Posted on 09/17/2012 8:19:40 AM PDT by SkyPilot
The Middle East is ablaze again, literally, and Israel is sending strong signals that it intends to attack Iran's nuclear complex with or without U.S. assistance. It would be nice to stay out of this latest round of regional violence -- most Americans have had their fill of foreign entanglements for the time being -- but sometimes circumstances don't afford us that luxury. If Iran responds to an Israeli air strike by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz, Washington will need to act.
Imagine, though, that the crisis came after across-the-board spending cuts triggered on January 2, pursuant to the sequestration provisions of the Budget Control Act. Or imagine that there is no crisis, just a need for the joint force to patrol the region more intensively next year to prevent another war. Where would the money come from with legislatively-mandated defense cuts in place? Congress always has the option of amending the budget law, but if the current session is any indication, it might have difficulty finding a majority in both chambers. Then what?
The issue here isn't whether the defense budget needs to be cut. Of course it does, if we are to get the deficit under control. But the way we go about doing the cutting will decide whether the Pentagon has the flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges. The approach contained in the Budget Control Act is more like a straitjacket than the kind of loose-fitting framework that would allow policymakers to shift focus as needed. So no kidding, budget sequestration could make security challenges much harder to deal with after January 2.
Near as I can tell, there's no provision in the Budget Control Act for quickly escaping its strictures in a national emergency -- especially one that Congress is slow to acknowledge. The assumption seems to be that if something serious happens, legislators will understand the need to suspend sequestration provisions. Well don't count on it, because that something would have to be really huge to bring back emergency supplemental appropriations, and members might argue endlessly about whether lesser needs required legislative exertion. So maybe we'll just leave the Israelis to their fate, or decline to patrol the region more intensively until a "real" threat develops. As long as sequestration is the law, there might be no legal alternative.
Don't blame the troops for the massive pork monstrosity that the Defense industry has become. That is disrespectful of their sacrifice. They have no say over that, it's the greedy politicians.
Your big (massive) government economic model was tried in the last century by the USSR and others and it was a disaster.
How is lamenting an irresponsible 30-40% in Operations and Maintenance come January 4th "blaming the troops?" That's how sequestration will work - Google it if you don't believe me. O&M funds are the very heart of what keeps the military alive. So here we have it: Entitlements untouched with more million of Americans every day going on Food Stamps, disability, and perpetual unemployment, and on stage left a national security disaster.
I can see you have your own agenda on this, but I am not sure what it is.
Take care.
Sadly, you are correct in this assertion. The first time I saw Boehner crying when taking the gavel from Pelosi, I could feel my heart sink.
“If war breaks out, our nation will face a crisis of epic proportions. The only department Obama has really cut has been Defense, and already by the hundreds of billions. Even if war does not break out, we are already in great danger because our defense has been sacrificed on the altar of direct deposit entitlement checks for on half of our population”
It serves no purpose to counter the inherent dishonesty of the Obama administration with the lie that we are somehow in “great danger” because of defense cuts of less than 10% implemented over a decade.
Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex” warning is relevant as ever.
“He and the Democrats initiated $487 Billion in cuts before sequestration”
That number is BS, because it’s over 10 years. The only “real” number is the budget allocated to defense this year as opposed to next year.
That’s it.
This is typical hysteria and a “government union thug” approach to arguing against Defense cuts. In your local city or county, it starts by saying “we’re cutting the fire department and police department”.
Stop it.
“Because sequestration takes place 1/4 through the current fiscal year, and the cuts are immediate - the DoD will have to slash Operations and Maintenance by massive proportions. No one knows how much (it could be 40%). “
You know why? Because they have a big-government bureaucracy mentality. They won’t cut headcount - both civilian and military. They will hope that somehow the lies about “cuts” will resonate and they will scare the american people into giving them more.
If the defense dept REALLY cared about defense first, and not their budget, they’d find a way to somehow ‘squeak by’ on 4, 5, or 600 billion dollars a year.
“When our military is gutted”
Less than a 10% cut over 10 years is not “gutted”.
“Entitlements untouched with more million of Americans every day going on Food Stamps, disability, and perpetual unemployment, and on stage left a national security disaster.”
Because we won’t cut entitlements (a separate argument) you say we can’t cut defense
A less than 10% cut in defense over 10 years is not a national security disaster. Threatened O&M cuts in current year budgets are not because of budget cuts, they are because of an undisciplined bureaucracy throwing a tantrum that they don’t get as much as they wanted.
The budget control act sounds like a very irresponsible bill, What idiot would vote for, support and praise such a bill?
“I want to take a minute to reflect for a moment that we have a bipartision compromise here. It doesnt happen around here often. That's a good thing. . ..To my friends on the right we are cutting spending.....We are actually cutting spending when we do this. That's cultural. That's significant. That's a big step in the right direction. We are getting two thirds of the cuts we wanted in this budget.
Paul Ryan: Bipartisan Budget Control Act Marks a Cultural Shift in Washington(Aug 1, 2011)
In this case its very simple : “ Dont go on the House floor and give a public speech heaping praise on a bill as a big victory for the American people before you vote for it and then a year later demonize the same bill and act like you had nothing to do with it's passage acting as if you were against it all along.” because if you do I wont lie to defend you, I dont give a crap how honest and brave Republicans (or Rush) keep claiming Ryan is.
He is acting like Obama.
You know last week the Republican controlled House passed a 6 month CR for the first half of FY13 (Oct to March). They could have eliminated any automatic budget cuts in that bill if it was so important.
They choose to pass a bill then run against the same bill in the election by doing nothing now. I am not buying it.
nothing like steppin on yer own johnson in an effort to prove conservative bonafides...
How Ryan can go out on TV on camera and act like he was opposed to this bill last year is beyond me.
And we are lectured over and over that he is out best, our A-team. Manufactured ‘conservative cult hero’ I been saying for a while. I never quite understood those who buy it, if they do.
He sure is NO Scott Walker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.