Way to go GOP!
Posted on 02/03/2013 6:12:33 AM PST by SkyPilot
n 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, President 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 GOP’s 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 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 Obama might accept.
So much for the erstwhile GOP concern about gutting national security. And who cares if the sequester’s cuts leave entitlements and other Democratic pet causes, such as Pell grants, unscathed?
Obama is hardly blameless. He’s 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.
Those kinds of cuts always raise wary eyebrows here in Delaware County, where Boeing Helicopters produces the fuselage for the tilt-rotor V-22 aircraft. It has been fending off moves to kill off the program that go back to the first President Bush. The sequestration cuts would likely put the program back on the chopping block.
The sequester would force the Pentagon to reduce its planned spending by 16.3 percent between now and Sept. 30, and to do so in an undifferentiated, across-the-board manner. The resulting furloughs, training reductions and procurement hassles would sow disorder and diminish readiness — while more selective cuts that might improve long-term efficiency would be bypassed.
Jobs and economic growth are not reasons to spend more than one dime than is absolutely necessary to prepare for war. But, as the most recent negative gross domestic product report shows, slowing defense production is already hurting the broader economy.
Given the uncertain global security environment, we are more skeptical than others of the need to downsize defense. But even those who disagree should recognize that sequestration is no way to go about it. It’s become a cliche of sorts to predict that partisan gridlock will undermine national security. If sequestration goes forward unchanged, that prediction will come true.
Way to go GOP!
So much for the erstwhile GOP concern about gutting national security. And who cares if the sequester’s cuts leave entitlements and other Democratic pet causes, such as Pell grants, unscathed?
The faces above should be considered a Poster for the GOP.
It is certainly what we have seen from the GOP for the last 4 years or more.
Whatever Obama wants in the sequestration is what Obama will get. We do not have two parties any more, we have the hard left as democrats and the easy left as Republicans.
None of our politicians in Washington seems to care about the country any more.The Only care is to get re-elected by passing out the goodies.
While I wouldn’t support slashing the military budget , surely they can find plenty of fat they could cut from the military spending?
I’m sure I’ll get plenty of replies from “budget hawks” saying how we should spend even more money we don’t have on 1,000 dollar paper clips.
I think sequestration is good.
Sequestration is the only way to get spending cuts. Spending cuts are not going to happen otherwise.
There will be necessary sequestered projects added back minus the marginally necessary or completely unnecessary pork. Keep soldiers and sailors, eliminate the rail gun.
I’m. Not blaming the GOP right now. The super committee came up with this and 0bama signed it, that’s it.
Republicans are playing the hand that it dealt. Notice that the tone of the article is crying about the Republicans...”gee, I thought they’d never cut defense”. That’s a ruse. How many Defense plants and suppliers are in Dem districts?????? The Boeing Plant mentioned in the article is a Dem district.
, Dems stand to lose a ton on sequestration, including some pet programs in other areas besides defense. Don’t let the weenies in the media convince you otherwise....that’s why they come out NOW with all of this print. Their bluff has been called, we will get across the board spending cuts..and we will move on. I think the big defense companies have been planning on this for awhile....but you can bet your pipe that the bureaucracy that supports favorite demsocialprogams has not. And now they’re panicking and try to blame Republicans as usual.
I have read many, many articles and analysis about that period, and the consensus was the GOP was deathly afraid of being blamed for people not getting their Social Security checks on time and any other fall out from a temporary government shut down. Congress said it would authorize payments on the national debt and for Social Security, but Obama controlled the Treasury Dept and played politics with it. So, the GOP caved like a wet cardboard box.
Sequestration came right out of the White House (the authors were Jack Lew, OMB Director, and Obama himself). Bob Woodward confirmed this. They came up with the formula. Defense at 17% of the budget took 50% of the hits. Entitlements are 2/3 of the Federal outlays, but they would be exempt from ANY cuts.
The Repulicans agreed to this Faustian bargain.
Then, they had buyers remorse. Look at what Paul Ryan wrote just a few months ago (along with a good man named "Buck McKeon" who is the House Armed Services Committee Chairman):
Military-Crippling Sequester Must Be Stopped - By Reps. Buck McKeon and Paul Ryan - May 9, 2012
Last week, shirtless Paul gets on Meet the Press and is the Sequester's greatest cheerleader in front of David "High Capacity Magazine" Gregory.
That was the "old" Paul Ryan. The "new" Paul Ryan is now a "Well, burn it all down then!" kind of guy.
Paul Ryan: 'The Sequester Is Going To Happen'
The GOP isn't known as "The Stupid Party" for nothing.
Why defense spending plunged 22% last quarter — and killed GDP
Not only is Sequestration going to gut the military (note: the word "gut" was used by every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the SECDEF), not only is it unfair to levy $600 Billion in cuts on top of the $450 Billion that Defense has already been cut, but when the economy goes into the tank (again) after Sequestration next quarter, the GOP will get the blame and they will deserve it.
Honestly.
The Republicans have had three opportunities in 2 months to stop Sequestration. They have done nothing. During the "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations it was an after thought to them. All they cared about were taxes. Those are important, mind you, but they threw Defense in front of the bus in the first place and didn't lift a finger to save it.
The GOP keeps saying that twice it passed alternatives to replace the Sequester. They keep passing things they know the Senate will not agree to. I hate Harry Reid, but he still runs the place.
They should quit licking their wounds and get off their duffs. We don't need another last minute crisis negotiation at midnight, and we don't need for them wait for this train wreck to happen and they say it wasn't their fault.
We need adults in the room. That is supposed to be the Republicans.
2/3 of all Federal spending is on Entitlements, and those are not touched one iota under sequestration.
62 Percent of the Federal Budget Goes to Entitlements
Defense has taken a huge hit already - over $450 Billion over 10 years. In the last 5 fiscal quarters, Defense has cut dramatically, but Entitlements are on a logarithmic curve upwards.
This madness is akin to asking your son, who get a $17 a week allowance, to take a pay another huge pay cut so that your live-in mother in law can invite her friends over for another wine party.
Meanwhile bring back US jobs.
We cannot fund a huge defense establishment with a shrinking export machine.
BRING BACK US JOBS.
Now.
"Fairness" is not relevant. There have been no cuts at all, you are talking about hypothetical future cuts. We have no money, we borrow money from China to pay for excessive amounts of stuff (pork projects, set asides, earmarks, by the politicians). To borrow that money we build up China's industrial and military strength. In many cases the parts are from China (electronics, computers, etc).
We need to face the fact that we are done, we are no longer the world's superpower thanks to both parties. We have plenty of momentum and can defend some spaces (mideast) and maybe others (e.g. Taiwan, Japan) for now. But that won't last. Get used to it. I know I am, my defense job will be toast before too long.
I'm with you. I'd like to see 16.3% cuts in military spending and in all other categories of spending other than social security. Once the cuts are in place, if Congress wants to make them more sensible, that would be a good thing, but we're spending at least 42% more than we should. It shouldn't be that hard to prioritize and cut a third of the waste from DOD, DOE, HHS, and every other general category of spending.
The authors of sequestration, which was supposed to scare Congress into agreement on an alternative, did not anticipate the GOP’s 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 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 Obama might accept.
GOP's post-election maneuvering? How about the Democrats' multiple instances of post-agreement maneuvering when they got their "tax increases now" and tomorrow never comes on the promised spending cuts? Not even spending increase cuts.
So, now, for the first time in too many years, we have a situation where the Executive actually has to cut down on the spending increases. And it's cuts across the board, all discretionary spending, not just "targeted" against specific programs. Obama's people will actually have to do their job and figure out what's meat and what's gristle. Now, not later. Everywhere, not just in selected "safe" programs that the Democratic base doesn't care about.
About military spending: Part of the problem is that the practice of military force has morphed from throwing men at the problem to one of relying on technology to wage war. The various States are (supposedly) not equipped to do the R&D necessary to improve war technology. This is one thing our Founders could not have forseen. Think the Manhattan Project, and it's effect on World War II. (Then think Dr. Strangelove as a potential consequence for these technological "advances".)
And we've thrown a ton of money at blue-sky (and black-sky) ideas for waging war. Some of them have proved to be somewhat effective; others have remained black holes for money and brainpower. Trying to identify the latter is an interesting exercise in crystal-ball gazing...and then one realizes that some of the most inane military ideas go on to be civilian-sector successes. (cf http://xkcd.com)
Is sequestration a bad thing? Anything that stops the unbridled flow of money we don't have to people who don't contribute a single thing (other than babies and fat backsides) to the society as a whole is a good thing. The idea is that we are supposed to work together, all of us, to the common good. That's the whole point of the Union. People tend to forget that.
I lay claim to no label: Conservative, Progressing, Democrat, Republican. So my ideas and beliefs don't flow in any particular ideological channel:
We, all of us, are supposed to be equal under the law. Let's practice what our civics teachers have been preaching all these years.
All they cared about were taxes. Those are important, mind you, but they threw Defense in front of the bus in the first place and didn’t lift a finger to save it.
You are wrong.
Defense has already been cut in real dollars. What do you think that 22.1% decrease last quarter was?
There have already been thousands of industry and military jobs lost by the Obama-Gates-Panetta cuts.
These stories are all from 2011. That is when the deepest cuts began.
$46 Billion Worth of Cancelled Programs
Army slashing 8,700 jobs as budget cuts begin
Air Force announces 9,000 civilian job cuts
We have no money
When people say that, I ask them: "If we have "no money" should we be cutting Social Security and Medicare - NOW?"
I never get a straight answer. It is always full of "Well, yeah, sure, but that isn't the point....."
It is the point. Both parties are trying to cut spending on 1/3 of the budget while leaving 2/3rds of the budget "exempt" that is growing astronomically.
Why?
We have a moral obligation to keep our word on social security retirement (not necessarily for the in many cases frivolous social security disability claims, but for all retirement claims). There is no obligation to continue purchasing weapons the military didn't ask for, not even if they are made in a district with a Congresscritter on the right committee. In the long term, social security spending should be cut, by continuing to raise the retirement age on those more than a decade from retirement with full benefits (a category that includes me), but immediate cuts would not be ethical, not for those already retired and not for those expecting to retire in the next few years.
Right, things like the second engine for the joint strike fighter. If we can't cut crap like that then we will never cut anything. Nevertheless, defense spending is still increasing, only the projections are decreasing.
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.
