Halt sequestration cuts in U.S. defense

Daily Times ^ | February 02, 2013 | Editorial Board

[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.

[palmer]

I agree. Being 50 and prudent I expect nothing from SS other than a few debased dollars. I would gladly give up all the money I have put in, plus pay taxes to support current retirees, and in exchange I would only want to turn my IRA savings into Roth without any tax bite.

[jjotto]

Yep, though there might be a little wiggle room because of devalued dollars. From $731 billion in 2007 to $903 billion in 2012.

I have not looked at the details to see if some budget items previously excluded are now included, but overall it’s clear: Any real reduction in defense-related expenditures is miniscule if it exists at all.

The dispute might be over the change from actual military preparedness to social experimentation.

[SkyPilot]

Right, things like the second engine for the joint strike fighter. If we can't cut crap like that....

I sent you but one link of many. There have been many defense modernization programs canceled. You can do your own research. You were wrong about these not being real cuts. Just admit it.

You can also Google how many industry, defense, DoD, and related jobs have been lost due to recent cuts, and how many more are projected. Moreover, those jobs have a 2nd and 3rd tier affect on state and local economies as well.

The "fat" has already been cut from Defense. Right now, the Navy and Air Force are cutting maintenance in anticipation of our enlightened US Govt not passing a budget (the military is on a Continuing Resolution from 2 years ago - making your entire chart that you posted moot). You chart also doesn't show the sequestration and the other cuts.

This one shows the actual defense decreases without Sequestration!

This isn't a "Baseline" budget (yes, I do know what that is) spin that DoD is presenting. It is not alarmist. It is a real crisis and this nation better do something about it or we may pay a terrible price.

Because Sequestration was delayed, the 1 March cuts will force that year's cuts between March and September (end of the fiscal year). Sequestration is a meat ax anyway, giving no latitude towards the DoD on how to implement the cuts. Worse still, Obama wanted to avoid the political fall out of "cutting troops" during an election year, so in July he said service strength cannot be touched. The Army will tell you that they could stand to cut some active duty uniformed troops now, but they cannot. The Air Force tried to cut uniformed Guard and Reservists, and Congressmen in their states and districts had a conniption fit and stopped it. So now, the DoD can only cut Operations and Maintenance - perhaps by 35% in only a few months.

This is a REAL problem for the US military. We are about to gut the force to absolutely dangerous levels. Do you understand?

Dempsey: Sequestration Will Gut the Military

Something has to be done about our spending. I am no fool, and I get that.

The problem is, the real causes of our spending are not being addressed by Obama or the Congress.

I am retired military, so I receive a small pension. My pension increases are tied to the CPI COLA that Social Security recipients receive. During the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, I said I would be more than willing to see my pension increases decreased if it was part of an overall plan to reform all Entitlement spending.

SS recipients went nuts at the talk of a COLA decrease. Harry Reid burned the offer (that even Obama was warm to) in his Senate office fireplace.

We are NEVER go to get anywhere on this problem unless we tackle Entitlement spending. Throwing the nation's military on the cutting altar (again) will not solve this problem.

So why are we pursuing a course of action that every serious strategist believes is putting us on the wrong road? Because too many folks have concluded that we cannot afford our current military commitments. As a percentage of GDP, however, the military budget is set to fall to its lowest point since before World War II, and well under half of what we maintained throughout the Cold War. It is not the military budget that is bankrupting the nation. Rather, it is runaway entitlement spending that is set to wreck the nation’s economic future. On the way to doing that, it appears set to first undermine the nation’s ability to secure its vital interests. If Congress and the administration cannot get our economic house in order soon, then we must prepare ourselves for America’s continued retreat. It is only a matter of time before a potential enemy calculates that we have weakened ourselves to the point that it can roll the dice. If you think staying prepared for war is expensive, try getting caught up in one when unprepared. The chart you presented

[palmer]

You were wrong about these not being real cuts

No net cut.

You can also Google how many industry, defense, DoD, and related jobs have been lost due to recent cuts

Still net hiring in the DC area.

The "fat" has already been cut from Defense.

Not a chance. Some fat has been cut from the fattest defense contractors but there is plenty left. Lots of fat was added on the civilian defense employee side and smaller contractors.

This is a REAL problem for the US military. We are about to gut the force to absolutely dangerous levels. Do you understand?

First you say there are no cuts in the forces, only O&M, then you claim cuts in forces?

I am retired military, so I receive a small pension. My pension increases are tied to the CPI COLA that Social Security recipients receive. During the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, I said I would be more than willing to see my pension increases decreased if it was part of an overall plan to reform all Entitlement spending.

That's good. I don't even want to cut your pension or any other retiree's pensions. What I would like to do is phase out SS and privatize future military pensions the same way. Let people save and invest in the economy rather than have the government promise what they will never be able to pay.

Since my employer depends on defense dollars more than any other source, it is not going to be pretty. My own project is only partly funded due to anticipated cuts. I may very well lose my job, but I have good contacts and can probably squeeze in somewhere else for now. But having been around a couple other companies as part of my job I know where there is fat and I know how much there is (a lot). I also know some essential stuff will get cut before some of the fat, but that's the way it goes. We either cut or we don't and if we don't cut then we lose the economy and country in the long run.

[subterfuge]

Get used to it. I know I am, my defense job will be toast before too long

My defense position went away a year ago after 33 years of exeplary service (according to them) with the same company, Northrop Grumman. My wife finds out this week if her DOD contractor/employer is going out of business. So, to me, BERT, sequestration IS bad. And it IS NOT the only way to get spending cuts as you claim.

[palmer]

Sorry, but that’s going to happen. It’s nice to think that defense should not be cut, but it’s not true, defense needs to be cut and that means job losses. The main question is whether other non-defense cuts will be as large and unfortunately defense is taking a bigger hit, mainly because we lost the election. Another question is how to cut. An easy answer is by actually cutting, not agreeing to cut later depending on a committee or other political process. The politicians are always going to put pork back in or keep it from getting cut. But with across the board cuts like we are faced with, that can’t happen.

[bert]

I regret your job is gone and that your wife may soon be in similar circumstances

I am curious however about your job. Was Sequestration to blame or was the program ended for some other reason?

At 55, I ceased operations for my company, closed it down, let my people go. I began another job that has now grown to the point there is more than I want to do. I have worked at the new part time work for 17 years. It is fun.

Among your assets is a minor skill that can be sold, perhaps as an independent contractor that can be both rewarding and even fun.

[subterfuge]

Sequestration didn’t “cause” our company’s layoffs, but they didn’t help as the military began holding back from granting contracts a year into Obama’s first term.

Northrop, at the division I worked at, was mismanaged and I said for years our products were propping up the horrible management “team.” Contracts were drying up, they knew it, but still refused to pursue any of the smaller contract opportunities. If a given program wasn’t going to generate $ 50 million in two or three years they wanted no part of it.

And corporate Northrop is infested with political correctness and affirmative action hires. They made no secret of desiring more minorities and women as leaders, to a fault, literally. My division had a “support club” for all minorities, women and GLBT. The GLBT club had SEVEN members, but the grapevine said there were “secret members.” It was a big joke at the time, but in the end, the joke was on me.

[subterfuge]

Sequestration didn’t “cause” our company’s layoffs, but they didn’t help as the military began holding back from granting contracts a year into Obama’s first term.

Northrop, at the division I worked at, was mismanaged and I said for years our products were propping up the horrible management “team.” Contracts were drying up, they knew it, but still refused to pursue any of the smaller contract opportunities. If a given program wasn’t going to generate $ 50 million in two or three years they wanted no part of it.

And corporate Northrop is infested with political correctness and affirmative action hires. They made no secret of desiring more minorities and women as leaders, to a fault, literally. My division had a “support club” for all minorities, women and GLBT. The GLBT club had SEVEN members, but the grapevine said there were “secret members.” It was a big joke at the time, but in the end, the joke was on me.

[ex-snook]

Wars should have a surtax to pay for them.