Skip to comments.Defense cuts that need to be avoided
Posted on 01/30/2013 4:26:23 PM PST by SkyPilot
IN 2012, REPUBLICANS ran against the massive cuts to defense that might occur in early 2013 under the congressionally mandated budget sequester. At an Oct. 23 presidential debate, President Obama responded that his opponent, Mitt Romney, was blowing the risk out of proportion: The cuts, he said, will not happen.
Well, those cuts are now scheduled to take effect on March 1 and, by the look of things, they will. The GOP has changed its tune; the Republican majority in the House seems content to let them happen. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama, whose defense secretary has warned in the direst terms against imposing the cuts hardly mentions the subject. How did we get here?
The authors of sequestration, which was supposed to scare Congress into agreement on an alternative, did not anticipate the GOPs postelection maneuvering. The party is abandoning its unpopular threat to block a debt-ceiling increase and using the threat of the sequester instead. The goal, apparently, is still more spending cuts without any tax increases, a deal Mr. Obama properly refuses and which is less sensible for the country than is a combination of entitlement cuts and higher revenue through closing tax loopholes, which Mr. Obama might accept.
So much for the erstwhile GOP concern about gutting national security.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
They also put blame on Obama.
The GOP is bluffing against itself, and losing.
Mr. Obama is hardly blameless. Hes the commander in chief, yet in signing off on sequestration as a forcing mechanism, he embraced a political calculation that implied national defense was more of a Republican worry than a Democratic one. The Pentagon was already planning to trim a manageable $450 billion from its spending plans over the next decade. If sequestration happens, and continues over a decade, that figure would more than double. As a result, the United States could have to terminate major weapons programs and would be left with the smallest ground force since prior to Pearl Harbor, according to estimates by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
Check. Well there you go, folks!
It’s all the Republicans fault. Obama is blameless.
Well there I go, not waiting until SkyPilot posted the rest of the story...
It’s still the Republicans fault though (channeling Wash Post editors).
I think we should have defense cuts. We have a communist running the department of defense to the benefit of the Obama brotherhood. Nothing good is going to come of the department of defense so long as the communist in chief is in charge.
Starve the beast...
It’s not like we cut defense and get invaded tomorrow. There is a ton of fat.
Does anyone second the motion?
I agree - starve the beast, even though my job may be endangered.
Recruitment and training take time. Personnel thrown on the street are unlikely to return. They will find another job and ignore your pleas for help after you crap on them. Loyalty is a two way street.
Isn't it amazing that when a company closes its plant, layoffs workers, or moves overseas to contain out of control costs, it is "stealing" and "criminal" - yet when the Federal Government does it they are "sensible cuts?"
With Sequestration, even the Marxists are not trying to spin these as "sensible." These are a meat ax, that the DoD nor any other agency is even given the power to correctly manage.
And the reason for the mess we are in is because Congress refused to do their jobs - to vote up or down whether to reign in entitlements, and instead handed that hope to a "Super-committee" chaired by Senators Murry and Kerry? It would be laughable if it were not so tragic.