It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by neo96
The cost's of this countries social programs far out spend the defense program's
Cut Defense and you will add million's to social program's
Everything need's to be cut but cutting just one program defeats the purpose
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.
Those people who get paid by government funds are not introducing new wealth into the system.
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!
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
well didn't Obama say he'd bring them home the DAY he was elected??
That's not exactly the same as "Bringing them home"...
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.