Raping the Pentagon
Old Trooper sends a link from the New York Times which tells us what w alredy kknew was coming…deep cuts in personnel costs, along with base closings around the world.
Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.
Of course, it’s apparent why Panetta is the SecDef – he’s a good political soldier who’ll start hacking away for his masters with total disregard for national security. I’d be proud of my prediction that this was going to happen three years ago if it wasn’t such an easy call and so frightening.
Obama supporters at IAVA and VoteVts are silent on this issue…I wonder why.
Category: Politics
Instead of forcing another BRAC on the military, let’s start “BRACing” the civilian side, starting with the city of Detroit…
#1. Excellent idea. However, most (but not all)Military members vote Repub, so they first on the sacrificial altar, before the powerful public sector labor unions.
I have seen 2 large reductions in force. Carter, Clinton and with Carter II coming up, I am not comfortable with the amount of manpower that will be left over, and careers cut short.
BRAC Congress. Cut the staffs by 15% across the board. Cut retirement benefits for staff and eliminate it for members. Force members and staff into Tri(to)care with the same cost and availability as the E-4 with two sick kids and a sick spouse.
Huge increases? Well compared to the huge CUTS in the 1990’s, yeah, maybe. But even now, we spend less on defense as a percentage of the federal budget AND as a percentage of GDP than we did in 1993. That should tell you something right there.
@3: Why stop there? Force some cuts to medicaid and medicare at the same rate or percentage that you’re going to shaft the retirees and Vets in general. I don’t want to hear any sniveling from the left and social security benificiaries that they “earned theirs”; so did the Vets and military retirees. If you’re gonna make cuts; make them to everyone.
No doubt most executive agencies that saw their budgets double or more in 2009 will be protected. The problem is, if we have deep military cuts today, and are faced with an unpredicted, unforeseen threat tomorrow, we will spend more ramping back up to meet that threat than would have been spent had an adequate force been maintained all along.
Officials have to take a threat-based approach to military cuts, not a budget-based one. First, assess the threat — not just today, but the potential in ten years, twenty years and thirty. Then, what do you need to protect against it. Down the line budget has to be factored in. But defense doesn’t lend itself to a budget and math-based solution like it does for other domestic agencies.
“We will spend more ramping back up to meet that threat”. Right on, Jordan, but the politicos don’t care, as long as they can protect their constituencies. As long as companies like Solyndra and United Solar Ovonics get Fed money, and the welfare isn’t touched, among a whole host of other handouts, who cares what happens to the military? Certainly not the pampered pussies of the Potomac.
As Jonn previous pointed out, sure the’re going to make cuts affecting veterans but they make some fine speeches on Veterans Day.
My two cents: Will Obama and Pelosi be addresseing the American Legion again anytime soon? Those two esteemed catches (eat your heart out VFW) made dandy speeches in MN. But who could have foreseen that what they said and what they did–and are doing–would not be one and the same thing? Maybe Helen Keller. Maybe.
So we spend more on defense than just about everyone else combined, and you accuse Panetta of having a “total disregard for national security”? Who’s living in a fantasy land now?
@9: Did you know the defense budget is 17% of the entire budget? Where does the other 83% go? I’m sure we spend more on social programs than just about everyone else, too, but that doesn’t fit your narrative.
Did it ever occur to you that defense is one of the only enumerated powers in the Constitution for the federal government?
Yep, you’re still living in a fantasy land.
Joe,
SecDefPanetta has a mandate to cut 64% of Defense spending (US$ 450Bn). He’s being pushed (not that he’s resisting much) to cut most of the rest of the current 700Bn Defense budget.
However, the SecDef is allowing several billion in our dollars to be lost by leaving perfectly good equipment behind in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps Congress will follow the Murtha and Byrd Rules: Buy a Vote for Defense! and ‘Acquisition Is Very Complex, Almost Un-auditable.’
Joe, if SecDef Panetta’s cuts were actual cuts to spending, that would a good thing. If SecDef Panetta’s cuts were applied to buying back our debt from PRC, that would be awesome. But, Panetta is freeing up cash we can’t afford in order to give Obama the ability to buy votes directly.
This isn’t about the good of the Nation, or of its people – this is simple fraud for personal enrichment.
Joe, Say we pull out bases in foreign countries like Germany Italy, England etc. you know that “anywhere in 18 hours” the rangers brag about? AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN, cuz there’d be no tankers to refuel them.
you know how Marines are supposedly the world’s 911 force? How there always seems to be a MEU within 24 hours of major disaster sites. again AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN>
and lets be very clear in the 20th century, there were 5 “wars” (i put in quotations because the last three were never declared). Only ONE of those were started by a Republican. You can also thank the Cold War on ol Harry being dickless at Potsdam (speaking of which are Dems going to apologize to the Poles for screwing them over again and again?) Look at Korea and Vietnam. Both horribly mismanaged by Dems, and by the time a republican came into office it was too late to actually win the damn thing. We got out “peace with honor” and they STILL allowed Saigon to fall.
The demand will NOT lessen Joe. We’ll still be expected to pull the world’s chestnuts out of the fire (exactly how many UN missions worked without US involvement). Cutting the shit out of the budget, will consign young men to inglorious death in pointless ways. But at least you’ll be able to buy the minority vote.
#6
“Officials have to take a threat-based approach to military cuts, not a budget-based one. First, assess the threat — not just today, but the potential in ten years, twenty years and thirty. Then, what do you need to protect against it. Down the line budget has to be factored in. But defense doesn’t lend itself to a budget and math-based solution like it does for other domestic agencies.” Nice and concise. Thats the same argument I advance completely. Logic and reason never prevails in DC though!
Doc, Dave and OT, our very own Joey is one who subscribes to the notion, false as it is, that things will be just great when the military has to hold bake sales to fund bombers and schools will get all the cash, along with the welfare crowd, of course.
UpNorth: joey don’t get out much, does he? Just a quick survey of the teacher’s parking lot at the local high school is enough to disabuse anyone.
Well Department of Education/Energy are a waste of time and space. Some one remind me how many new Nuke plats we’ve built? If Oil prices are so high why does so much or our national energy policy depend on OIL??? If we keep needing more and more money for schools shouldn’t they be getting better not worse? Why is it people are being given more and more and asked to do less and less?
The military conversely is given less and less, but asked to do more and more. When is the breaking point reached?