Republicans just revealed their deplorable new priorities

By now, we know that the overly loud ruckus raised by Congressional Republicans criticizing too much spending and a growing deficit is a message leveled only when that spending is aimed at those of us at the bottom and middle.

As progressives have argued endlessly, there was no Republican concern about lowering tax rates for the wealthy and corporations.

Just as President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion stimulus was clearing its last hurdle on Tuesday and passing the House, Republicans on Capitol Hill launched a PR campaign aimed at suppressing Democrats' future ability to claim credit for a post-pandemic economic recovery.

GOP leaders, arguing that the massive relief measure was unnecessary, claimed that America's recovery was already underway and that the Democrats' sweeping package would only hinder — rather than hasten — the economy's revival.

"The economy is coming back, people are getting vaccinated: We're on the way out of this," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters. "We're about to have a boom. And if we do have a boom, it will have absolutely nothing to do with this $1.9 trillion."

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy made a nearly identical argument — a clear indication these talking points had been carefully crafted.

"I believe the American people are going to see an American comeback this year, but it won't be because of this liberal bill," the California Republican said. "This bill won't speed up our return to normal; it will only ... burden future generations with unnecessary debt."

Spending Priorities

Democrats have been introducing bills to curtail costly nuclear modernization programs. Republicans want Biden to continue spending on defense and weapons modernization, with no concern yet about cost and have included questions about this issue to Cabinet defense nominees.

Indeed, Republicans, as always, are pushing an increase in defense spending overall, though the Trump administration budget for defense for this year was more modest than its $740 billion for the previous year. To pay for it, they propose cuts in social spending.

The Biden White House is starting work on its first budget, with some expectations to keep funds for weapons flat against last year, which is still an increase.

We should note that at the same time, we are hearing repeatedly that the biggest threats we face are domestic terrorism, climate change, cybersecurity hacks and international economic warfare. None of those are addressed by better nuclear weapons, of course.

Even among specific military priorities, there are questions about priorities other than more modern nukes – including the number of Navy ships, actually being able to launch and maintain the expensive fighter jets developed over the last years, military pay and benefits. Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks apparently has directed a review of selected programs, including low-yield nuclear warheads and nuclear command and control. The Trump administration developed and deployed a submarine-launched, low-yield nuclear warhead, called W76-2, that Democrats argue raises the risk of nuclear war by potentially lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons. There now is a bill to stop a new sub-launched cruise missile from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.).

Feels Like an Old Argument

Actually, it was the Obama administration that had started the modernization program, out of the belief that aging weapons might prove dangerous to have deployed, and that while treaties have called for fewer nukes, they should be in good shape. None of that has stopped the Russians, and now the Chinese, from bringing out new generations of nukes.

So, what we can see brewing is kindling over old issues on spending on weapons over social issues, varying and convenient use of the deficit monster as a threat, and partisan maneuvering.

Democrats Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) argue that the real issue here is the over-emphasis of nuclear weapons as well as the cost. They are lobbying Biden to abandon some of the programs underway and to revisit our actual defense priorities. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate counterpart, argue against efforts to "cripple the U.S. nuclear deterrent forever."

House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith (D-Wa.) says that the defense budget ought to be the result of effective spending, whatever the total is.

Hear that silence? No one is talking about deficits.

At best, what we have is a nice distillation of just when deficits do and don't matter.