WASHINGTON — The warnings only grew more dire as the deadline approached. Automatic cuts to national defense, Pentagon leaders insisted, would be a “disaster,” amounting to “assisted suicide” and “a major step toward creation of an unready, hollow military force.”
But now that the cuts known as sequestration have been triggered, an unlikely meeting of the minds is taking place among some liberals, libertarians, and Tea Party conservatives: They say the US defense budget, which is larger than that of the next nine largest militaries combined, can and should be cut significantly — and that doing so will not harm national security.
Comments
"defense cut damage seen as overblown"..perhaps by the news media....But if you are Iran's leaders, you see this as FULL STEAM AHEAD toward its nuke program. They have no reason to fear Obama's "All options are on the table" campaign rhetoric.
Iran already has Plutonium. A small amount of Plutonium can take everybody out....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9895934/Iran-has-crossed-first-hurdle-towards-plutonium-production-at-nuclear-facility.html
LOL, we could turn Iran to rubble many times over with one hand tied behind our back. But let's hope that the sanctions and the work of our spies do the job. The Iranian people deserve better than the pack of douchebags running their country. We need to support them in the Green Revolution and in overcoming their despotic leaders who only hold onto power through intimidation and vote rigging. That sort of help requires strong leadership, good intelligence work and the help of the international community in enforcing sanctions, not billions taken out of the taxes we pay. Why should our taxes go to pay for tanks no one wants, overpriced fighter planes we don't need, and all the rest of the waste in the military procurement process? Take care of our soldiers and veterans--we have enough money to do that if we cut out the unneeded expensive toys.
Miker6, now you are sounding like a "chicken little". The Stealth bombers are not going to run out of fuel due to budget cuts, the AF is not going to lay off the pilots, and the nukes that they carry were built a long time ago.
Sequestration actually began in the DoD about a year ago. The uncertainty in the timing and magnitude of sequestration, on top of previously negotiated cuts as part of the sequestration deal, caused it to stop spending on almost anything to make sure thay had funds to meet internal payroll. The budget uncertainty has been worse then the cuts.
Allowing the sequestration cuts to happen at least reduces this uncertainty and allows some things to move forward. Most of the non-fighting work in DoD gets done by contractors. DoD contractor staffing is down by almost 20% in many areas. Meanwhile the DoD civilian workforce has increased by 8% since 2009 (Washington Times). It is larger in number than the uniformed military.
Rather than furloughs, there needs to be a real reduction in government employment consistent with the reductions in funding.
This comment has been removed.
Defense cuts are ok...cutting 2% of all other programs will stop the earth spinning on its axis. Obama is a poor leader who uses fear to motivate. my 2% cut in pay through the increased payroll tax is something I need to learn to live with, now it's governments turn.
You gotta love folks who don't get this at all. "a 2% across the board reduction in their normal increase is going to cause the moon to shoot off in space". A good comment except it is not factual. What you have is a cut in the current budget for the current year not for the next year, but this year in which budgetary decisions were made in Oct. 12. There is a big difference and it would be helpful if the public when it talked knew what it was talking about.
Now I happen to think the cut to the military won't kill it. Sure training exercises already scheduled in the budget will have to be cancelled. Some deployments or military activities will be cancelled. Some contracts for weapons procurement will be delayed. But no the "moon won't shoot off into space." However, it will effect this years budget not next. That is why the hype if it was next years budget no one could reasonably complain.
If you can't figure it out think of it this way. You planned for a vacation in August of this year based upon a certain set of dollar figures. You take a 20 percent cut for the remainder of the year. It isn't a cut to your net increase it is a cut to this years budget and you cancel your vacation. But hey most folks aren't interested in the nitty gritty of govt. they just like the slogans. In the end DOD could take even a bigger hit next year which of course would have been the rational way to approach it.
AttaTurk:
Like someone said above, many people were not expecting a 2% decrease in their income to suddenly take effect in January. But it sure as heck happened, and people are expected to absorb it. The .gov gave very little to no warning of it happening.
But now you are acting like the .gov is getting raped by the "sequester"? WOW, they are the ones who created it, and have known of it's existence for months.
If your point is that it is not "fair" to the employees who will be "furloughed" because of the short notice, that breaks my heart. How many people in the private sector get any notice of a layoff or reduction in force? Time for those employees to put on their Big Boy Pants.
And I do not know WHERE you are getting this idea that it is not a cut to the increases? Everything I see or read says it is exactly that. Even if it were, the same holds true, the BUDGET can be cut at anytime, not just a year in advance. Just like everyone took a pay cut via taxes with no prior notice.
I don't think YOU get it.
"History" I'm not saying it is getting raped. I am countering the argument that now that the sequester has taken place taht people can make rational cuts to programs. The legislation is not written in this fashion. I've been through mandatory cuts before. You just cut off things wholesale. There is no rational to it. Not enough space here to go through the whole budgetary process, but in govt. the ability to shift line items is limited and some expenses are front loaded so all you can cut now is back end expenses which means that certain line items are cut 100%.
You have not seen me say a word about furloughs or people getting laid off. People who were at my level can live with it and if they can't well I can't help their stupidity. However, the people who will more than likely get hurt are janitors, your local PD, fire departments etc. not because someone is making a political statement but because that is how budgeting works. It is not the same as a private firm no matter how much people would like it to be.
As to cuts in "increases". If we were talking about fiscal year 14 you'd be right it would be a cut in the increase. If you are talking about 13 it is a cut to this years budget and this year budget is an established finite number that has been altered. A figure that in Sept. of last year one would have based the current year upon.
I don't oppose the cuts. I oppose their implimentatin.
We are told by the White House that the sequester will have devastating effects on widows, orphans and the elderly. But then we are asked to believe that defense cuts will have no consequences even though a large portion of the sequester cuts come from the Pentagon budget. This doesn't add up.
I'm a little confused by your comment. The administration says it will have consequesnces, others say it will not. Now I hold it will have consequences but not disasterous effects. Are you saying the admin. is saying it won't have consequences for I haven't read that. Others have said it but I haven't heard that from the WH.
Attaturk doesn't understand that the White House talks out of both sides of its mouth. Every day. It thinks that the average American voter doesn't remember what happened yesterday. Sort of like the movie "Groundhog Day". And of course, the Globe, in lock step with the government, does the same thing.
"Miker" You're a zealot and you are entitled to your zealotry. You despise Obama for whatever reason and that's find. But it doesn't contribute to a ratinal conversation. I don't notice you pointing out where the administration stated it would not effect defense. That was my question. A rather easy one to answer and not one in defense of the admin. Ozark made a statement I am not aware of remarks that support it and would like to know if they actually exist. You apparently don't know, but I already knew you don't really care. You just like knocking the admin. and that's fine. The average American already has stated what they think of Obama regardless of what you or I think, they voted him back in.
Attaturk likes to portray that he is the voice of reason. But if you watch his comments for a while, eventually he slips into the liberal mindset of calling others zealots, then claiming others despise Obama which means anything they say is automatically "irrational" (by liberal definition).
Notice how he does that above, but then includes the "not one in defense of the admin".
I like Attaturk, I think of him as a "Ninja-Lib".
"History" I call anyone a zealot as soon as they start saying Obama did it, Boehner did it.
I do like the "Ninja-Lib" thing though. Sadly it is not true. I am quite conservative regarding fiscal matters and quite liberal when it comes to social and moral matters. So I don't really have a home. Of course being a fiscal conservative to me means paying for what you want.
"Dogs and cats living together....pure pandemonium!
-----
come on people- this is a complete joke right? Ay ceo/business owner when faced with needing to cut budgets will start with the largest line item expenditures- as a % of the 2013 us budget the following apply:
defense
healthcare
pensions
these 3 items account for almost 65% of the budget outlay. 2% in cuts? That's a joke- i bet you can find 750m-1b in bloat amongst these 3 items and not miss a beat on a weelky operating basis.....
I don't think you get it. Entitlements are exempted, so no cuts to pensions. Healthcare, only area available would be Medicaid. The percentage you quote would be of the overall budget not the specific agencies. Again I don't have a problem with the cuts if that's what folks want. But they will feel it and all the blah, blah, about waste. Well it's just that, blah, blah. Any CEO could indeed do it at the beginnning of the fiscal year. He'd never do it in the middle of the year with a meat axe.
Attaturk, WRONG. I have worked in companies where the "budget" or "fiscal plan" is reviewed on a quarterly basis. In some cases, it looked like a bloodbath. Layoffs and RIF's could come at any time of the year.
Since 1.1% of our budget is Foreign Aid, how come that seems to be a sacred cow? We could easily cut it in half, or do away with it altogether and almost have met the goal.
Now I sit back and wait to hear from the libs who will scream that it is our duty to give aid to other countries.
Which is interesting, since we have people in this country who could use that "aid", and it is even more interesting since we give aid to people who never paid a nickel in taxes and never will.
Then we will hear the argument about how it buys us "goodwill" around the world. But then liberals are quick to point out that we are hated around the world because of our policies. We might as well be hated AND save money.
Led by the lair in chief Obama
despicable: ocked in its home port in Virginia rather than patrolling the waters of the Persian Gulf, the aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman and its 3,360 officers and crew are this weekend on the front line of the latest conflict to embroil America.
"History" The point as to whether the idea orginated in the WH is pointless. The history of it is quite clear. Boehner and Obama came to the agreement because it was something both thought would lead to action in the Congress. Boehner himself said, "I got 98 percent of what I wanted." Is it Obama's fault? Is it Boehners? No, it's both and it's neither. It is actually the House's fault because Boehner, not because he didn't want to, but because he couldn't get his caucus to get something done. In the end it doesn't matter who's fault it is. It's just stupid, period. And that has been my point all along. I have consistently said anything that does not include entitlement reform and tax reform that increases revenue is stupid. Revenues and expenditures need to meet up somwhere between 18 and 20 percent of GDP. If the public wants the higher end they have to pay for it. The lower end then they have to lose something. But I'm not going to sit here and play politics for Obama or the Republicanss. The public needs to be better informed as to what they get and what it will cost. You say you don't care who gets hurt. I do and I think it needs to be done rationally.
Baloney, Attaturk. Obama dreamt the idea up, and now he is claiming it is Boehner's fault. You can dance like a Democrat all day long, but it does not change the fact that Obama is trying to scare the people, and it was HIS idea to begin with.
Obviously YOU do not get it.
The public is not asking for more, all the polls indicate the people believe the govt needs to cut back on spending. This president does not see it that way and now he is trying to bully them into more spending and taxes. He talks about tax loopholes, those will not even begin to solve the problem.
It is time for Little Boy Obama to cut spending and stop threatening.
And he wants more? How is this fair? http://www.boston.com/business/personal-finance/2013/03/03/tax-bills-for-rich-families-approach-year-high/tPcmllN0iKPUSpp53v8WcI/story.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed3
A new analysis, however, shows that average tax bills for high-income families rarely have been higher since the Congressional Budget Office began tracking the data in 1979. It’s middle- and low-income families that aren’t paying as much as they used to. - See more at: http://www.boston.com/business/personal-finance/2013/03/03/tax-bills-for-rich-families-approach-year-high/tPcmllN0iKPUSpp53v8WcI/story.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed3#sthash.RY0J5g0D.dpufThis is truly a gluttonous beast that needs to go on a diet, but the backlash will be a lot of angry white guys that are incapeable of stating what is great about the USA outside of references to firearms and internal combustion engines.
Working in the military industrial complex, I am embedded in this blue collar wingnut culture.
As reflected in the shrill postings previous, I have found them as a group to be ignorent, paranoid, hypocritical, narrow minded, and unapoligeticly raceist, with a sense of entitlement to a most expensive right wing welfare program; manufactureing war machinery wheather needed or not. They whine about a lack of overtime (revenue enhancement to cover the deficit spending in their households)
and nurse fantisies of Sharon Angle's "second amendment remedy" to deal with anybody to the left of Barry Goldwater.
Along with demanding the much derided "big gumment" [sic] maintain highways so they can live far enough away from the dark skinned folk they fear and loath, they expect the nation to engage in global conquest to keep their subsidized motor fuel cheap enough to continue making hundred mile commutes in three ton trucks.
The reaction of the Republican house to the Obama administration from the get go has been fiscal terrorism and hostage taking, I find little difference between them and the "enemies" they keep inventing.
Who cares what YOU have "found" anyone to be? It appears to me that YOU are the racist.
Your reference to oil is ludicrous. YOUR King Obama is the one who refuses to create a pipeline from Canada, who blocks drilling in this country. So it is YOUR King Obama who is furthering your alleged Global Conquest so that white skinned folk can live far away from those of color.
You sir, do not make any sense, which is typical of most racists.
This comment has been removed.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/second-term-blues_704963.html
What truly boggles my mind is when someone mentions "fair" and taxes in the same sentence.
Only when it comes to government do we assess what is "fair" based on income.
Does someone who makes more than the next person really use more gov services than one who does not? Even a flat rate tax is not "fair". Would a person consider it "fair" if everything purchased was priced according to their income? Would a person making 60K per year think it fair that he paid more for a car than a person making 40K?
There is nothing "fair" about taxes, never has been. The sliding scale is far from fair. Those making more do not "owe" those making less anything in reality. Of course this was done because the wealthier do not have the voting power to change it.
As a former DoD employee, based on my direct knowledge the fraud, waste and abuse is in the billions and no one wants to do anything about it.
As for President obama's "ethics reform" and promise of increased protection for whistleblowers, his platform during the campaign: "Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.” - "Obama’s The Change We Need In Washington”
The Chicago approach to government is to do everything in the dark, because corruption is best when no one knows about it. It's disturbing that President Obama punishes the truth-tellers and rewards the criminal banksters. Two rules of law; one for the average person and one for the wealthy and connected.
And "sequestration" is just another empty word concerning a massive bi-partisan con game, subsidized by middle and upper middle income earners.
dougkinan@yahoo.com
"History" The facts are the facts. Now you can deny them if you want. You can imply Boehner didn't say what he said, but he said it. As I said before you can call bs on 2 plus 2 equals 4 but it doesn't change the fact it equals 4.
You allege the polls say American's want reductions in govt. But it doesn't change the fact that every time we specify what shall be cut, the public disapproves. Simply because you desire something or I desire something it does not make it politically feasible. You deny being a zealot but every posting re-establishes the fact that you are one. Now I have no problem with you being stuck on one side of the issue, in fact I enjoy your writing. The only problem I have with it is anyone who disagrees with you or any fact that disagrees with you, you simply dismiss out of hand.
The public will never get an accountalbe government as long as it plays the political ideological game. Simply because it will never see the forest for the trees.
Let me add if you feel a progressive tax system is "unfair" then I would allege you are anti-democratic and a plutocrat. You would have me pay the same tax rate as a person making 30k a year, that is ludicrous. It is not even a starting point for a conversation on budgets. I would be willing to wager my tax rate should be higher than yours and it probably isn't, it's probably about the same.
Attaturk, you are too funny today! You are accusing me, of being YOU. LOL.
I love the way you say "I allege the polls say..." Nooo, I don't allege what they say, that is one of your cases of 2+2=4, and you do not want to believe it. Spoken like a true democrat!
When did I deny being a zealot? You can call me one all you want, it matter not to me. For truly I am a zealot when it comes to seeing what this president is doing.
You are the one playing the ideological game.
Oh, and about that "progressive" tax system you mentioned? "Progressive" is the latest liberal buzz word, sounds so much better than liberal, doesn't it? But the fact is, there is nothing "fair" about our tax system. You avoided addressing what I wrote. People who make more money than others do NOT use more of the gov services. In fact, they probably use less, but are taxed more. There is nothing "fair" about that, unless you think they should pay more, "just because, it is fair".
"History" The use of services argument stems from an evolution of the pretty much discredited Austrian school of economics. The fairness of the "progressive" tax or "liberal" tax or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with usage and everything with the effect it has upon the individual and the economy.
I agree the polls do say people want budget reduction, but they also say they don't want it when it is specified. Therein lies the politics of the situation.
I have said numerous times I believe entitlements should be cut, including your VA or your SS or your Medicare. Do you agree?
I also have said we need tax reformation now I do not believe in the old argument about a "flat tax", it is just to dumb for me to even argue about. But I will put your VA benefits under the tax gun and mine too. Are you willing to do that?
If not then you are an example of the narrow minded view of what we need to do. In other words a zealot. If you are not open to all avenues and only certain ones then what else can you be.
The argument as to who planned is of no consequesnce. You say you want the reductions. Do you or don't you? If you do then say thank you Mr. President. You have said numerous times you don't care who gets hurt. Fine then you are getting what you wanted. I disagree. I don't care who's idea it was. It's a stupid idea.
Attaturk: Since I paid into my SS, when I have recuperated what I paid into it, plus the interest that would have been earned (yes, I did save during my working career), yes, they can stop paying me BACK.
VA bennies? They should only be paying for things that are directly connected to service related injuries or issues. Mine are. The way I see it, I was not given a choice whether I wanted to serve or not, unlike the way things are now.
Medicare. That is a tough one, I would have to do some research and see how much money they have milked out of me over the years to pay for others health care. Once I knew that, I would apply the same formula as for SS.
You mentioned the "discredited" Austrian school of economics. The argument is still alive and well, of course those who espouse a socialist state totally dismiss the theory because it does not allow for socialism.
As I suspected. You are willing to see cuts in federal spending relating to everything except what you receive. I receive VA comp for the very same reason, yet I think my recieving of SS is superifilous. You see SS and Medicare as something that you have paid for in full which of course you have not. Others haven't miled you for years - both programs are based on one generation supporting another. But you know that already.
As I suspected you are representative of the group that says - cut everything except what is mine. Mine I earned - the other guy didn't. You would hold that for you the benefits of societies choices over the years belong to you, but you wish to opt out of the obligations of the future.
As to your military service. Just like mine it is an obligatin from my perspective. But then on these issues I'm a conservative. You are apparently a libertarian.
But that doesn't mean we can't be friendly in the comment section and on occasion find common ground. But from my perspective I'm pro-America the nation - You are pro-History the individual. A legitimate philosophical position.
As to the Austrian School all I can say is from my perspective like Communism it is sophomoric.
Thanks again Bryan for questioning the dominant theme of the Pentagon on defense spending and I am glad to see the lively discussion above.