If cuts take effect, GW may be only carrier ready to respond to a crisis

Stars & Stripes ^ | February 7, 2013 | Erik Slavin

[Freeport]

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — The USS George Washington may be the Navy’s only aircraft carrier that will be ready to respond to a crisis later this year if Congress does not cancel billions of dollars of automatic spending cuts set to take effect next month.

The Navy has canceled ship maintenance and other projects to make up for a $4.6 billion funding shortfall it faces in 2013 because it is operating under a temporary congressional resolution limiting the Pentagon to 2012 spending levels.

Most of the immediate cuts are concentrated on larger bases in the United States and spare Navy operations in the Asia-Pacific region.

However, Navy documents show that if the Pentagon is forced to cut $55 billion from its planned budget for 2013 — as the congressional spending straitjacket known as sequestration would require — Navy operations in the Asia-Pacific would slow considerably.

[Freeport]

Playing chicken in Congress... Yep... Splat...

[albie]

This is super news...for China, Iran, North Korea...

[brownsfan]

EXCELLENT!

[entropy12]

One can never maintain super power status with a rotting economy, Trillions in debt and yearly deficits of Trillion+.

We better wake up to reality soon otherwise we will follow the road to demise ala the Roman Empire, the Third Reich and the USSR.

It is complete idiocy to borrow from China to protect oil supply lanes to China in the straits of Hormuz. Since we can never pay the principal, we are forever in servitude to foreign lenders.

[entropy12]

typo correction: principle for principal.

[USAF80]

Instead of asking; “Where are the carriers?”, the prez will ask; “Where are the drones?”

[WakeUpAndVote]

Maybe this is what zero was talking to Putin about. He needed more time.

[driftdiver]

Intended consequences of the leftists

[riverdawg]

Last time I checked, we had ten carrier groups. What are the other nine doing?

[skeeter]

The full court press to suppress public support of budget cuts is on.

[PieterCasparzen]

In addition to consultation with diplomatic and military leadership, crises of aggression require consultation with a nation’s captains of finance and industry. In effect, the national political leader asks his backers “can we do this”. His backers then offer him the advice that they will. It is this advice that causes wars to start or not start. The leader’s advisors, therefore, are the key players on the geo-political scene, except much of the process of consultation operates behind the scenes. Unfortunately, this “behind the scenes” power is transnational and forms a relatively small and unified nexus. This nexus, in addition to having great control over national economies and capital globally, has enough functional representatives to also dominate diplomatic leadership globally.

[Freeport]

A good source fo information, and the best I’ve found outside the wire is at Global Security:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

[Iron Munro]

Same thing the local politicians do whenever there is talk of a tax cut.

They always threaten reductions in police, fire, emergency medical and school budgets.

They never warn us that tax cuts could result in fewer fat-butted bureaucrats pushing paper in their multi-multi million dollar ivory tower downtown, cheaper vehicles or elimination of vehicles for bureaucrats, or cutbacks on bicycle lane construction, yuppie jogging trails, etc.

[mrsmith]

Yes, to continue our ‘progressive’ domestic policies we must shift our military operations to client states, like every ‘progressive’ country does.
Just as the Romans paid for ‘bread and circus’ by contracting with the barbarians for miltayr operations.
They get the benefits and share with us- until we weaken enough that they don’t have to.

Borrowing from China to defend their oil is baffling. But more accurately we ae defending their oil so we can borrow from them to provide welfare. I saw today that China doesn’t even have a strategic reserve of oil. They are very sure of our intentions apparently, at least until they use their profits from us to build their own fleet.

[Redmen4ever]

Unless we avoid the sequester, we might have to do what France just did in Mali: win and get out. We won’t be about to stay around for a decade or more and then negotiate with the other side until they win.

[Redmen4ever]

Rome: far-flung empire, bread and circuses for the masses, and tax farming. To me, this sounds exactly like what we’re doing.

[LegendHasIt]

Great graphic.
I’m stealing it.

[Freeport]

There's one major point you are missing here. The DoD is not threatening, they are DOING.

These are actions they are already taking. As to burocraticitis, yes, there's that, but not as much as you might think away from the beltway.

The CNO has already canceled ship maintenance cycles - The Navy is tying up ships at dock and turning them off. No threat, this is actually happening.

People who maintain those ships are being laid off - This is happening now, not March... Now.

It started January 1, 2013. If you can find a copy of this PDF, you'll see what's happening RIGHT NOW... "Navy CR_SEQ Navy Fiscal Actions 130125 - 1105A" It showed up in my inbox this afternoon and shows exactly what's cut, getting cut and will be cut. Highlights include idling 10 Ships in San Diago (Now), 10 Ships in Norfolk (Now) and later this year the iddling of a Marine Task force.

[riverdawg]

Thanks; excellent link.

[Sir Napsalot]

So, will there be issued “Obama phones” for the troops then?////

[Secret Agent Man]

It’s Obama Burns.

Works on more than one level.

[USAF80]

Two are at sea, the rest homeport.

[MinorityRepublican]

The American Empire is already in decline.

[PieterCasparzen]

Borrowing from China to defend their oil is baffling. But more accurately we ae defending their oil so we can borrow from them to provide welfare. I saw today that China doesn’t even have a strategic reserve of oil. They are very sure of our intentions apparently, at least until they use their profits from us to build their own fleet.

Follow the money. The power behind the throne in China as well as all other countries is the banker to the throne.

Take a look at the Opium Wars. International banking's roots run deep in China.

In effect, the financial ruling elites of China, Russia and the U.S. are subsidiaries of European international banking interests; that's what the new world order is.

When governments borrow, they become the servants of their financial masters. They will pass laws, effect "bailouts" and even start or stop wars according to their masters' suggestions - even if sometimes they don't realize the full effect of what they're doing. Of course, unwilling politicians can be replaced in countries where there are elections, and "friendly" politicians can be backed and find their way into office.

Issuance of U.S. Treasury debt requires the assistance of the major banks, so the major banks can not be allowed to fail. If the major banks fail, the Treasury could not sell $1 trillion of debt per year. The Treasury could, however, simply create money without borrowing, and that is the most deadly secret that international bankers require that none of their media outlets utter, unless they are branding it as lunacy. It's not lunacy, though, because instead of having both money created out of thin air and having government debt, the U.S. would only have created money out of thin air. There would be no government debt.

Major banks are international - they buy and sell government-issued debt instruments. That is how Chinese interests have purchased so much U.S. government debt - the international banks have operations in China. The international banks are required for China to export manufactured goods. Bankers are just bankers, they don't order governments to do things - they just make offers and offer advice when "situations arise".

Whichever Chinese billionaires partner with international banking become its "subsidiaries" or "agents" in China, and they receive the full backing of the global syndicate. These Chinese billionaires then are tasked with keeping their government in line with globalist interests and thereby functioning as its vassal.

[Mr. Jeeves]

We won’t be about to stay around for a decade or more and then negotiate with the other side until they win.

What? How are the defense contractors supposed to make any money off of that! /s

[wiley]

During the Carter years there were only enough supplies to support one carrier group in the Western Pacific/Indian Ocean in addition to the Midway. The carrier group being relieved would cross-deck its supplies to the incoming carrier and was effectively useless on its way back to the US, unless, in a crisis, the war reserve was released.

Basically there was enough money to support only four deployed carrier groups, two in Westpac, and two in the Med.

I don’t know the current situation, but perhaps it’s getting that way again.

(Then came Reagan....)

[entropy12]

Yes the signs are all around us, that we indeed are in a decline. But decline does not have to end with a demise, currency implosion, Greek style riots & starving people.

However I am not optimistic about the public schools educated masses to learn what is good for them in the long run. My heart goes out the younger generation who will be forced to suffer the consequences of the unaffordable debt accumulation from foreigners.

[nascarnation]

Your post is a good one, but I don’t think we borrow from China anymore.

Baraq just has Geithner (or Jack Lew) make it and Bernanke buy it.

[SkyPilot]

If you hate that, you are going to love this:

Republicans don't like the $500 billion defense spending cuts, but they can stomach them.

"Stomach" them?

Isn’t that so generous of our Republican masters? Someone tell that the military is already suffering under this hostage negotiation.

[entropy12]

Of the two options, borrow or print, printing is the worse option. Borrowing creates long term problems so it has better chance of being addressed. There could be favorable political leaders emerging etc.

Printing causes immediate currency devaluation and inflation. Groceries, gasoline, health costs, legal costs, local taxes & fees etc are already inflating. Those can not be imported cheaply or have limited supply. Only stuff which can be manufactured in cheap labor countries will feel moderate inflation.

Have you lived through the double digit inflationary period during president Carter? We are headed back there.

[cva66snipe]

During the Carter years there were only enough supplies to support one carrier group in the Western Pacific/Indian Ocean in addition to the Midway. The carrier group being relieved would cross-deck its supplies to the incoming carrier and was effectively useless on its way back to the US, unless, in a crisis, the war reserve was released. Basically there was enough money to support only four deployed carrier groups, two in Westpac, and two in the Med. I don’t know the current situation, but perhaps it’s getting that way again. (Then came Reagan....)

When Reagan took office in 1981 one of the first things happened deployment wise was having Suez Canal reopened for carriers. No carrier had made the transit since 1967 that I am 100% sure about. That was also when IIRC the two carrier MED SEA policy was changed with one carrier doing a part time or three month portion in the Gulf.

Carriers were besides that still doing three month deployments either NATO or South America on the east cost anyway. I got my Shellback Certificate on a South America thee month deployment in 1977 then later in 1977- early 78 deployed to The MED. There were issues though.

[PieterCasparzen]

Your post is a good one, but I don’t think we borrow from China anymore.

Baraq just has Geithner (or Jack Lew) make it and Bernanke buy it.

International banking enables government borrowing; it has for a very long time. The Bank of England itself was founded based on the panic which ensued after defeat in a naval battle. The international banking community is quick to pounce on any opportunity for business and especially for locking in future business; fear, agitation, etc., represent just such opportunities.

International banking involves syndicates; it's the people who run these syndicates that governments find to be essential to marketing their issuances of debt.

Financial panics, fear, war, uprisings, etc., all cause an urgent for government spending that can easily outstrip reserves and the ability to tax. International bankers always stand ready to lend. Of course, they need not only lend their own capital, they can also employ leverage. The international banker is then lending money he has borrowed. He can also turn around and sell the debt instruments if he ensures that they are designed appropriately. He then functions merely as an agent and collects a fee for arranging the financing, leaving those he markets the debt to as it's owners.

The Lousiana Purchase was actually facilitated by private bankers. Napolean had urgent need for hard money (facing war with Britain) and America had to finance the purchase. The bonds America issued were sold by Napolean to bankers at a steep discount so he could get the currency he needed right away.

The details of international financial history are largely kept out of the history that is prepared for public consumption. Of course they are also mostly kept out of the press, since in many cases it would be quite difficult for politicians to gain the cooperation of the public if the details of international finance and investment were all common knowledge.

[PieterCasparzen]

Of the two options, borrow or print, printing is the worse option.

Actually, when the goverment borrows $1 trillion and spends it, the dollars go out into the economy, thus increasing the money supply and devaluing the dollar. However, since Treasury debt instruments were issued that have to be repaid with interest, the whole $1 trillion, plus interest, must one day be collected in tax revenue, or rolled over into an ever-expanding debt ponzi. The taxation required to service the debt represents an economic burden on every productive citizen.

On the other hand, if the Treasury simply created $1 trillion and spent it into the economy, the increase to the money supply would be identical, $1 trillion. But there would be no need to repay the $1 trillion out of future taxes collected, so there would be devaluation but no future tax burden.

The key folks who desire the U.S. government to borrow as opposed to simply create money are those who think they are benefiting from the borrowing, namely, the capital markets establishment and the communist international, which seeks to bring down the government under the load of debt. The new world order is the controller behind both of them, though many in both don't really realize who they are actually working for.

[etcb]

When a prudent individual is faced with reduction in income, they normally cut back in the least essential areas. Housing and food are not normally the first thing to go. When the Defense Department is told to cut back, they go for the most essential items first. While the individual will attempt to make the reduction as painless as possible, the bureaucrat will try to make them as painful as possible. With a defense budget such as ours, it is difficult to believe that a five to six percent reduction would necessitate major deterioration in our fighting capabilities.

[MinorityRepublican]

But decline does not have to end with a demise, currency implosion, Greek style riots & starving people.

So what are we doing to prevent that from happening? So far, I see nothing.