Posted on 07/01/2012 3:46:56 PM PDT by Libloather
Pentagon chief urges Congress to block new defense cuts
By David Alexander
WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:43pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Leon Panetta urged Congress on Friday to act soon to stop a new round of defense budget reductions next year, saying the threat of $500 billion more in cuts leaves military families and defense workers under a cloud of uncertainty.
"Congress can't keep kicking the can down the road or avoiding dealing with the debt and deficit problems that we face," Panetta told a news conference. "The men and women of this department and their families need to know with certainty that we will meet our commitments to them and to their families."
Panetta's remarks come at a time of renewed focus on the looming across-the-board defense cuts, which would be carried out under a process known as "sequestration." Industry officials met with House Democrats to discuss the cuts on Thursday and held talks with Panetta at the Pentagon on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Leon should go talk to his boss. Oh, wait! The boss is on the road raising funds for his reelection. Maybe he should just tax the military personnel for their own defense.
sheriff joe...july 17....2:30...
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/sheriff-joe-set-to-release-more-obama-shockers/
"Congress can't keep kicking the can down the road or avoiding dealing with the debt and deficit problems that we face,"
Those two statements don't fit together. The military is simply going to have some cuts, along with everything else. If their first, then we'll focus on the rest of the budget next.
"Obama threatens to veto defense appropriations bill
By Jeremy Herb - 06/28/12 03:41 PM ET
The House’s defense appropriations bill on Thursday joined the list of spending bills that the White House has threatened to veto over the caps in the Budget Control Act (BCA).
The Obama administration said Thursday that it would recommend a veto of the current version of the measure because it violated the spending caps set in the BCA.
The House’s defense bill that passed the committee last month had a base budget of $519 billion, which was about $3 billion above the Obama administration’s budget request. The House made spending cuts elsewhere in the non-defense discretionary budget to allow for the increased defense spending, which Republicans say is necessary to lessen the risk from $487 billion in cuts over the next decade to the defense budget due to the BCA caps.
“By adding unrequested funding for defense, the House of Representatives departs from the bipartisan understanding reached a year ago,” the Office of Management and Budget wrote in a statement of administration policy.
he Obama administration objected to other changes that were made in the defense spending bill, but it did not threaten to veto the legislation over them.
The White House issued a similar veto threat regarding the defense authorization bill that passed the full House already, though that threat also got into detainee policy and missile defense.
In addition to the complaints over the overall size of the bill, the administration laid out issues with several of the funding changes the Appropriations Committee made.
In particular, the administration objected to the committee stopping the retirement of aircraft that the Pentagon included in its budget this year. Those included the Global Hawk Block 30 drone, C-27J cargo planes and the C-23 aircraft.
The administration also complained that the committee eliminated funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), blocked proposed [Obama is for higher fees] increases to TRICARE fees, and limited funds for transferring terror detainees.
The House Rules Committee was approving the rule for the defense appropriations bill Thursday, and it’s expected to be taken up in the full House in July when Congress returns from recess."
- - - - - - - - - - -
Pannetta here appears to be talking out both sides of his...
Soon, we’ll be resurrecting wagons.
After we sell our closed military bases as internment camp facilities and carve our Navy down to unmanned drone ships.
interesting bit of trivia:
when big news is about to be released, pizza deliveries to WH and pentagon increase. scuttlebut is that reporters monitor this to know if a news story is afoot.
Panetta, in other words, “The homosexualization of the armed forces must be fully funded to be completely implemented. (But completely implemented they will be regardless.)
Panetta hates the military and wants to see it cut to the bone, but he can’t come right out and say it. So he talks it both ways: cuts are needed/cuts are bad. He trusts that the Washington insiders will see through him and give him deep cuts.
China’s military spending is rapidly growing.
Just saying...
“China’s military spending is rapidly growing.”
It will take only one nuclear weapon launched from a container ship off our shores and exploded 300 miles above Kansas to product an electromagnetic pulse that will destroy the electronics that make today’s life possible. Hundreds of millions will die and the few survivors will return to the 18th century. Thanks to Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski the technology is not being implemented to protect the grid from this very real threat.
“China’s military spending is rapidly growing.”
It will take only one nuclear weapon launched from a container ship off our shores and exploded 300 miles above Kansas to product an electromagnetic pulse that will destroy the electronics that make today’s life possible. Hundreds of millions will die and the few survivors will return to the 18th century.
In 2008 the House and Senate were prepared to fund the protection of the electric grid against this threat. Thanks to Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, the bill died in the Senate. It isn’t just the Democrats gutting our defenses.
Pimg!
Pass the bill Murkowski.
Hmmm, something odd here. This is the first time in MY LIFE that I can ever remember a Democrat leader worried that we won’t be spending ENOUGH on defense.
I think the plan is too push the Republicans to agree to “tax increases on the wealthy” to prevent the cuts. Knowing this bunch in Congress they probably will do just that.
As for myself, I don’t really mind the cuts, if it keeps us from enabling the killing of millions of Christians in Syria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.