My story today on budget cuts pretty much hewed to the conventional wisdom among local officials: The half-trillion in defense spending cuts would be a very bad thing.
But that opinion is not unanimous. And Matt Doheny, a Republican running for Congress against Democratic Rep. Bill Owens, is taking some criticism from his right flank on the matter. So is Mr. Owens — but that's to be expected already from strident fiscal conservatives.
"As if our hugely wasteful trillion dollar per year military doesn't need cutting and a serious effort made at ending the tremendous bloat and corporate welfare buried everywhere within its budget," commenter EVH wrote. "And enough with the scare tactics from both candidates. This cut amounts to the 4 - 5% annual increase that the Pentagon has been granted every year in its budget for over a decade. That is to say, this cut is merely ending the annual GROWTH of the budget and does nothing to actually shrink the already existing funding it gets annually."
And after Mr. Doheny's campaign posted his news release bemoaning the cuts, a few "friends" chimed in.
"The federal budget isn't a make work program Matt. That type of idea isn't very republican," wrote Rob Arrigo in a comment that garnered seven "likes."
"'We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'
It's not a move to the left to uphold a core function of the government," Mr. Doheny's campaign wrote back.
But the Facebook consensus was on Mr. Arrigo's side. The comments have since been sequestered.
Of course, these very same people won't be too happy with Mr. Owens' position, which is the same: We can cut a little bit from military spending, but not a half-trillion dollars, and not in an indiscriminate way.