WASHINGTON — Back home, supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement clamoring for the debt-ridden federal government to slash spending say nothing should be off limits. Tea Party-backed lawmakers echo that argument, and they are not exempting the military's multibillion-dollar budget in a time of war.

That demand is creating hard choices for the newest members of Congress, especially Republicans who owe their elections and solid House majority to the influential grass-roots movement. Cutting defense and canceling weapons could mean deep spending reductions and high marks from tea partiers as the U.S. wrestles with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Yet it also could jeopardize thousands of jobs when unemployment is running high.

Proponents of the cuts could also face criticism that they're trying to weaken national security in a post-Sept. 11 world.

House Republican leaders specifically exempted defense, homeland security and veterans' programs from spending cuts in their party's "Pledge to America" campaign manifesto last fall. But the House's new majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, has said defense programs could join others on the cutting board.

The defense budget is about $700 billion annually. Few in Congress have been willing to make cuts as U.S. troops fight in Afghanistan and wind up the operation in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a recent pre-emptive move, proposed $78 billion in spending cuts and an additional $100 billion in cost-saving moves. While that amounts to $13 billion less than the Pentagon wanted to spend in the coming year, it still stands as 3 percent growth after inflation is taken into account.

That's why Tea Party groups say if the government is going to cut spending, the military's budget needs to be part of the mix.

"The widely held sentiment among Tea Party Patriot members is that every item in the budget, including military spending and foreign aid, must be on the table," said Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots. "It is time to get serious about preserving the country for our posterity. The mentality that certain programs are 'off the table' must be taken off the table."

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, leaders of the group FreedomWorks, which has backed the Tea Partiers, recently wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial that "defense spending should not be exempt from scrutiny." On Gates' proposed savings of $145 billion over five years, they said, "That's a start."

Just about all Republicans — and plenty of Democrats, too — favor paring back spending. But when it comes to specific cuts — eliminating money for schools, parks, hospitals, highways and everything else — the decisions get difficult. Every government expenditure has its advocates and no one wants his or her program cut.

Fault lines have emerged within the Republican ranks over how deep to cut and where to whittle. In the coming weeks, lawmakers will feel the pressure from constituents and colleagues.

"Everything is ultimately on the table," said Rep. Jon Runyan of New Jersey, a freshman Republican and a Tea Party favorite.

That view could produce a rough tenure for the 6-foot-7 (2-meter) former pro football player, who just earned a coveted spot on the House Armed Services Committee, a fierce protector of military interests. The congressman's district is home to Fort Dix, which merged with neighboring McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station to make the military's first three-branch base.

Runyan expects a committee fight over Gates' proposal to cancel a $14 billion program to develop the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for the Marines and use that money to buy additional ships, F-18 jets and new electronic jammers. Already, several members of the panel, including the chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon of California, have signaled they will challenge Gates' move.

Runyan says he will decide after he's heard arguments from both sides.

No matter how much defense spending is trimmed, none of the cuts is likely to reduce the money that's available to the military to spend on the war fronts.

"We want to make sure men and women put in harm's way have the resources they need," said Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who recently traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan with several of his Republican colleagues, including a number of other freshmen. "That doesn't mean the entire defense budget has to be taken off the table," he added.

Several Republican lawmakers already have taken the first steps toward cutting defense.

Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas has proposed cutting total government spending by $153 billion, including deep reductions in defense and elimination of several weapons programs. Brady called it a "down payment" on getting the country's finances in order.

In an unusual political pairing, liberal Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian and former Republican presidential candidate, have joined forces in pushing for substantial reductions in the defense budget, including closing some of the 600-plus military bases overseas.

"I'll work with anybody," Frank said of the effort, which could attract other liberal Democrats who have tried for years to reduce post-Cold War military spending and tea party-backed Republicans.

The schism within the Republican ranks is philosophical as well as generational. Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, 48, a Tea Party favorite, says all spending should come under scrutiny, from food stamps for the poor to foreign aid to money for wars. Sen. John McCain, 74, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, worries about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party.

For all the talk, one Tea Party group is willing to give lawmakers some leeway, provided that they adhere to the movement's values.

Sal Russo, chief strategist of the Tea Party Express, said the defense budget should be part of the calculation and his organization expects lawmakers to "responsibly bring spending down." He added that his group will give them "flexibility to do their job."

Tea Party-backed Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina said lawmakers "at the end of the day, will take a look at all the fat in the budget." But he said it was premature with two wars to say how Congress will make the cuts. Scott has two brothers in the military — one in the Air Force, the other in the Army.

The Tea Party, which sprung up shortly after President Barack Obama took office, is a loose-knit coalition of community groups largely made up of people with conservative and libertarian views who say government has grown too large, threatening individual liberties. The tea partiers support cutting government spending and reducing taxes.

The movement's name is taken from the Boston Tea Party, a 1773 protest in which activists in the then-British colonies in America boarded ships and threw their cargo of English tea into Boston Harbor in a symbolic act of protest against taxes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41219824/ns/politics-capitol_hill

Now comes the Rift!

Repubs verses Tea Party.

The Pubes just think they won the mid-terms.

The tea party guys promised stuff they really can't carry through with at some levels and of course what they aren't going to carry through with on other levels.

If they really cared about the deficit they would repeal the Bush tax cuts to the rich. 6 billion a year would help some.

They can't repeal health care unless Obama goes all mushy with his bipartisan stuff.

So they can't do any of what they promised anyway.

They could still continue to be the party of no I suppose and that was really unappealing.

Most people have always realized they were no more than an extension of the Repub Party. But, they have been claiming they are their own entity. I would like to see them show it with actions.
By, quit voting hand in hand with the Pubes and think for themselves.

To think there is no waste or abuse in the DOD is just not the reality.

When I was in the Air Force there was always a sense of urgency at the end of the fiscal year to make sure all the funds allotted to the squadron were spent. If it wasn't, the squadron wouldn't receive the same amount the next year. They were always buying things they didn't need, but they had to spend the money anyway.

Nonessential items can be looked at and cut if necessary. We can't pick and choose or say this or that is off limits.. Our debt is 14 trillion and climbing.

It's time to address it.

I'm with you there.

Question...

Why could we 'conquer' the world in 4 years...

Yet we can not 'contain' a third world rabble in 8?

The hue and cry of the torch and pitchfork carring mob. (instead of 'skewer' the vampire the cry is TAX THE RICH).

Steve Jobs was not rich when he was working in his basement with only an idea and some gumption.

Yet you would tax him at a rate you would scream at if it was you that got taxed. (althouth till that actually happens you will claim that you would be ok with it).

the so called 90% tax of the 'rich' in the past is a bit of spin... i.e. a LIE.

Individuals were not taxed at 90%... Only corporations received that bracket.

I don't buy into tax only the rich. You can tax them all you want, but it isn't going to solve the debt issue.

I see two ways out of this.

1. Raise taxes on everyone and for every dollar of additional tax revenue it must be combined with an equal amount cut from the spending.
If they raise 700 billion in new taxes 700 billion needs to be cut in spending. That is 1.4 trillion.

2. Leave the tax structure where it is an institute a temporary VAT.
Lets say for 5 years at 5%. If raising taxes is what is necessary then a VAT is the only way to insure everyone pays something.

Regardless of how you do it, spending cuts equal to taxes raised must occur or this debt issue will never be resolved.

Tough decisions have to be made because if they aren't we are going to be in big trouble.

The rich are the cause of this nations woes.
We've catered to them for years. It's time they do something for the country besides just reap the rewards off the backs of the People.