Lawmakers Aim to Stop Defense Cuts if Debt Panel Fails

[IDemo]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — As pessimism mounted this week over the ability of a bipartisan Congressional committee to agree on a deficit-reduction plan, lawmakers began taking steps to head off the large cuts in Pentagon spending that would automatically result from the panel’s failure.

Members of both parties and both chambers said they increasingly feared that the 12-member committee would be unable to bridge deep partisan divisions and find $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction as required under the law that raised the debt ceiling and created the committee in the summer.

As talks sputtered, one panel member publicly lamented that the process was not working, and the group was chastised by a bipartisan group of budget experts at a public hearing for failing to show progress. Several members of Congress, especially Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, are readying legislation that would undo the automatic across-the-board cuts totaling nearly $500 billion for military programs, or exchange them for cuts in other areas of the federal budget.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has drafted a bill that would replace the military reductions that would occur under a process known in Congress as sequestration with 5 percent cuts to other, unspecified parts of the federal budget, and a 10 percent decrease in pay for members of Congress. In the House, similar measures are being assembled.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/us/politics/lawmakers-aim-to-stop-pentagon-cuts-if-deficit-panel-fails.html?_r=1&hpw

[Poll_Blind]

1. This is a good example why people are protesting in the streets, out in the cold.nt

PB

[Democat]

2. Is this even legal?

They made a deal that called for shared cuts. Then they want to not only remove the defense cuts, but move more cuts over to domestic programs.

It sounds like there was no deal at all. Hope Obama has a plan to deal with this kind of trick.

[villager]

5. I'm sure Obama's "plan" will be to agree to whatever bill the bagmen muster out of Congress

n/t

[indepat]

23. Bingo. Hand villager that fine Cuban cigar

:applause: :patriot:

[julian09]

27. Obama should have veto pen ready nt

[nineteen50]

3. This is the one thing

that could make congress to vote to dismiss this committee.
Never underestimate the power of the military congressional
wall street complex.

[quakerboy]

28. Nope. Not gonna happen

No chance they dismiss the committee. They will merely remove the half of the cuts scheduled to come from the military contractors

[Submariner]

4. Do we still need 761 military bases worldwide? I think not.

http://www.alternet.org/story/97913/

The US Has 761 Military Bases Across the Planet, and We Simply Never Talk About It
America garrisons the globe in ways that are truly unprecedented, but if you live in the United States, you rarely hear a word about it.

At the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans had an estimated 37 major military bases scattered around their dominions. At the height of the British Empire, the British had 36 of them planetwide. Depending on just who you listen to and how you count, we have hundreds of bases. According to Pentagon records, in fact, there are 761 active military "sites" abroad.

The fact is: We garrison the planet north to south, east to west, and even on the seven seas, thanks to our various fleets and our massive aircraft carriers which, with 5,000-6,000 personnel aboard -- that is, the population of an American town -- are functionally floating bases.

[BillyJack]

6. Sickening n/t

[tcaudilllg]

7. Tell me the will exists to drum these people out next spring

These are not good people. They are evil by any standard of the imagination. They are a blight on our party and... --forget it, there is too much at stake. Creating another thread for this.

[Magoo48]

9. But, we trade them for more of the same.....with one or two exceptions.

IMO...it's time for a regime change and a constitutional convention.

[pasto76]

10. Seriously, can you even imagine what a convention would be like?

absolute chaos! IF it were people like you and me, yes. But I dont think we'll get invited.

[tcaudilllg]

17. I would support a convention. But you'd need a committee first.

Could start passing the outcome in progressive dominated states (Vermont?) and from there you could transform the national discourse.

And for the record, I don't think Liz Warren can be bought. She's too idealistic, like McCain. Integrity is the main thing. We need idealists like her, they can't be bought off easily (or at all).

[starroute]

8. So if the panel fails, the GOP gets spending cuts with no tax increases -- just as they want

Which creates a huge incentive for them to get the panel to fail.

Not that I want it to succeed -- it's an abomination any way you cut it. But it seems like the entire process has been set up so the GOP can't lose and the Democrats can't win. The threat of cuts to the military was the only thing that might have gotten some tax increases on the 1% out of the deal -- and with that leverage removed, there's nothing to stop the Republicans from getting everything they want.

[Utopian Leftist]

20. "Which creates a huge incentive for them to get the panel to fail."

That's a good point. There should be a word for this government-phobia the Rethugs so often exhibit. How can anyone who hates and fears government in general work to promote a healthy government? His or her very understanding of government is corrupt to begin with, corrupted by fear and hatred.

I think the Rethugs actually expect the public to grovel at their feet and beg for THEIR mercy (since they control for now the government's purse-strings). When in reality, it is they themselves who ought to be grovelling for mercy at the feet of Justice.

[socialist_n_TN]

21. "How can anyone who hates and fears government in general

work to promote a healthy government?" THAT'S a question I've been asking RWers for YEARS now (maybe decades) and I've YET to get a good answer from them to this question.

My answer is that there's ONLY three reasons that someone who doesn't BELIEVE in government wants to be in government.
1) Ideological- They want to be in government in order to destroy it from the inside.
2) Greed and graft- They want to be in government to get what they can out of tax money for themselves and their friends.
3) Some combination of 1 & 2.

THERE ARE NO OTHER REASONS POSSIBLE IN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION! Welcome to DU.

[jwirr]

11. Those who support the MIC do not care what we want as long as

they get reelected.

[SoapBox]

12. LARGE cuts at the BLOATED Pentagon is exactly what is needed...

There are many parts to the overall "puzzle" but we most certainly
know that the military sucks up a huge amount of OUR tax dollars.

I would much rather we take care of America first...and stop wandering
all over the world.

[pasto76]

13. Consider the meat and bone vs fat

Things my troops need are the meat and bones.

There is a lot of fat in contracting. Think about the F22 and how it languished in development. So many problems with it that it was never really operational...then think about while they are struggling with that, they kick off the F35 JSF. How many stealth fighters do we need?

"Joint" has been a popular thing in the military this last decade. Our Chem suits we had in Iraq were JSLIST - Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology. Joint meaning all services would use it.

Joint also seems to be many millions more to the price tag.

I know the F18s are aging, and DOD has too look many years ahead to plan (or guess, really) what actions we will be taking, but seriously. There is a lot of waste in those programs.

[SoapBox]

16. Ever seen the military aircraft bone-yard, in Tucson?

...man...

Your tax dollars at work!

Specially designed jets, ordered in limited numbers, all with stuff that no other aircraft
use and cannot be replaced after stuff starts to break...all just sitting there.

I know we need "stuff" but there sure isn't much common sense in getting "stuff" that
can be fixed, repaired, etc.

[DeSwiss]

14. K&R

- The only thing that could be worse right now would finding sharks (not counting Wall St.) in the water. But BP took care of that.....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. News Flash: Congress Can Do Whatever The Fuck It Wants

Anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention could have seen this coming a mile away.

[on point]

18. Cut the military back by at LEAST $400 billion / yr! (still leaves them w/ too much)

[lib2DaBone]

19. How in the hell can they carry on "The People's Business" behind closed doors?

This is not even LEGAL!

Congress and Senate are nothing more than paid Corporate Whores.

[julian09]

22. Sen Shelby can't spend enough on defense

If they succeed in not reaching agreement and stripping the law that cuts defense; the S&P and Moody's will downgrade US debt two notches.
Just because the repugs want to prevent raising taxes on the very rich $50,000 on every $1,000,000 AFTER the first NET one million.
The downgrade will cause our debt service to be much higher and exacerbate the deficit for the middle class to pay.
There is no reasoning with the republicans on revenue increases. Congress has to live with the deal they made, in the next ten years with the wars ending they should
be able to cut defense, close bases and modify military pensions cut a few generals and admirals.

[red dog 1]

24. 10% Decrease in Pay for Members of Congress?...Sounds Good To Me!

[julian09]

25. Piss hole in the snow

Repugs should get rid of their staffs, all they can come up with is cut taxes and cut entitlements.

[red dog 1]

26. Why Are Repugs Against Closing Tax Loopholes?..Even Reagan Did That!

"This isn't the first time that Americans have had to deal with a tax code that lets the nation's richest firms get away with shirking their tax responsibility...
In the middle of his presidency, then-president Ronald Reagan learned that a number of big corporations, including his former employer, General Electric, were completely escaping paying federal corporate income taxes...So Reagan undertook a comprehensive tax reform effort that actually raised the corporate taxes and closed numerous loopholes that allowed big firms to dodge their tax responsibilities. As part of these reforms, Reagan passed the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This law raised corporate taxes by over $120 Billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.
During the signing ceremony, Reagan explained that his goal in pursuing these reforms was to make sure 'that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share."

Google "Flashback: Ronald Reagan Raised Corporate Taxes To Force Tax Dodgers To Pay Their Fair Share"