MaxedOutMama
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Since We Were Discussing It
This Bloomberg column discusses the impending defense cuts:
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.
Comments:
<< Home
Nothing is being done by Panetta, and the logical answer to the question why is that Obama, his boss, told him to do nothing.
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.
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.
# posted by 
: 11:19 AM
: 11:19 AM
He doesn't seem to do much but make speeches. I don't think it would occur to Obama that Panetta should at least have planning underway.
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.
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.
I suspect that if it comes down to it, most of the reductions will come from cuts to the Navy's operational tempo and from RIFs. Meet our new, downsized, military. Probably also from cuts to ongoing procurement contracts.
If Romney is elected, I doubt it will come to that, though.
If Romney is elected, I doubt it will come to that, though.
We're going back to the hollow force - 1947 edition, not the 1975 edition. You can forget new anything. USN will be lucky if it has 7 air wings for 9 carriers; other services will be as bad or worse.
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 ...
Post a Comment
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 ...
<< Home
