Defense Spending Cuts

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been warning lawmakers on Capitol Hill that $1 trillion in defense spending cuts would cause the unemployment rate to spike by one percentage point.

 

According to Pentagon spokesman George Little, Panetta has told members of Congress of the dire numbers both in person and in phone calls this week and urged them to avoid a deadlock that would trigger sweeping cuts and hurt the sputtering economy, The Associated Press reported.

 

The current deficit-reduction plan has $400 billion defense spending cuts over the next 10 years. And if the deficit-cutting supercommittee is unable to reach an agreement on budget cuts or if Congress rejects the group’s plan, $1.2 trillion spending cuts would be triggered, half of which would come from defense spending.

 

I can't believe that the republicans agreed to a deal that would put that much defense spending at risk.

 

Yesterday Boehner came out and said that tax increases are not on the table as far as the supercommittee is concerned.

 

Will the republicans stick to their hard line against raising taxes to the point where they would allow these types of cuts in the defense budget to occur?

[BeeR]

Can't say for sure but sounds like spin doctoring from someone protecting their special interests. $400 billion defense spending cuts over the next 10 years really isn't THAT big of a chunk when you consider how defense spending has ballooned. In fact, if we steadily draw down spending on all the #$@! middle east/overseas conflict SNAFUs, it should be relatively easy.

[bpwallace49]

I can't believe that the republicans agreed to a deal that would put that much defense spending at risk.

 

Yesterday Boehner came out and said that tax increases are not on the table as far as the supercommittee is concerned.

 

Will the republicans stick to their hard line against raising taxes to the point where they would allow these types of cuts in the defense budget to occur?

 

It depends how much defense spending is in their districts. There are many Democrats that will support NOT cutting the military budget, if they have a lot of defense contratcors in their districts.

 

becasue of course, the areas that have fudning cuts are only to the actual jobs producing parts of the defense budget. There is absolutely no waste at all in other areas that could result in reducing the money spent without catastrophically affecting American jobs.

[Ursa Majoris]

I can't believe that the republicans agreed to a deal that would put that much defense spending at risk.

 

Yesterday Boehner came out and said that tax increases are not on the table as far as the supercommittee is concerned.

 

Will the republicans stick to their hard line against raising taxes to the point where they would allow these types of cuts in the defense budget to occur?

Panetta is pulling the same trick as any agency head under threat of budget reductions. They all do it the same - instead of rooting out the waste, the obsolete and the worthless projects, they threaten to cut where it would hurt the most in order to get the cutters to back off.

 

Boehner can say what he likes - the deal was that automatic defense spending cuts will kick in if the super committee don't reach a deal, so, assuming the Democrats can grow a pair, he has a choice. Either put everything on the table, especially closing tax loopholes, or watch as defense gets cut 10%. He may not be entirely comfortable right now and is probably looking for ways to rat on the agreement.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Panetta is pulling the same trick as any agency head under threat of budget reductions. They all do it the same - instead of rooting out the waste, the obsolete and the worthless projects, they threaten to cut where it would hurt the most in order to get the cutters to back off.

 

Boehner can say what he likes - the deal was that automatic defense spending cuts will kick in if the super committee don't reach a deal, so, assuming the Democrats can grow a pair, he has a choice. Either put everything on the table, especially closing tax loopholes, or watch as defense gets cut 10%. He may not be entirely comfortable right now and is probably looking for ways to rat on the agreement.

 

 

I don't think it's that simple because congress still has to approve what comes out of the super-committee which will put us right back to where we were with the debt ceiling debate. In other words, at the mercy of a bunch of politicians that have vowed to never, ever vote for a bill that raises taxes. A bunch of whom Boehner seemingly has no control over.

 

What about the military contractors, aka "Job Creators"? They stand a lot to lose here if congress allows the budget cutting trigger to kick in. So will the "Job Creators" lobby for a bill to get passed that raises taxes?

 

This should be pretty interesting to see how it all plays out.

[BeeR]

The military has been shifting to using more contractors in lieu of military (non-combat) job slots anyway, so I don't think they will exactly be destitute. Stinkin slimy bastages.

Edited September 16, 2011 by BeeR

[WaterMan]

Those jobs are temporary anyways. There are so many military jobs because we've decided to police the world and fight as many wars as China will fund.