How can anyone possibly believe that the "Defense" cuts will be permitted to stand,

[woo me with science]

when the administration's own SECRETARY OF DEFENSE keeps screaming to the country that they will compromise our national security?

The plots of this theater has become predictable and insulting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2386233


__________________________________________________________

PENTAGON BUDGET CUTS WILL NEVER HAPPEN: ANALYSTS
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2011/11/22/pentagon-budget-cuts-will-never-happen-analysts/?mod=google_news_blog

STOP AUTOMATIC DEFENSE CUTS, PANETTA URGES CONGRESS
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-usa-debt-defense-panetta-idUSTRE7AL05220111122

DESPITE THREAT OF CUTS, PENTAGON OFFICIALS MADE NO CONTINGENCY PLANS
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/despite-threat-of-cuts-pentagon-made-no-contingency-plans.html


.

[SixthSense]

1. I believe it

like I believe a coke addict telling me he's cutting his party budget

[DCBob]

2. There are several reasons..

-- it will require writing entirely new legislation.
-- it will require Harry Reid agreeing to let the legislation be presented.
-- it will require 60 votes to pass the Senate.
-- it will require the President to sign it.
-- it is an election year.
-- partisanship and gridlock is worse than ever.

and the main reason..

-- the most likely path is that of least resistance which is doing nothing.. meaning the cuts stand.

[MNBrewer]

4. However

The "sequestration" kicks in in January 2013, when the results of the 2012 election could completely reverse the deal that put the sequestration in place. New Congress, maybe new President.

The next congress might eagerly write new legislation to overturn the sequestration deal
Harry Reid may not be Senate majority leader
Democrats would never use the filibuster on the repeal
President Obama would sign the repeal (after all, he would "have no other choice", right? :sarcasm:)
President Romney (god forbid) would sign the repeal
Republicans seem to be able to get their legislation through congress when they're in the majority, regardless of what the Democrats do, and they may just be in the majority in January 2013.

The cuts are over 10 years. Do you really think that over a decade there won't be a Congress and President willing to reverse the sequestration deal?

Chances of the Defense cuts being fully implemented as proposed in the sequestration deal = 1% or less.

[DCBob]

7. We shall see how it plays out but clearly the momentum at the moment is for the cuts to go forward.

But yes, if there are major changes to congress and if we lose the WH then all bets are off.

[MNBrewer]

8. If there is any momentum, it's very slight.

[The Last Blue Dog]

3. There is just one problem, this is total nonsense.

Under these alleged "cuts" defense spending is actually forecast to rise from 2012 to 2021 by 16%, from $695 billion to $818 billion. The Pentagon had been expecting a 23% rise, and in Washington a slow increase is called a "cut."

Washington does not cut anything and they never will. The electorate prefers to eat cake.

[indepat]

12. Washington seems more than ready, willing nee eager to cut the big three, in fact, they

are practically jumping through their collective proverbial assholes to get the job done. :patriot:

[The Last Blue Dog]

15. They are more than ready, willing and eager to frighten and confuse those who are who are

susceptible to that sort of thing. However, a review of the most recent legislation affecting Medicare (HCR) calls for it to grow about 3 percent slower than currently projections.

[JoePhilly]

5. Have you ever worked within a very large organization?

An organization in which a large number of divisions and departments all vie for limited resources?

Doesn't have to be a government organization.

Consider any descent sized business, with a sales force, manufacturing, logistics, HR, a legal team, a management team, so on.

Each part of the organization will create projections of what they can do within their current budget, and with an increase. And surprise, surprise, every part of a larger organization concludes that their part of the business is the most important and that it should get an increase, and never be cut.

The leaders of these groups will lobby to get the funding they want. And its very common for them to do so "publically" so that other parts of the organization will agree and create pressure up above.

Panetta wants his money and he is lobbying to try and get it.

But as some one who posted earlier said, this is a do nothing congress. I don't expect them to do anything.

An oh ... don't be surprised if the press pushes on this ... the MIC pays their salaries.

[rucky]

10. That's why I always thought there should be incentive for going under budget.

[JoePhilly]

11. Agree ... I suspect you know what actually tends to happen if you do go under budget, right?

Your budget for the next year gets cut to match ... you get punished!

Similarly, I'm always amazed at how every organization always comes in right on budget every year.

:rofl:

[spanone]

6. i believe there will be a 'terror alert' at an appropriate time

[rucky]

9. Then a tax increase for the 1% it is.

[TheKentuckian]

13. Depends on the definition and focus of cuts.

I have zero percent expectation of spending a dime less than we do today on the military.

I think it is a near mortal lock that the military budget will actually increase over the ten years.

I do think both will accept some pay and benefits cuts as long as they have room to blame the opposition.

I think they are fine with increased automated/unmanned equipment that will decrease troop numbers so that they can save on pay and benefits.

I think they are fine with accounting tricks combined with deeper real cuts in the non-discretionary budget to allow other parts of the government to actually be paying for the military out of their budgets while sustaing great cuts to their mission budget (how much of continuing Iraq costs will get pushed over to State and plausibly energy among others?).

I think there are certain projects they can backload costs until they can get past the window while still plugging away on schedule.

I think they can use any number of methods to "get by" on a smaller amount of increase than projected, including but not limited to the above.

I also think that all actual cuts are anti-stimulative and have little option but to shrink the economy and increase unemployment because there is nothing being done to offset the cascading decline in demand and pulling circulating resources out of the economy.
Defenders of the entire premise have nothing to explain themselves other than cult like mutterings based on their delusional and demostrably failed secular religion.
Reality stands in stark oppostion to the idea that austerity works to lift an economy and foster broad prosperity over any projectable term, in fact the opposite is the proven outcome.

[woo me with science]

14. Good post. Panetta is already signaling that pay and benefits are on the chopping block.

And here: "I have zero percent expectation of spending a dime less than we do today on the military," you are exactly right.