Inhofe’s Budget Contradiction

(Could the 2010 Oklahoma legislative session get ugly because of the state budget crisis? Read DocHoc's commentary this week in the Oklahoma Gazette, the state's finest alternative weekly. Be sure to read a different view about the session, too.)

On Feb. 1, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe released this statement about President Barack Obama’s budget:

Today’s budget released by President Obama proves how disingenuous the spending freeze he touted during the State of the Union address last week really was. The new budget includes billions in new spending, higher taxes, and continued deficit spending. With twenty kids and grandkids of my own, it is their futures I am concerned for because the spending decisions included in Obama’s budget will saddle future generations with enormous debt. Instead of increased spending, we should make hard decisions, exercise fiscal restraint, and tighten Washington’s spending belt like every household across this country is doing.

Note all the sanctimonious concern about the children and the future, even though Inhofe sat on the sidelines as former President George Bush squandered a budget surplus and drove this country into debt because of tax cuts for the rich and two botched military occupations. Now, suddenly, it’s all about the kids.

Or is it? The very next day, Inhofe released this statement about defense spending in the budget:

Defending America is the number one constitutionally-mandated function of government. While there are good programs included in the President’s budget, the core defense budget will fall from 3.6 percent of GDP in FY11 to 3.2 percent of GDP by FY15. That’s not doing enough to protect this nation. When the cost of simply operating and sustaining our military outpaces inflation on average by 3 percent each year, these levels of funding do not allow us to properly take care of our men and women in uniform, fully fund operations overseas, modernize our aging military fleets, and properly sustain our old equipment.

What about the children now? This is more than a typical argument for more defense spending. This is rhetorical subterfuge. Inhofe wants it both ways. The poor children and grandchildren will suffer because of a big, bad terrible budget on one day. The very next day, it’s, hey, we need a lot more military spending in this country. In his first statement, Inhofe talks about households tightening their spending belts; in the second statement, he fails to mention anything about spending restraint or even basic oversight.

Inhofe can get away with his consistent contradictions because the corporate media in the state will not hold him accountable. Obviously, politicians contradict themselves all the time, but this example is so politically expedient, one might think it would draw some local media attention. Don’t count on it.