Top Senate Republican doubts damage from defense cuts

[Lasher]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- Anticipating possible political backlash if forced federal spending cuts kick in as expected later this week, the Senate's No. 2 Republican said Monday that he is preparing a message he plans to hit hard: The cuts are not going to have as negative an impact as the Pentagon and others in the Obama administration are saying.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said he plans to make the case to other Republicans and the public that despite warnings from the Pentagon that the mandated cuts will be devastating, the overall amount of defense spending will actually still rise.

Cornyn conceded that until now he had been parroting what Defense Secretary Leon Panetta continuously warns -- that automatic, government-wide cuts could jeopardize national security.

But the veteran senator said he looked into it and will now argue that even if the cuts go through on March 1, the Pentagon will still see its budget go up.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/25/politics/budget-republicans/?hpt=hp_t1

---

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Cornyn is right on this.

[chuckstevens]

1. The Media Too

It's amazing that the media is also downplaying the hurt that the Republican obstructionism cuts are going to cause. Also, why is it that these cuts are happening in the first place? Oh yeah; It's because the debt celling (which was always raised without question in the past) was suddenly an issue when a Black Democrat became President.

Hey Self-Righteous Republicans; FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Iliyah]

2. Ain't that something, the GOPpers

are in the process of hurting their base and you know what, GOPpers don't give a shit, and guess what, the same base will vote for them anyways. Talk about blinded.

[earthside]

3. Actually, I agree with Cornyn.

The cuts to the military are so small compared to the size of the Pentagon's total budget that they are a drop in a very large bucket.

That Cornyn comes to this conclusion just reenforces my contention that we could cut the military a whole, whole lot more.

[northoftheborder]

4. People I know who work for the Defense Dept. may have to take 20% salary cuts, not a drop in....

....the bucket for them.

[earthside]

8. Working for 'Defense' Department ...

... a poor choice of occupation.

Welcome to the world of stagnant wages, reduced benefits and increasing prices that the rest of us live in.

[NutmegYankee]

9. Wow, such envy.

Hardly worthy of a progressive who should seek to defend Union labor.

[Zorro]

5. Cornyn is an idiot

and when the sequester hits he will understand just how negative an effect it will have on Texas.

[TwilightGardener]

7. I'm not sure why they were howling about this, and now seem OK with it.

Something's up.

[DallasNE]

6. I Don't Have The Numbers In Front Of Me

But when you factor in that all of these cuts will take place in the last 7 months of FY 2013 does this still hold? I assume that the statement is correct on a full year basis but is it also true for the last 7 months of the year. I think people may be playing numbers games. And using the $85 billion number is misleading because on an annualized basis the cuts would amount to $145.7 billion.

[CarrieLynne]

10. my fiancee is in the army, he says when cuts come thru...

they can cut People, Items or activities/actions...but they cut the peoples jobs, not the 'stuff' but the people he said soon as cuts happen, people are out of work...people with families....that makes no sense to me! why not buy a few less vehicles or ammo or whatever?

in turn I think this probably feeds into the resentment for those who support cuts....Do any of you know WHO decides WHERE cuts will be made in defense?

[Lasher]

11. The Defense Department is able to shift funds

So ultimately the Secretary of Defense is deciding what gets cut.

The Department of Defense is the biggest 'loser' of any government department. It's estimated that the DoD would have to cut 11 percent of its budget each year to reach the $55 billion cuts.

The Defense Department would be able to shift funds "to ensure war fighting and critical military readiness capabilities were not degraded," but non-deployed units, equipment and facilities, and research and development efforts would all take a hit.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100378424/Sequestration__CNBC_Explains

I agree with you about buying less vehicles and other new material, and I think closing foreign military bases should be a top priority. But in my opinion, new toys and foreign outposts are among the last things that the Pentagon would voluntarily give up.

This year's military personnel accounts have been exempted from sequestration by President Obama, so cutting your fiancee's pay is not one of the Pentagon's options.

[CarrieLynne]

14. oh thank you for the info!

hes all over the map politically, so I'm working on him lol ... this will help!!

[Lasher]

15. Here's some more information

Last edited Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:50 PM - Edit history (1)

These automatic spending cuts were to have kicked in at the beginning of this year, as provided by The Budget Control Act of 2011. These cuts are called sequestration (AKA the fiscal cliff). They apply to discretionary spending only. Social Security and Medicare are examples of non-discretionary spending that is exempt from this sequestration. Congress, in particular Congressional Republicans, insisted on these cuts as a condition of raising the debt ceiling at that time.

On January 2, Congress and The President kicked this can down the road until next month by passing The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

[CRK7376]

12. Tell that to the

civilian workforce here at Fort Jackson. If the cuts go through most of the workers will suffer a 20% pay cut..ie... one day a week of no work....but hey, they still have a job right???? Unless they are deemed essential...police/fire department etc....It will be painful and yes Soldiers and their families will also suffer. Not as apparent on the surface, but tell that to those being forced out of the service before they are ready to leave....for all the various reasons, some good, some bad....

[sofa king]

13. The important thing is his donors won't buy it.

Because it is going to be Cornyn's soon-to-be former benefactors who take the financial hit for it. They know what happened, they know who did it, and why, and they are pissed off about it.

It's worth repeating why the Republicans did it: Because they are irredeemably greedy, and two years ago they convinced themselves that their only job was to keep taxes low for rich people. So when the President identified their greed and presented them with the choice of ruining the government credit rating or defending their Defense contractors, they rolled the Defense contractors under the bus.

The GOP thought that by depressing the economy through governmental delay and uncertainty, the President would cave into their pressure, and eventually be defeated for reelection. Instead, the President made Republicans harm their own constituents with every choice they made, and while not many of them noticed, it was enough.

Cornyn's statements appear to be shaped with that reality in mind: Republicans are not competent or responsible enough to make good choices, so instead they'll just minimize the effects of the damage they have already caused.

It's the first disturbance on the surface while a tidal wave of retribution against Republicans rushes forward underneath. May they drown in their own sewage.