Is Senator Kyl holding New START hostage to tax cuts?

By Adam Serwer

The burden of proof is on Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to show that monitoring Russia's nuclear arsenal is more important than making sure the top 2% get a tax cut. Whatever genuine substantive concerns Republicans have about the START treaty--the ones they've come up with aren't convincing--the dispute over the Bush tax cuts shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not the treaty is ratified.

Today, five former Republican secretaries of state urged Republicans in the Senate to ratify the new START treaty:

It is a modest and appropriate continuation of the START I treaty that expired almost a year ago. It reduces the number of nuclear weapons that each side deploys while enabling the United States to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent and preserving the flexibility to deploy those forces as we see fit. Along with our obligation to protect the homeland, the United States has responsibilities to allies around the world. The commander of our nuclear forces has testified that the 1,550 warheads allowed under this treaty are sufficient for all our missions - and seven former nuclear commanders agree. The defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of the Missile Defense Agency - all originally appointed by a Republican president - argue that New START is essential for our national defense.

Yesterday, however, Kyl, who once complained that the Obama administration wasn't moving fast enough to extend those verification procedures, made ratification of the START treaty contingent on extending $700 billion in tax cuts for top earners, suggesting that if no deal was reached on the cuts by Monday, there wouldn't be any time left to deal with START.

Consider Kyl's actions -- and those of anyone in the GOP caucus who would join him, as a statement of the Republican Party's true priorities. Republicans say their goal is deficit reduction, but they are willing to hold verification of Russia's nuclear arsenal hostage to budget-busting tax cuts that will have little stimulative effect on the economy. A "strong national defense" is supposed to be one of the pillars of American conservatism, but the Senate GOP stands ready to undermine a key part of the global non-proliferation regime--one put in place by a Republican president--at a time when international pressure is needed to curtail the nuclear ambitions of countries like Iran.

There's been some recent indication that some of Kyl's colleagues aren't quite as interested in playing games with the START treaty, and that's a good sign. But New START still hangs in the balance.

At bottom, this controversy really amounts to a struggle over the soul of the GOP on foreign policy. Is the GOP still the party of James Baker, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Larry Eagleburger and Colin Powell, or has it finally become nothing more than the party of John Bolton, John Yoo and Liz Cheney?