shortsighted, irresponsible, and reckless

[emptystep]

Defense Secretary Holds News Conference | C-SPAN
(there is a brief piece of the previous program at the beginning)

Another Briefing I saw on C-SPAN. This one really hit a cord however. Hearing the strain in Panette's voice is something I have not heard since stationed in Germany in 1991. That was another time military was being gutted. The pain in a commander's voice when his unit is being by forces almost as bad as any combat mission. This was another time when the president and congress decided to play politics with the men and women of the armed forces.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta

The most immediate threat to our ability to achieve our mission is fiscal uncertainty.

This department is doing its part to help confront this nations deficient problem. We have implemented in our budget plan the $487 billion in spending reductions that we were asked to do by the congress over the next decade.

Units deploying to Afganistan would be protected but those not deploying would face some very serious cut backs.

Hollow out the defense force of this nation.

Regardless of what congress does or fails to do we still have an obligation to protect this country.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey

Sequestration is a self inflicted wound on national security. It is an irresponsible way to manage our nation's defense. It cuts blindly and it cuts bluntly. It compounds risk and it compromises readiness. In fact readiness is now what is in jeopardy. We're on the brink of creating a hollow force.

We won't short change those in combat and we will continue to resource those next to deploy as the secretary said. It would be unconscionable to do otherwise. Likewise we will continue to care for our wounded warriors and their families. But for the rest of the force operations, maintenance, and training will be gutted.

Within months we will be less prepared. Within a year we will be unprepared. The crisis can, and must, be avoided.

Analyst: Under sequestration, furloughs for ‘virtually all’ DoD civilians | Federal Times | federaltimes.com

The Pentagon would need to furlough “virtually all” of its nearly 800,000 civilian employees for one month between March and September if mandatory federal spending cuts go into effect in March, according to a prominent defense budget analyst.
...
“You only have seven months remaining in the fiscal year to administer that cut,” he said. “By March 1, DoD will already have spent five months’ worth of the money in those accounts.”

That means DoD would have to reduce payroll expenses for the rest of the year by 15 percent, Harrison said.

“If you’re going to reduce your payroll expenses by 15 percent for the remainder of the year and you’re going to do it through furloughs, that means you have to furlough virtually every single DoD civilian for the maximum amount of time you can under the law, which is one month,” he said.

We would be completely unable to response to any threat short of continental invasion. That fact is a green light for any country opposed the the United States and can not be overemphasized. As I am putting together in another thread there are missions which we must engage in for national security and are in our national interest.

I blame both houses of congress and all parties of congress. I also blame the president for I feel his policies have become shortsighted, irresponsible, and reckless. I just hope that Hagel is not going to be the person assigned to hollow out the military.

(I tried to find a video of the simple act that the military performs every day before work. They assemble, account for every member of the unit and raise the flag. I found videos for Iwo Jima, WTC, Sandy Hook, other organizations, and other countries. This the most appropriate I could find. Perhaps one morning the members of congress should assemble outside, be accounted for, salute the raising of the flag, then they can go inside and do their job.)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DUtO_pyx2c]Flag Raising in Afghanistan - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SniperFire]

Emptyhead must think we can just keep funding payments to individuals (gubmint handouts) without commensurate cuts in other places.

 

[emptystep]

Emptyhead must think we can just keep funding payments to individuals (gubmint handouts) without commensurate cuts in other places.

Hey, if it has got to come from somewhere else so be it. Don't gut defense.
(I can't believe I am the one saying this.)

After I got out of the military I said I would never again work for the government. My first job out of college was for a defense contractor, SAIC.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Cuts don't "Hollow out Defense", they Hollow out Empire. Which is how the US conducts itself around the world. The US hasn't fought a war for our own "Freedom" since WWII.

Cut the Defense budget and close down 75% of the overseas bases and we'll be just fine.

Americans need to stop letting the Military Industrial Complex run our Gov't, our Economy and our Country.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You mean there is someone in a government -funded agency who is saying "cut someone's else's budget - but not MINE. Mine is important"?????????????????

WOW, stop the presses.

5% across the board - NO sacred cows. The DOD is every bit as bloated and wasteful as every other government agency. If this guy can't get the job done with 5% less, we'll find someone who can.

Don't let the door hit ya ......

 

[emptystep]

If you are going to kill the Defense Department fine. At least let them die an honorable death. Going beyond the $487B in spending reductions is shortsighted, irresponsible, and reckless.

Did you see the thread I just started in the Africa section? I'm the first one who will chant 'world peace' but let's not be stupid on our way there.

 

[nodoginnafight]

More than $600 billion to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and more than $800 billion to prosecute the war in Iraq.

There's $1.4 trillion right there.

But cutting more than $487 billion is "short-sighted, irresponsible, and reckless"?????

Re-load soldier, you missed the mark on this one.

 

[Oldguy]

Defense Secretary Holds News Conference | C-SPAN
(there is a brief piece of the previous program at the beginning)

Another Briefing I saw on C-SPAN. This one really hit a cord however. Hearing the strain in Panette's voice is something I have not heard since stationed in Germany in 1991. That was another time military was being gutted. The pain in a commander's voice when his unit is being by forces almost as bad as any combat mission. This was another time when the president and congress decided to play politics with the men and women of the armed forces.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta

The most immediate threat to our ability to achieve our mission is fiscal uncertainty.

This department is doing its part to help confront this nations deficient problem. We have implemented in our budget plan the $487 billion in spending reductions that we were asked to do by the congress over the next decade.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey

Within months we will be less prepared. Within a year we will be unprepared. The crisis can, and must, be avoided.

Analyst: Under sequestration, furloughs for ‘virtually all’ DoD civilians | Federal Times | federaltimes.com

The Pentagon would need to furlough “virtually all” of its nearly 800,000 civilian employees for one month between March and September if mandatory federal spending cuts go into effect in March, according to a prominent defense budget analyst.
...
“You only have seven months remaining in the fiscal year to administer that cut,” he said. “By March 1, DoD will already have spent five months’ worth of the money in those accounts.”

That means DoD would have to reduce payroll expenses for the rest of the year by 15 percent, Harrison said.

“If you’re going to reduce your payroll expenses by 15 percent for the remainder of the year and you’re going to do it through furloughs, that means you have to furlough virtually every single DoD civilian for the maximum amount of time you can under the law, which is one month,” he said.

We would be completely unable to response to any threat short of continental invasion. That fact is a green light for any country opposed the the United States and can not be overemphasized. As I am putting together in another thread there are missions which we must engage in for national security and are in our national interest.

I blame both houses of congress and all parties of congress. I also blame the president for I feel his policies have become shortsighted, irresponsible, and reckless. I just hope that Hagel is not going to be the person assigned to hollow out the military.

(I tried to find a video of the simple act that the military performs every day before work. They assemble, account for every member of the unit and raise the flag. I found videos for Iwo Jima, WTC, Sandy Hook, other organizations, and other countries. This the most appropriate I could find. Perhaps one morning the members of congress should assemble outside, be accounted for, salute the raising of the flag, then they can go inside and do their job.)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DUtO_pyx2c]Flag Raising in Afghanistan - YouTube[/ame]

Much ado about nothing. Sequestration isn't going to happen.

 

[emptystep]

More than $600 billion to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and more than $800 billion to prosecute the war in Iraq.

There's $1.4 trillion right there.

But cutting more than $487 billion is "short-sighted, irresponsible, and reckless"?????

Re-load soldier, you missed the mark on this one.

Those numbers are overall. In case you don't see it $487 is about half a trillion. And what are you advocating? Instantly ended all funding for Afghanistan. Are you at least going to buy them plane tickets back to the States. Iraq is over with by the way.

 

[nodoginnafight]

More than $600 billion to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and more than $800 billion to prosecute the war in Iraq.

There's $1.4 trillion right there.

But cutting more than $487 billion is "short-sighted, irresponsible, and reckless"?????

Re-load soldier, you missed the mark on this one.

Those numbers are overall. In case you don't see it $487 is about half a trillion. And what are you advocating? Instantly ended all funding for Afghanistan. Are you at least going to buy them plane tickets back to the States. Iraq is over with by the way.

Winding down those conflicts SHOULD produce a lot more than $487 in savings.

 

[emptystep]

Much ado about nothing. Sequestration isn't going to happen.

Sequestration is scheduled to kick in March 1st, that is less than 50 days away. The possibility that the sequester will happen is "undermining our ability to responsibly manage this department in the current fiscal year." - Panetta

But it is not just the sequestration.

Panetta = "Indeed we are seeing the formation of the perfect fiscal storm of budget uncertainty. With a sequester which could happen, with a resolution that could simply be extended for the rest of this fiscal year as opposed to having a defense appropriations bill adopted, and thirdly a debt ceiling crisis that could create even further turmoil that could impact on our budget and on our economy. And the fact is looking at all three of those, we have no idea in Hell what's going to happen."

 

[emptystep]

More than $600 billion to prosecute the war in Afghanistan and more than $800 billion to prosecute the war in Iraq.

There's $1.4 trillion right there.

But cutting more than $487 billion is "short-sighted, irresponsible, and reckless"?????

Re-load soldier, you missed the mark on this one.

Those numbers are overall. In case you don't see it $487 is about half a trillion. And what are you advocating? Instantly ended all funding for Afghanistan. Are you at least going to buy them plane tickets back to the States. Iraq is over with by the way.

Winding down those conflicts SHOULD produce a lot more than $487 in savings.

That's not the problem. As painful as the $487B is the DoD has that part budgeted it. It's the other parts, listed in the previous post, which are "undermining our ability to responsibly manage this department in the current fiscal year". Panetta has ordered everyone in the DoD to try to figure out how to handle the situation if the sequester should happen. If it hits it is going to be drastic. Overnight they have got to start running on a budget with is $48B less than expected for the next seven months.

Perhaps I did not put in enough quotes from the briefing. Please watch it. Panetta's statement is only 15 minutes, Dempsey only 3 minutes. The rest is questions. You really only need to watch Panetta to get the idea of what is happening.

 

[emptystep]

To avoid the charge of cherry picking I ask that you read the complete article for yourself.

Boehner takes flak from Republican defense hawks on sequester stance - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

...
Party leaders have for more than a year railed against the Pentagon portion of the across-the-board cuts known as sequestration, but in an interview published Monday, Boehner pointed to the reductions as leverage and said he had significant Republican support, including from defense hawks, in his “back pocket.”

Read more: Boehner takes flak from Republican defense hawks on sequester stance - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
...
“I don’t support that,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a member of the Armed Services Committee whose district includes one of the nation’s largest military installations. “You get into dangerous territory when you talk about using national security as a bargaining chip with the president.”
...
The Speaker suggested the sequester was a stronger leverage point for Republicans than the upcoming deadline to raise the debt ceiling, for which he is insisting on spending cuts and reforms that exceed the amount in new borrowing authority for the Treasury. Therefore, the willingness of Republicans to allow the sequester to take effect is "as much leverage as we're going to get,” Boehner told the Journal.
...
The Speaker’s new stand could prompt an uproar among Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, who have opposed the defense sequester since it was included in the 2011 debt-ceiling deal as a way to force Congress to agree to a broader and more targeted deficit-reduction plan. The tension comes as Boehner is already seeking to mend wounds among conservatives after a bruising lame-duck session that culminated with 12 Republicans refusing to back his reelection as Speaker.
...
One defense-minded Republican lawmaker said Boehner’s position would amount to a broken promise to his conference.

“In order to get the Republican Conference to pass the debt-limit increase last time, he promised them sequestration would not go in place,” the Republican House member said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “To be using sequestration and these defense cuts in the next debt-limit talks certainly is pretty bad déjà vu for the Republican Conference.”
...
“In the chairman’s view, this is a problem that took both chambers and both parties to create,” the aide said. “It’s going to take both chambers and both parties to resolve it, and ultimately it is the commander in chief who needs to actually propose a concrete solution to the sequester crisis — and not wait for the last minute and hope that congressional negotiations can resolve the issue.”
...
In spring 2012, as it became increasingly clear that sequestration wasn’t going to be dealt with until the end of the year, McKeon said in an interview that he would “strongly consider” voting against the debt-limit deal if he could go back in time.
...
“If Speaker Boehner thinks Democrats will support slashing the retirement of middle-class Americans in order to avoid the sequester, he is wrong,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “We will see if he has the resolve to implement the Pentagon cuts his party opposes, but this is certain: progressives will not sacrifice American seniors to pay for another tax break for millionaires.”
...
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said she did not support the sequester cuts, but she noted that it did not hurt Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. “Look, the sequester did protect a lot of the programs that we care about.”

Still, she added, “I think we can do better.”

fiddle while Rome burns

 

[g5000]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into the weeping of someone who wants to keep spending more than we have in order to protect their pie.

Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, the nuclear arms race. Never in all that time did we have a jump in Defense spending like we saw post 9/11.

There simply is no excuse to keep raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow from China to continue that level of Defense spending.

Cutting only $49 billion a year ($487 billion over the next decade) is a joke!

Anyone who defends this bullshit is a profligate, hypocritical fiscal liberal who is a threat to our national security. They are shortsighted, irresponsible, and reckless.

 

[g5000]

Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security, Chairman Says

Debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during remarks to business executives today.

“I’ve said many times that I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is our debt, so I also believe we have every responsibility to help eliminate that threat,” he said. “We must, and will, do our part.”

“As you know, the President has made a decision to reduce the defense budget by more than $450 billion over the next 10 years,” he said. “That’s a lot of money from any perspective, but, in fact, it only represents a little over 9 percent a year from our baseline.

 

[emptystep]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into the weeping of someone who wants to keep spending more than we have in order to protect their pie.

Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, the nuclear arms race. Never in all that time did we have a jump in Defense spending like we saw post 9/11.

There simply is no excuse to keep raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow from China to continue that level of Defense spending.

Anyone who defends this bullshit is a profligate, irresponsible, fiscal liberal.

That spike is from Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The DoD did not decide to fight those wars. The president and congress decided that. The military executed that order.

The DoD has budgeted bringing .5 out of that graph. We are still in Afghanistan. Wear and tear on equipment for a war is tremendous. There are all the wound soldiers in that number. Technology does not get cheaper, unless you are buying laptops from China.

Also if you notice the spike as we went into Iraq and Afghanistan means we were not just sitting on that capability. We had to buy what we needed once we started. Our military does not actually contain the full capacity at any given moment to wage war. What we should have though is the readiness. That is what we are going to lose if the cuts go too deep.

The Vietnam war verse the Iraq/Afghanistan was that we never up-armored the soldiers in Vietnam.

 

[g5000]

That spike is from Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The DoD did not decide to fight those wars. The president and congress decided that. The military executed that order.

The DoD has budgeted bringing .5 out of that graph. We are still in Afghanistan. Wear and tear on equipment for a war is tremendous. There are all the wound soldiers in that number. Technology does not get cheaper, unless you are buying laptops from China.

Also if you notice the spike as we went into Iraq and Afghanistan means we were not just sitting on that capability. We had to buy what we needed once we started. Our military does not actually contain the full capacity at any given moment to wage war. What we should have though is the readiness. That is what we are going to lose if the cuts go too deep.

The Vietnam war verse the Iraq/Afghanistan was that we never up-armored the soldiers in Vietnam.

Sorry, but your argument fails hard. That is why I included defense spending which included the Cold War, Korea, and Viet Nam.

There simply is no excuse for continuing this level of spending.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Hey, if it has got to come from somewhere else so be it. Don't gut defense.
(I can't believe I am the one saying this.)

After I got out of the military I said I would never again work for the government. My first job out of college was for a defense contractor, SAIC.

I see no reason why our nation has to account for 40% of the world's military spending.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We would be completely unable to response to any threat short of continental invasion.

Good. About time we started minding our own damn business.

 

[g5000]

That's defense spending in 2005 dollars.

I defy anyone to justify post 9/11 spending should have been at World War II levels. The current budget attempts to ensure spending remains higher than during the Reagan buildup, or during Korea, or during Viet Nam, and in fact remains far higher than it has ever been since WWII.

There is NO justification for keeping it at that level. This is an attempt to make emergency level spending permanent.

Anyone trying to do this is nothing less than a fiscal liberal who wants to continue to add to our national debt.