Fight To Stop ‘Automatic’ Defense Cuts Starts In 5… 4…

[n2doc]

By Spencer Ackerman


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s apocalypse is now. A congressional “super-committee” designed to cut the deficit has announced its failure. The embittered legislators reluctantly added that their failure triggers over $600 billion in mandated, automatic defense cuts over the next decades. Panetta will pour himself a stiff drink.

And then he and his congressional allies will set to work ensuring that those automatic cuts never happen.

The idea behind the super-committee was pretty straightforward, if laced with wishful thinking. Because Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on reducing the ballooning deficit through normal legislative remedies, they’d create a special panel and aim a gun at its head. Automatic cuts to beloved entitlement programs would force the Dems to compromise; automatic cuts to the Pentagon budget would do the same for the GOP. Barring a miracle ahead of the super-committee’s Wednesday deadline to deliver a grand bargain, it failed.

So now comes the Pentagon’s wailing. Panetta has described the automatic cuts, known as “sequestration,” as “this goofy meataxe scenario.” They’ve made the corporate defense giants sputter with rage. The military services predict disaster. And it’s all kabuki.


more

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/no-automatic-defense-cuts/

[DJ13]

1. Deficts are only a serious problem when the money is spent on social programs

That seems to be the current thinking in DC (on both sides).

[reggie the dog]

4. and most here on DU agree

promise to veto any bill stopping cuts in social programs and you become a hero for the american left.... it makes me want to puke.

[unblock]

9. i haven't seen anyone on du clamoring for cuts in social spending.

nevermind "most".

[reggie the dog]

12. lots of people have been jumping all over me

because i am not happy obama promised to veto any bill that would stop pre programmed spending cuts from going into action

he cut off any possibility of stopping cuts to medicare and other domestic spending by promising to veto it and i am not happy with that but have been getting lots of people criticizing me for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x820332#820336

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2358736

[unblock]

13. people are jumping all over you because you don't understand what a veto threat is.

people are NOT jumping all over you because they want spending cuts.

people are jumping all over you because they believe that a veto THREAT in fact is a good negotiating tactic that will ultimately lead to a more desirable result for the left, including fewer reduction to social spending than would otherwise happen and more more tax hikes for the rich than would otherwise happen.

you seem to be having a tough time accepting that this is a disagreement on tactics and insisting on attributing it, quite incorrectly, to a disagreement on goals.

[reggie the dog]

14. thank you for explaining your reasoning

if you read those threads you notice that no one bothered to explain their reasoning until very late on if ever in the threads. i may not agree with you but at least i can understand where you are coming from

the other people kept making other assertions such as "political reality is not your strong suit" without explaining what they were talking about

now if your idea is that this veto threat is a tactic to not have proposals coming from the right that stop defense cuts would you agree that it also cuts off proposals from the left stoping cuts in domestic spending?

you see i can have a discussion with you as you explained your logic, i explained mine and we remained cordial.

i also put forth the idea that obama is a 3rd way kind of democrat and that such democrats are left wing on things like abortion but right wing economically. so i think obama likes cutting spending and wants to now increse taxes on the rich as an ideology, a strange triangulation try to please everyone ideology.

[unblock]

15. i think obama is first and foremost a concensus builder, and ideology is a distant second.

he remains one of the relatively few voices in positions of power that actually, occassionally, speak up for those further down the income/wealth ladder. we can be disappointed that he doesn't do more of it, but i think his concensus instincts take over, and washington is so awash with advocates for the those poor suffering billionaires that ANY concensus look far-right economically.

i have a very long view of history and it took 3 decades of concerted, highly organized and heavily funded effort on the part of the rich to get us into this right-wing dystopic mess we're in, and it will take much more than one presidential election to get us out. for this reason i am not overly disappointed in obama's performance itself. i fully appreciate what he's up against. my hope is that the next decade plays out in a fashion more suitable for the left and that we can return to a much more progressive tax system, intelligent infrastructure and research investment, FAIR trade agreements, and a generous safety net, and i think a thriving economy will follow. but that won't happen for years.

in the meanwhile, i think obama's best shot at getting anything remotely good is through tough talk now. he can always modify his position as the situation changes. as long as whatever he signs can be presented as addressing the deficit, he won't be accused of being a liar.

he'll still be accused of being an uppity african socialist fascist muslim with a crazy preacher, of course, but if they call him a liar, it won't be because he threatened a veto and then later signed a better bill into law. trust me, if they want to call him a liar, they'll fabricate something far juicier.

traditionally, a veto threat doesn't prevent further negotiation. in some cases, it's actually a bit of a dare. yes, he would have to veto a bill that restored spending but didn't address the deficit, but i can't see that happening within 12 months or so. what it would do is force any bill restoring spending to also include tax hikes. i don't see this as a loss for progressives in any way.

[reggie the dog]

16. interesting, i disagree but what you say is interesting

"he'll still be accused of being an uppity african socialist"

why not act like a socialist and really fuck with them then?

ah, as you say, he wants to build consensus. (that is what i see as the strange centrist triangulation ideology)

perhaps he should build consensus with the people instead of with the politicians, then demand that they enact what we the people want?

you must admid that there is a political disconnect between the people and the government

health care, tax hikes for the rich being a couple of such issues.

[unblock]

18. it all comes back to money. too easy to buy a politician.

my sympathy for obama comes from imagining what *I* would be able to accomplish were i somehow president. as much as i want federal policy to be MUCH more to the left of where it is, i'd have to work with a hopelessly corrupt and scared congress that has been bullied and bribed and trained to think that fundraising, especially from rich people and corporations, is absolutely essential to re-election, and moreover, that re-election is absolutely more important than doing right by your constituents or your country.

with that backdrop (nevermind the right-wing media) i could bang my head against the wall through speech after speech, bill after bill, trumpeting the virtues of progressivism, and perhaps move public opinion a tiny amount but accomplish virtually nothing in terms of legislation. as strong a tactical thinker as i might fancy myself, i just can't see a way that i could win that game, and i don't see any way obama could win either.

i agree that the occupy/99% movement provides the greatest ray of hope seen in decades. still in its infancy, i really hope it has a real and lasting impact. the timing is good. if it plays out ideally, we could see some big democratic gains in congress. still not enough to hugely change the dynamic just yet, twin successes in 2012 and 2014 could very well put us in a position to START truly undoing the damage from the shrub era.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

10. Bingo was his name-o!

[reggie the dog]

2. when do we start the fight to stop non military spending cuts

you know, the other half of the cuts that will come into effect.

[Renew Deal]

3. Yup

The automatic cuts are unlikely to happen. They'll just pass a new bill. :shrug:

[Odin2005]

5. The M-I complex will NEVER allow the Military cuts to happen.

[Safetykitten]

6. We have Australia to colonize, Have you seen home prices in Australia?

[unhappycamper]

7. From the miltary rags today:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/11/ap-panels-likely-impasse-brings-454-billion-in-dod-cuts-112111/
http://www.stripes.com/news/how-will-failure-of-super-committee-affect-the-military-1.161272
http://www.military.com/news/article/2011/obama-promises-veto-to-maintain-dod-cuts-pressure.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/21/doomsday-is-nigh/
http://www.military.com/news/article/air-force-news/secaf-addresses-current-future-af-challenges.html?col=1186032369229
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/10/20/the-navys-next-boomer/#comment-75087
(U.S. 'Supercommittee' Announces Failure; Stage Set for Defense Debate) http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=8328093&c=AME&s=TOP
http://defense.aol.com/2011/11/21/pentagon-has-nothing-more-to-give-hasc-chair-says-legislatio/
http://defense.aol.com/2011/11/21/army-slashing-light-combat-vehicle-fleet-review-underway/
http://defense.aol.com/2011/11/21/dont-let-budget-cuts-destroy-americas-global-safety-net/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/21/130949/sens-graham-demint-face-off-over.html

[ProSense]

8. Evidently, Panetta

changed his mind. From the OP article

<...>

“Despite the danger posed by sequestration, I join the President in his call for Congress to avoid an easy way out of this crisis,” Panetta continues. “Congress cannot simply turn off the sequester mechanism, but instead must pass deficit reduction at least equal to the $1.2 trillion it was charged to pass under the Budget Control Act.” In other words, if Congress wants to avoid the sequester, it has to find the cuts that the super-committee couldn’t. No shortcuts.

<...>

Still, the President has the last word: veto!

Oh, and the defense cuts are already law.

[piratefish08]

11. nobody in DC truly wants it cut either. so let the theater begin.

Act I

[woo me with science]

19. I can hear the orchestra tuning up.

Will they be serving peas at intermission?

:puke: :nuke:

[durablend]

21. I can forsee "something" happening

After all, can't cut the military when "something" happened, and "something else" just might happen.

[woo me with science]

22. There's always something bubbling in Eastasia....or Eurasia. nt

[toddwv]

17. $600 Billion sounds like ALOT, until you actually do the numbers.

Defense currently gets more than a trillion a YEAR, so cutting what amounts to $60 billion a year is really just a drop in the bucket.



I say this knowing that the majority of Americans seem to be against cutting defense spending. I think part of this is because most of what is being spent is hidden into other categories and we get the raw military costs as the overall figure. Then they cover this by dumping SS into the general fund and adding SS/Medicare spending to the overall outlays pot which then makes it look like the military is getting a much smaller piece of the pie than it is.

So we get this pie chart:



When we should really be getting this pie chart (SS removed from general fund):

[woo me with science]

20. K&R Amazing how predictable it all is, isn't it?

Either we are all psychic, or we have seen this game before...