GOP Armed Services Committee Senators Endorse ‘Balanced’ Deficit Reduction Approach

[DonViejo]

A group of six senators — three Democrats, three Republicans — are urging leaders of both parties to ward off automatic cuts to domestic and defense spending at the end of the year with more targeted deficit reduction policies.

But while the clamor to avoid so-called “sequestration” is nothing new, the GOP signatories’ adoption of the Democrats’ call for “balanced” deficit reduction represents a significant departure.

The letter warns that sequestration will damage both the economy and domestic security and therefore, they conclude, “we are committed to working together to help forge a balanced bipartisan deficit reduction package to avoid damage to our national security, important domestic priorities, and our economy.”

The letter was written by the top Democrat and Republican on the Armed Services committee — Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) — as well as Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). All signatories except for Whitehouse sit on the Armed Services committee.

Read More:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/gop-armed-service-senators-endorse-balanced-deficit-reduction-approach.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

[DJ13]

1. I dont care if God him(her) self wrote that, the DoD is too big

Slash their funding instead of the "balanced" bullcrap which is code for "cut the safety net more than defense".

[maxsolomon]

2. 1/2 military, 1/2 domestic sounds balanced to me

i'd prefer 100% of the cuts go to the military - a lot more imbalance.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. I'd like to know

exactly whom we're actually threatened by that would require us to maintain such a huge military force. We're out of Iraq, soon to be out of Afghanistan, so why can't we cut some of the military? Our country is plenty secure in terms of being able to repel any attempts at incursions. Shouldn't that be good enough for any country?