and policymakers don’t have to be all that original. After the pain of the across-the-board sequestration cuts in 2013, the chairs of the House and Senate Budget Committees, Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Patty Murray (D-WA), negotiated a compromise that provided two years of sequester relief while still reducing the deficit overall. Both parties got what they wanted, but neither got everything. Republicans in the House had to acquiesce to greater domestic discretionary spending, while Senate Democrats had to agree to mandatory spending cuts in lieu of long-sought tax increases. This is the architecture of compromise for the next two years: relief for both defense and domestic discretionary spending paid for with mandatory savings.

The highest priority of the federal government should be providing for the common defense. The price of the nation’s security is compromise.

Republicans need to know that trying to increase defense spending without also increasing domestic spending is a non-starter with Democrats. And besides, the president would have to sign off on any new OCO funds, which just isn’t going to happen in this context. Democrats must recognize that the chances of extracting a tax increase from a Republican House and Senate are exactly zero. However, the Ryan-Murray agreement and other bipartisan measures demonstrate that there are politically palatable savings to be found in mandatory entitlement spending. And this should be the source of cuts in the first place, as mandatory spending comprises over 60 percent of the federal budget. Simply extending the mandatory sequester currently in place, as was done once before in Ryan-Murray, for another two years could provide over $30 billion in savings.

The highest priority of the federal government should be providing for the common defense. The price of the nation’s security is compromise. Among political parties and between branches of government, leaders must trade their lesser preferences for this higher imperative.

Gordon Gray (@GordonGrayDC) and Rachel Hoff (@rachelhoff814) both work at the American Action Forum (@AAF) as Director of Fiscal Policy and Director of Defense Analysis, respectively.