Thursday, July 19, 2012
Since We Were Discussing It
There has been no planning for what must happen next year, and we have less than half a year to go.Consider the Pentagon’s bind. According to an analysis by Bloomberg Government, military spending on operations, procurement, research and construction must be trimmed by 12 percent, or $54.7 billion, on Jan. 2, 2013. Over 10 years, the department must cut as much as 15 percent of non-exempt budget items (personnel costs such as payroll will apparently be spared the knife). Oddly, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has repeatedly said he is “not planning” for sequestration; Jeffrey Zients, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, says he isn’t coordinating sequestration planning with other agencies. This might be a bluff, but if they are assuming sequestration will be put off they are betting the nation’s security on the functionality of a Congress that has proved dysfunctional time and again.
When the sequestration comes, Obama will use it to enact his " defense " agenda, meaning he will gut all strategic nuclear forces because that is the position of the base of the Democrat party.
Obama is President of the United States in name only.
What worries me in part is the waste. There are all those contracts out, and if they aren't continued, we are blowing some money. I've seen the "even cut" theory, and for the reasons Neil and WSJ have mentioned, it doesn't seem viable.
If Romney is elected, I doubt it will come to that, though.
Across the board retrenchment is stupid; shipbuilding in particular has long time horizons. The USN has reaped the ill whirlwind of the Clinton procurement holiday already, which is why we're headed for 220 ships even though Congress still mandates 313 ships ...
Links to this post: