Skip to main content

The Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum to the Department of Defense directing it to begin preparation to make $500 billion in cuts to the Defense budget:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5, 2012 - The Defense Department has received guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and is now planning for sequestration, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said today.

Speaking during a press availability, Little stressed the department still hopes Congress will be able to avoid sequestration that would take effect Jan. 2, 2013.

“We are consulting with the Office of Management and Budget and have been instructed to pursue internal planning on sequestration,” Little said. “We are at the very start. We don’t have all of the details firmed up. Naturally, we hope very much that sequestration will be avoided. We don’t want to go off the fiscal cliff.”

The president issued a directive ensuring that uniformed personnel pay and benefits will be excluded from any cuts. The AP believes the cuts would look something like this:
According to guidance sent out by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Pentagon will have to slice nearly 10 percent off more than 80 accounts, including more than $4 billion off Air Force aircraft and maintenance, $2.1 billion off Navy shipbuilding; $6.7 billion off Army operations, $3.2 billion off health programs and $1.3 billion out of the Afghan security forces funding.

About $55 billion of the $500 billion in cuts would come in the first year.

Perhaps the Pentagon planners should begin announcing cancelled procurement contracts to various programs (in certain deeply red congressional districts) one day at a time.

Originally posted to Triple-B in the Building on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:07 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Complete kabuki. (11+ / 0-)

    Ain't none of that gonna happen.

    A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

    by Pluto on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:11:32 PM PST

  •  looks like the have a big ass parking lot (6+ / 0-)

    perhaps they could hold a giant swap meet on the weekends to raise money.

  •  In other words, prepare to party like it's 1999! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room." - President Merkin Muffley

    by Farkletoo on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:24:14 PM PST

  •  May never happen, the President controls this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder, Pluto, atana, blueoasis

    weekend news cycle.  

    Will the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons be forced to cut funds to the for profit, private, low wage, slave labor budget?  

  •  Get ready for the moans and groans. (4+ / 0-)

    How dare the President cut into the extremely bloated Defense budget. Doesn't he realize that the inflated millions that flow from Congress to the Pentagon to  defense contractors and back again to Congress in the form of campaign contributions is sacrosanct.

    The cuts are long overdue and quite necessary. We have been funding a cold war military that has no place in current world affairs. Prime example, the F-35 fighter program that will cost between $30 and $40 billion and has 24 million lines of software code that make this boondoggle of  a weapon system unreliable in combat  

    The bright spot in this is that Obama has developed a backbone and  demonstrated this with his cut to excessive military spending,

    •  It's a 1.5 trillion dollar program overall. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      allenjo, Pluto, 207wickedgood, blueoasis

      This place needs a PVP server.

      by JesseCW on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 12:51:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Consider the aircraft carrier. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur, jfdunphy

      There are twenty-two aircraft carriers currently in operation across the globe. Brazil, China, France, India, Russia, Thailand and the UK operate a single aircraft carrier apiece. Italy and Spain operate two each.

      The United States, by comparison, operates ten. In addition to this are a further nine amphibious assault ships - mid-size aircraft carrying vessels with capabilities exceeding the mainline aircraft carriers of many other nations.

      So that we are absolutely clear: the United States Navy currently maintains enough aircraft carriers and equivalent vessels so as to simultaneously engage the combined navies of the entire world simultaneously, and still maintain a numerical advantage to the tune of almost fifty percent.

      A single aircraft carrier costs four and a half billion dollars to produce; an amphibious assault ship costs two and a half billion - and neither figure includes the billions of dollars invested in research and development. Additionally, there is the future cost of decommissioning each vessel - those operating on nuclear power are particularly costly to safely remove from service, with projections running as high as nine hundred million dollars per vessel.

      Simply put: if the Navy wished to meet the goal of saving some two billion dollars in ship-building costs, it could do so simply by delaying or even outright cancelling the scheduled production of a single, wholly redundant aircraft-carrying vessel.

  •  Jesus Christ this is frightening. (0+ / 0-)

    If the military is worried about the country falling off the fiscal cliff, what does that mean for the rest of us?  I sure hope to god that somebody blinks.

    •  the military is only worried about their toys (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phil S 33, Caelian, 207wickedgood, kurt

      As far as they're concerned, the rest of us only exist to buy them toys, so they're not going to lose sleep about tax hikes and benefits cuts.

      Besides, the military mentality is that if you don't have guns, then anyone can come right in and take your butter.  Therefore the choice isn't guns or butter because butter was never an option.  Instead, the choice is guns or no guns, and of course you should choose guns.

      To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

      by Visceral on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:07:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The point though is that (0+ / 0-)

        when a huge country goes off a cliff, the implications are frightening. People assume that because this is a fiscal cliff, or metaphorical cliff, that it is not going to be as bad as going over a real cliff. But we don't know that - it could be worse. There are millions of people who are barely getting by right now, there are children at risk. Who here can say with confidence that these people are not going to see their lives destroyed if the country goes over this fiscal cliff?

        •  Clearly many thousands in the defense WILL be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          losing their jobs---the question is:  How any???

          •  you and doc2: pick who gets screwed (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            divineorder, Pluto, blueoasis, jdld

            DoD employees or people who depend on Medicare, SS, food stamps, etc.?

            I pick DoD employees. I'd rather we spend our money helping people than killing them.

            To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

            by Visceral on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:23:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  DoD employees are not 1%ers. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mdmslle, Phil S 33, Bronx59, Pluto, Oh Mary Oh

              They are generally from poor families and join the military because the military is an employer of last resort. If too many of these people lose their jobs the impact on low-income families will be huge.

              •  I didn't say they were (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueoasis, jdld, kurt

                But cuts to military spending can in theory trickle up to the 1%: less taxpayer dollars funneled to their companies to build instruments of death and destruction.  Cutting social spending and raising taxes to keep that money flowing is only good for the 1% and bad for everyone else, including poorly paid DoD employees.

                I'd also distinguish between the actual troops and civilian personnel.  The proposed spending cuts imply less money for toys and overhead, not troop reductions or pay cuts.  Also, keeping the safety net intact benefits everyone who's not a 1%er, including and especially people who lose their jobs.

                To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

                by Visceral on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:40:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I can't say that I'd be unhappy seeing less (0+ / 0-)

                  money going in this direction.  

                  Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                  by bkamr on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:07:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  You miss the point doc2 (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                judyms9, Sarenth

                These jobs are not sustainable anyway.  They are going to go away because they aren't producing anything that can be used in the future.

                Better these people get retrained to build solar farms and stop building bombs.  We can't afford more bombs dude but these defense contractors should be able to convert some of their technology to civilian use.

                Do it now and take the hit while we still have a chance to develop a sustainable society.

              •  People who join aren't going to be impacted (0+ / 0-)

                as much as contractors.

                Contractors who, by and large, are hypocritical anti-government (except when the government is filling their trough) conservative asshats. I honestly don't give a shit if a lot of them lose their jobs. I feel bad for their dependent children, who don't have a choice (their spouses often do, and are often just as much hypocritical assholes as they are).

                Here's the thing, though: a lot of them don't have to lose their jobs if that money were redirected to more benign programs. But that's not on the table, of course, because too many people tuck their tails in and quiver at the merest mention of DoD cuts because "all the unemployed!!!" The MIC is too big to fail in a way no bank could be.

            •  Most of them are not DoD employees. (5+ / 0-)

              They're regular businesses with contracts. Companies who gave regular people working for them. Middle class people.

              I'm part of a team right now bidding a DHS contract. All three companies on the team, including mine, are veteran, women owned, 8a and/or hub zone. I'm not rich. But a contract like this one, of which I'm only a tangential part, would make a huge difference in my life. I won't get rich off this project. I won't be able to buy a second home. But I will be able to pay off my credit cards and what's left of my student loan and probably have enough left over to fund the launch of my non-profit organization enabling me to run the organization without drawing a salary (hubby and I could live on his pension and social security with our bills paid off).

              Quit knee jerking. Everything is not black and white.

              For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

              by mdmslle on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:38:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'd prefer a jobs program with less blood on it (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, kurt

                I'm not against government contracting; I think it's important that the government do things that the private sector won't touch because there's not enough profit to be made.

                I'd just prefer my money go to something that makes life better for all the people who don't get a paycheck from it.  Infrastructure, education, and yes, "welfare" ... as opposed to weapons and Big Brother.

                To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

                by Visceral on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:50:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Like it or not, the job of the military, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Oh Mary Oh

                  in the end, is to kill people. The only question for us as progressives is would we prefer the work to be done by machines like drones, or in the form of jobs for hard-working Americans.

                  •  sounds like a reason to abolish it to me (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    There are a few countries out there with no military forces, and many many more countries with significantly smaller and less active militaries: i.e. that act as deterrents to neighbors rather than an imperial juggernaut straddling the world.  I think the drones vs. grunts argument sidesteps the real question of whether or not what they'd be used for can be justified.

                    Besides, Russia and China - the closest thing we have to "enemies" these days - have better things to do than occupy 300 million people.

                    To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

                    by Visceral on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:36:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  i think it's now part of US policy, (4+ / 0-)

                      as practiced by all recent presidents, that in order to keep up our street cred we should kill at least a certain number of people every year. Have you noticed  there's always some people or other that needs to be killed?

                      •  I'll agree with that (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kurt, Heart of the Rockies

                        Though I suspect even that's just an excuse to keep those juicy defense contracts flowing.

                        It's sad that these people seem to think that the US has nothing else worthy of respect and peaceful coexistence.

                        Either way, it's definitely counterproductive.  Usually when you shoot at someone they get angry and shoot back ... as opposed to rationally and gracefully yielding to your superior firepower and resolve.

                        To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

                        by Visceral on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:54:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Better to have drones (0+ / 0-)

                    than send brave young men and women out to get turned into hamburger on the other side of the world, where our "allies" are as likely to kill them as the enemy. But I still see "neither" as the best option.

                    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                    by Alice in Florida on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:52:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  wow. you'd be surprised at the contract were up (0+ / 0-)

                  for. There's no "blood on it". In fact, it doesn't even offend my democratic socialist sensibilities. You have a lot of preconceived notions stemming from obvious ignorance and no understanding of the system that you are criticizing.

                  Am I suggesting that we can't or shouldn't have cuts in the DoD budget? no. But you paint with a pretty broad brush and it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. To you, everything DoD is war. And that's just not true.

                  For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

                  by mdmslle on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:12:54 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Deficit mania flies in the face of jobs. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                That's just a fact. The jobs have to come from somewhere. Besides the moral issue of linking one's livelihood to the military it has always meant a greater than usual vulnerability to volatility and budgets. But it sure is important to remind everyone that this voluntary unnecessary deficit mania is at odds with the nations plea for Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

                Let all Bush tax cuts expire and , bring on the Sequestration cuts to defense.

                by kck on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:28:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I think they'd like us to think we have to (0+ / 0-)

              sacrifice the old, the sick, the powerless, the disabled and the weak or the DoD employess. Don't buy into it. It's the same old argument as in "we have to destroy the planet or people won't have jobs."

              48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

              by slouching on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:04:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  It's not really a cliff (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          orlbucfan, PhilW

          things don't happen all at once..the only thing that changes for sure is that withholding taxes go up on Jan 1, but Congress can still pass a bill cutting federal taxes retroactively, any time up until the end of the year. The various defense programs will feel the pinch at different times as appropriations expire. The stupidest thing about sequestration, though, is that rather than eliminating the most wasteful programs and leaving necessary activities intact, it requires across-the-board 10% cuts on everything. Of course, it could be beneficial if Congress can come up with a bipartisan agreement to protect only the most necessary spending...unfortunately, it's hard to see Congress, esp the the Republican House, doing anything so sensible.

          "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

          by Alice in Florida on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:47:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As EVERY business manger knows, across the... (0+ / 0-)

            ... board cuts are worse than anything ...

            ... except having to make a more selective choice, telling the afflicted people and trying to reasure the ones who aren't yet, managing the certain redistribution of workload and workarounds for tasks and people that were axed. And the certain knowledge that if the cuts do turn out to be real, they're likely to be things that are or will be missed after the culpable cutters and slashers have long since left the building. (Replacement parts, old George who how it really worked, the back channels that got stuff done which had been the victims of past cuts, etc.)

            Yes, the military budget - please let's stop calling it "defense" - surely is hugely bloated. But the participants are crying "vital-to-defense" or hiding or marshalling surrogates (like Congressmen) to put in a word for them.

            It's a curb, followed by a slope. Probably with little time to do the cutting well enough. Trust me, I've been there.

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:08:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps we should drop the Pentagon off a cliff. (6+ / 0-)

    That would pretty much solve the whole problem.

  •  Most of those cuts seem great (5+ / 0-)

    This looks like a good start at cutting in the Military.  Does anybody think Congress would ever cut anything without the cliff.  Cut the military and get out of these unnecessary wars.

    PBO is doing a competent job, but he needs to be more liberal.

    by jimgilliamv2 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:09:46 PM PST

  •  How much is the entire cliff over 10 years? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies

    I have heard if everything goes off its 5 trillion over 10 years? with about half of it the middle class tax cuts.

    Do you have the number break downs triple BBB?

  •  OK, I'll bite. How much would (8+ / 0-)

    bringing the troops home from Afghanistan starting immediately save?  

    “If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams.” ~ Yann Martel

    by SottoVoce on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:12:51 PM PST

  •  Oh no! They might have to cut into their waste (0+ / 0-)

    and corruption budget to find that much money!

    At the very least, cut back on paper clips.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:16:13 PM PST

  •  my employer, a defense contractor, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, 6ZONite, Amber6541

    recently announced layoffs. They didn't day it was directly related to the sequestration, but they've made warnings about it before.

    "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:17:38 PM PST

    •  Didn't Day (0+ / 0-)

      can go down as "Didn't-D" since "D-Day" is already taken.

    •  But the amount of money our government spends (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      on "defense" contracting could just as well be spent on other kinds of contracting, and create just as many jobs. Probably more jobs in the long term. Ones that would serve the public better than making war does.

      To justify an outlandish budget for the military by the fact that it creates jobs isn't logical.

      "The pessimists may be right in the end but an optimist has a better time getting there" -- Samuel Clemons

      by native on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:21:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree up to a point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The projects I've worked on are often not for the purpose of making our supporting war (although they unfortunately sometimes are), but to hopefully help prevent war, which is part of what defense is and should be about. And not all of the work is for the military, but for other departments as well.

        In any case, I agree that job creation should not be the primary reason for spending money on defense. The decisions should be based on what is best for national and international security, in general. But there will be job losses if less money is spent, even if it is ultimately in the best interest of the nation.

        "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

        by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:50:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Definitely more... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        native, Amber6541, George Hier

        when you consider that for every bomb we send overseas, when/if it is detonated then that bomb does not generate additional revenue.  That expensive piece of metal and chemicals stays there, poisoning the landscape or waiting to kill some poor unsuspecting person at some point in the future.  Either way, we don't see a monetary return, and on the whole we make more enemies in the bargain.

        "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

        by Sarenth on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:02:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Let's see. What projects are in Cantor's and (6+ / 0-)

    Boehner's districts?  Those should be the first ones on the chopping block.

    Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:17:53 PM PST

  •  Just thinking if they sold their golf courses... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Never mind.

    skipping over damaged area

    by Says Who on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:20:00 PM PST

  •  why some folks hate Congressional appropriation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:20:11 PM PST

  •  Good, needed cuts... so of COURSE... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, George Hier

    the immediate cuts will be to Service members health benefits, army support services and anything else that will potentially cause service members to vote republican next time round.


    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:21:34 PM PST

  •  The flip side is, domestic cuts not pretty (0+ / 0-)

    Federal agencies would see their budgets slashed, federal workers who have already made a lot of sacrifices would face furloughs and layoffs, and some low-income programs like LIHEAP and community block grants would take a big hit. Also, Medicare would face a 2% across the board cut.

    When I looked at the detailed breakdown yesterday, sequester no longer seemed like such a good deal for progressives.

    •  Spread the pain and the base of sensibility may (0+ / 0-)


      It's always worse when only a few suffer greatly.

    •  The point of it was to be equally bad (0+ / 0-)

      for progressives and conservatives....that's one thing we can probably agree on. It was never supposed to be a "good deal" for progressives....but conservatives thought it would be worse for Dems than for Republicans, which may not be the case.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:04:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There are a lot of comments I wanted to tip... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, mama jo, Amber6541

    But no tip jars on a lot of them. What's up w/that?

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:25:45 PM PST

  •  Please start announcing Cuts in Boehner district! (4+ / 0-)
  •  Sounds good (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    akmk, Amber6541

    The military could be cut by 50% and we would probably be safer.

    It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

    by GrinningLibber on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:36:02 PM PST

  •  A good start, but not nearly enough (13+ / 0-)

    I've spent 23 years in the USAF, and 5 years now as a defense contractor. The fiscal fraud, waste, and abuse I've seen is staggering. I've tried to identify it in my areas. Informed my superiors of the money I was being tasked to waste (IT is an easy way to waste millions at a time). I've even contacted my elected officials. It's a very well protected monster that will not die.
    It is exactly what Ike warned us about.

  •  Politically Targeted Cuts Will Be in Blue Areas (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    if it comes to that. $50 to our 2016 nominee if I'm wrong.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:44:46 PM PST

  •  Start cutting (0+ / 0-)

    IN Georgia... Warner Robbins AFB..

    Those  fuckers have been sucking the Government Tit while being tea bag racists douchebags

    Cut their  asses ... if it's in the South?  Cut it!!!

    Oh if I could cut TEXAS!!!! what a dream cake to cut

    All I want is the truth. Just gimmie some truth John Lennon

    by gimmie truth on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:45:00 PM PST

  •  It's About Time! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It's about time that the military start carrying their share of the weight in this country.  Of course, it may not happen.  But at least Obama is not laying all of the burden on us seniors and the poor.

    It is no secret that the Republicans are sugar daddies to the military.  Now that their baby has to tighten its belt like the rest of us, do you think that NOW the Republicans will be willing to work with Obama and the Democrats to solve the problem of the "cliff>"  Frankly, I am not optimistic.  Not with those bozos.

  •  The entire annual operating budget for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    a good-sized state? Wow. Some tough talk from the Obama administration--from an administration well-known for not making idle promises, btw.

    I get up from a nice Saturday nap. I see this.

    This has never happened before since Reagan, that I recall.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:50:23 PM PST

  •  it is a sin in the classic and literal... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Satya1, Amber6541

    ...sense of the word that we spen so much on the military and newer and better ways to kill each other.  I hope we go over this 'cliff' just so we may have a chance to reigh in the military budget.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 04:50:38 PM PST

  •  I'll believe this whopper when I see it. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, native, Sarenth, Amber6541

    Which I doubt seriously. The MICC is such a major blood sucking leech (or mebbe a tick) that you will see some major war break out if you try to remove it. I won't see it in my lifetime. However, T and R!!

    Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

    by orlbucfan on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:03:02 PM PST

  •  No Congress can bind any future Congress. (2+ / 0-)




    It's one year of cuts.  Not ten.

    This place needs a PVP server.

    by JesseCW on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:04:17 PM PST

  •  "begin announcing cancelled contracts" (0+ / 0-)

    heck, we can't award contracts because of the CRA thru mar.

    Republicans: if they only had a heart.

    by leu2500 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:47:16 PM PST

  •  Why do we need a gigantic standing army? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, Sarenth, Amber6541, George Hier

    Remind me again why we need to have a standing peacetime army that's bigger than the combined armies of every other country on the planet?

    Remind me when was the last time some enemy army invaded us on our soil?

    Remind me again who our military enemies are?

    Now remind me why these defense cuts would be bad and what actual effect it would have on the nation's security?

  •  I agree w/ this wholeheartedly.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Perhaps the Pentagon planners should begin announcing cancelled procurement contracts to various programs (in certain deeply red congressional districts) one day at a time.
    I like the idea of the drip, drip, drip of announcing cancelled states...maybe states w/ gov's who decided to not set up their own health insurance. States w/ asshat governors.

    Let's start w/ Kentucky, then S Carolina....Alabama, Georgia, Arizona...where to next?

    "I'd like to find your inner child and kick it's little ass." -Don Henley.

    by Olkate on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:31:34 PM PST

  •  As long... (0+ / 0-) there are no severe cuts to the Amphibious Cavalry and Bayonet portions of the budget we'll be fine.

  •  Military Intelligence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This is roughly consistent with my 5X plan, which calls for about $350 billion in cuts (total).

    However, I think $55/year is a bit too much. I'd suggest we compromise with the Republicans on only $35 billion each year (for ten years). In each of those years we should spend $35 billion in transition spending, where we spend that money on permanently transitioning jobs and companies to the civilian economy. That money should be spend in districts where we currently spend money on bases and contracts.

    But putting money into converting jobs and spending is critical to ending the dominance in our economy of military spending. Unless we put money into the transition, it will be too easy to roll back. If we create a ten-year program of converting jobs back to the civilian economy we create a new constituency for transition and make the change permanent.

    If we could get spending down to the 5X level, it's possible we could get balance back into the system. But if we don't see serious cuts (at the $30 billion a year level or so) then we won't really see the economy recover and the U.S. will continue to find wars to fight.

    All the talk has been on tax increases and benefit cuts. I would like to see someone bring up military spending and how much we need to cut that. Anytime someone talks about cutting benefits, Democrats need to ask, "Okay, that ain't going to happen, but what about cutting military spending instead?"

  •  I must say I like the idea of all those pentagon (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:58:22 PM PST

  •  Military has a lot of waste (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Cancel military bands and ceremonial expenses, cancel airshows and the blue angels, mothball several ships and cancel a bunch of weapon systems....should be possible.

  •  Army Times has numerous articles about (0+ / 0-)

    the "bad leadership" problem affecting troop morale, so now would be a great time to decimate the ranks of poor leaders, especially in the officer ranks.

  •  Navy cuts (0+ / 0-)

    Cancel CVN 79 and CVN 80 : gain 20 billion. And wh'ile you're at it rename CVN 78 USS Enterprise.

    Cancel all LHA 7 class : gain 48 billion.

    Cancel all Zumwalt class DDG except the first two already building : gain 4 billion per ship.

    And let the GOP howl....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site