Congress is Trying to Scuttle Committee’s Legal Obligation to Cut Defense

Not a big surprise from these warmongers in congress.

Congress is Trying to Scuttle Committee’s Legal Obligation to Cut Defense

Moves are being made in Congress, along with heavy lobbying from defense firms, to avoid a requirement to cut defense budgets

The initial deal to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade in exchange for raising the debt ceiling contained what is called a trigger mechanism: if the debt committee couldn’t pass a budget cutting proposal, automatic across the board cuts would be activated – including defense.

But now members of Congress are working to overturn that key element of the deal. The Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, the 12 Republicans and Democrats appointed to the task otherwise known as the “super committee,” needs to have a plan by November 23, but is said to be short of the $1.5-trillion goal. And public statements and intense lobbying from defense corporations indicate the trigger mechanism will be scuttled by Congress.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona said he would walk away from his position on the super committee if any defense cuts were at all a part of its final proposal. Senator John McCain, who is not on the committee, has said he would try to eliminate the mandatory defense cuts before the deadline. And Rep. Howard P. McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spread fear that steep mandatory cuts would require the military to institute the draft.

Senator Lindsey Graham, too, wants defense cuts off the table. ”It would be the dumbest thing,” he said. “I am disappointed in my Republican Party for allowing that to be part of the puzzle.”

This kind of talk in Congress has been lent additional legitimacy and leverage from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who has been railing against serious cuts to his budget for months, recently comparing the notion to suicide.

War, war and war, the only thing congress cares about.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

On the one hand, they kicked the can down the road on the budget ceiling issue, and now they renege completely on the 'compromise' that enabled them to kick the can down the road.

The funny thing is, no one is fighting tooth and nail to protect the other aspects of the "trigger" which leads me to wonder if they will just gut them for the remainder of the 'promised reduction' since Defense can't be compromised. Truth is, the only thing they really fear are the citizens, so it would make sense to further weaken them.

It's gonna be a long hard winter.

The cost's of this countries social programs far out spend the defense program's and something else people are not considering they employ million's of American's who are not currently on the Government dime.

Cut Defense and you will add million's to social program's this is a fact instead of 25 million unemployed you will have doubled it and with the lost of tax revenue that people pay the government in taxes which will shoot them in the foot when they already have problems funding those social programs.

In this nation as it stand's to many people are consuming the wealth of the producers add more to that and that is all she wrote. Those people who get paid by government funds are not introducing new wealth into the system.

Everything need's to be cut but cutting just one program defeats the purpose when their will be increased spending on the other ones.

It's not so much about war it is about keeping jobs in a country already hemoraging jobs business makes a lot of things that people are not considering metals,plastics,and other materials that are used commonly in just about everything that is made in this country.

Think of the larger picture a solution is needed that is for sure but pay attention to the unintended consequences of tunnel vision.

People lives are at stake and many more than people are thinking about.

reply to post by neo96


Cut defense by cutting the wars. Yeah jobs will be lost... so what. Jobs that kill people ain't jobs Americans should want.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Warchickens I refer to them as. Happy to send american citizens to their deaths, all for the profit of the military industrial complex. You know, even if we were to cut our defense in half, we'd still have a larger defense expenditure than any other country, more than that of the European union combined. Unbelievable.... but nobody seems to care how bloated our military budget really is...

Originally posted by neo96
The cost's of this countries social programs far out spend the defense program's

That doesn't excuse the fact that our military is overgrown. Why the hell do we need such a large military budget? Isn't the purpose of the military for defense under the constitution, not global influence? Why do we need foreign bases? $700 billion on the military, what are we in the cold war? And your a fiscal conservative?

Cut Defense and you will add million's to social program's

Ah yes, so all that money, including those black project billions, are all to keep people employed, all those wars abroad as well right? And I thought you were against the government being left responsible to employe people? You do know that the military only adds to the size of government right?

Everything need's to be cut but cutting just one program defeats the purpose

I don't see any suggestion in the OP or in the source where defense cutting is the only programme on the table. I don't know where you got this idea from.

Originally posted by neo96
The cost's of this countries social programs far out spend the defense program's and something else people are not considering they employ million's of American's who are not currently on the Government dime.

So what? Social programs are for OUR people! War is about death.

We do not have a defense, we have an offense for protecting multi-national corporations overseas and propping up dictators that will support this.

We are paying for these corporations defense while they ship our jobs.

Why are so many Americas such idiots?

reply to post by Vitchilo


You notice that it's only the GOP extreme calling to block this.

Regardless if someone leaves the Committee the cuts will still be activated and since Congress can't agree on anything anyhow the trigger will be pulled as scheduled!

reply to post by neo96

Those people who get paid by government funds are not introducing new wealth into the system.

And that would be every member of the military..

So how would cutting that budget effect the economy as you state??

Yes, maybe more unemployed but even their dole payments would be far cheaper than keeping them in active service..

reply to post by backinblack


Plus with the end of the Iraq Theatre by the end of the year will save like $30 Billion a week ($120 Billion a month or $2.4 Trillion a year) stands to save us $2.4 Trillion in Year 1 alone! Which for us stands to save $24 Trillion in the next decade!

This can knock at least $12 Trillion off of the overall debt of about $55 Trillion.

How's that for Fiscal Conservatism? Personally I'd rather spend that $24 Trillion in America fixing up roads, bridges, homes, infrastructure, new construction. You know, putting Americas to work. Something the GOP seem to hate!

The military-industrial complex runs this country. 'nuff said.

Did you know that the U.S. is around twelfth when it comes to R & D for new technologies in the world, but if you eliminate the military R & D we're about 25th.

Death and destruction is good business for some...very good business.

The false flag about losing jobs if we cut the defense budget is just that. The money can be put into other projects that would hire other people and be used to improve the world, not destroy it.

reply to post by upstairsjim


November 23 is fast approaching. The general Congress itself is powerless to stop it. This will happen like it or not!

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Yes big money to be made in war, for example. The US tax payer is charged $28.00 for each empty styrofoam plate given to every Serviceman, Army, AF, Marines, Navy etc in the Iraq or Afghanistan War!! Even if the plate is empty and $56.00 if another plate is used for a lid!! VP Dick loves us.. s/f op thx.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

You notice that it's only the GOP extreme calling to block this.

Regardless if someone leaves the Committee the cuts will still be activated and since Congress can't agree on anything anyhow the trigger will be pulled as scheduled!

Ya but both parties are making money off the wars. Remember that democrats hold congress from 2006... and they never stopped the wars. Obama is president, never stopped the wars.

Both parties love war.

reply to post by Vitchilo


So, Iraq ending by the end of this year is what? A whitewash? A Lie? Afghan theatre concluding 2014 means nothing?

The 2 main conflicts are ending on his watch yet you say he's continuing them? Where is your logic?

That is a major default and problem with the GOP is that their hate for him is so deep rooted that they can't give him a win on anything!

NATO to conclude Libya operations tomorrow!

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


well didn't Obama say he'd bring them home the DAY he was elected??

So far all we have is words and more troops deployed..

Now there's talk that many troops will actually stay deployed in various other ME countries..

That's not exactly the same as "Bringing them home"...

reply to post by backinblack


He did say that they'd come home on the campaign trail and even when he got elected but gave no specific timetable until just recently as to when it'd actually transpire.

Meaning in about 4 months the only active campaign will be Afghan theatre!

What 3 wars?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

well didn't Obama say he'd bring them home the DAY he was elected??

Obama promised in the primaries that he'd withdraw all US troops from Iraq by August 2011. We could say he's broken that promise. There are claims that all troops will be withdrawn by December 2011, but define withdrawal. There will be a considerable number of troops moved to Kuwait.

That's not exactly the same as "Bringing them home"...

Agreed, but this is unfortunately the case for troops over the years. The United States has had troops based South Korea, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Britain, for years upon years on end. There are far too many money makers in the defense industry to let anything change.....

WASHINGTON -- We shouldn't gut defense. A central question of our budget debates is how much we allow growing social spending to crowd out the military and, in effect, force the United States into a dangerous, slow-motion disarmament.

People who see military cuts as an easy way to reduce budget deficits forget that this has already occurred. From the late 1980s to 2010, America's armed forces dropped from 2.1 million men and women to about 1.4 million. The downsizing -- the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War -- was not undone by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1990, the Army had 172 combat battalions, the Navy 546 ships and the Air Force 4,355 fighters; today, those numbers are 100 battalions, 288 ships and 1,990 fighters.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Go ahead and gut it but remember who has to live with the consequences.