Hagel: Cutting $52 billion from Pentagon next year would would have "severe*& unacceptable effects"

[Catherina]

Hagel warns lawmakers about effects of Pentagon budget cuts in 2014

By Ernesto Londoño, Wednesday, July 10, 4:13 PM

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned key lawmakers on Wednesday that slashing $52 billion from the Pentagon’s budget next year if across-the-board budget cuts remain in effect would have “severe and unacceptable effects.”

...

We urgently need Congressional support in enacting difficult but necessary measures,” Hagel wrote in a letter to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), the panel’s ranking member. “If the cuts continue, the Department will have to make sharp cuts with far reaching consequences, including limiting combat power, reducing readiness and undermining the national security interests of the United States.”

The Pentagon’s proposed 2014 budget was drafted under the assumption that the drastic reductions known as sequestration, which requires even cuts across the federal budget, would be replaced by a more flexible, sensible plan. But an alternative to sequestration is appearing increasingly unlikely because the consequences of cuts so far have been less dire than the ominous predictions federal agencies made last year.

...

The $52 billion cut would continue to take a toll on training and infrastructure, the Pentagon warned, and squeezing the budget further will lead to a loss of jobs and a disruption of “community life” in areas near military bases.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hagel-warns-lawmakers-of-pentagon-budget-cuts-in-2014/2013/07/10/60bf953a-e997-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html

[Gravitycollapse]

1. I'm willing to take that risk.

Call me crazy.

[Enthusiast]

12. Me too.............nt

[DCBob]

15. me three..

we already have too much.. IMO.

[byeya]

22. If Hagel says $50Billion then cut it at least $100Billion

[Bonobo]

2. But I thought he was the Republican that was going to make cuts possible!

L.l,like N,Nixon in China!!!

Isn't that the entire justification for selecting him DESPITE the fact that it reinforces the argument that Dems can't be trusted on Defense?!

[avaistheone1]

5. Yeah what happened to that?

[SamKnause]

3. The WAR Machine

Blah, blah, blah.

The War Machine needs money.

Blah, blah, blah.

The Spy Machine needs money.

Blah, blah, blah.

There are terrorists under every rock in the U.S. and around the globe.

Blah, blah, blah.

We will keep you safe even if we have to starve you and take your homes and jobs.

Blah, blah, blah.

War profiteers already pay more than their fair share.

We need the public to step up and pay higher taxes.

Blah, blah, blah.

The U.S. will spread 'democracy' around the globe no matter the costs.

The War Machine has bankrupted this country is more ways than one.

[pa28]

4. No, that's the severe and unacceptable effect of a Democrat seating a Republican in the cabinet.

This chart showing annual military expenditure among the major world powers says to me we can find savings. Perhaps we should just cut the budget in half and send Hagel a copy of "who moved my cheese".

[area51]

6. Like maybe the "severe" and "unacceptable" effects of using that money

to repair our crumbling infrastructure & transitioning to single-payer health care?

[Democracyinkind]

7. Such a tool. Nominated to uphold the status quo.

A complete and utter disappointment on all levels.

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. They could save billions if they stopped violating the 4th amendment

Over the long term the cost savings would transform the financial calculations.

[Ford_Prefect]

9. Exactly how many billion dollar ultimate weapon programs have they reduced trimmed or eliminated?

No one else on the planet has weapon systems like ours nor needs them. We are by far the biggest military bully on the block. Yet when it comes to reducing costs and winding down the war making machine it is the people, not the weapon systems, that get tossed. It is the trained professionals which are most difficult to replace, along with their supporting infrastructure, when they are needed.

The Ultra weapons are useless if you have no one ready to operate them. They appear to be equally useless if there is no threat on the horizon requiring their presence. Some would argue they are useless in any event since they anticipate more powerful and able enemies than could probably exist. However they are a very useful method for transferring tax money to private weapons building corporations.

[Sherman A1]

10. I have a better plan than cutting $52 Billion

Every time the DOD complains that this cut is too much, double it.

They will get real quiet, real quick.

[Egalitarian Thug]

11. You know what they won't cut? The multibillion dollar corporate welfare

payments that we give them so that they can bribe our politicians to increase the welfare payments and prevent any investigations or prosecutions.

[Savannahmann]

13. Does that mean we'll stop constructing headquarters buildings we won't use?

Perhaps we'll actually start looking at the things we're paying for. I mean, if we spent $34 million on a 64,000 square foot building that is state of the art for headquarters facilities, completing construction within a year of our departure, you have to wonder about the wisdom of those who are demanding no cuts to their budgets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-brand-new-us-military-headquarters-in-afghanistan-and-nobody-to-use-it/2013/07/09/2bb73728-e8cd-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html

Seriously, we built this monstrosity in Afghanistan, just as we're pulling out. Then this ass has the audacity to whine about cuts to his budget? It doesn't look like anyone has a clue about spending the money wisely. How many sick people were cured with that building? How many hungry people were fed? What great breakthrough did we move closer to on Climate change? Energy? You name it. It was wasted, money paid to a Contractor who built and set up a building that we never intended to use. What was the Contractor, a relative of someone in the budget office?

[bike man]

14. Cutting that part of the 'infrastructure' located in other countries (700+ sites

of various size and manpower), bringing home all the military personnel and families at those sites would be an immediate savings.

No longer having lease payments on those sites, another savings. No salaries for civilian contract workers at those sites, another.

Disperse all the military personnel and families among the bases in the US would be a positive financial impact on the local enonomies affected.

Gradually reduce the overall size of the military via normal attrition as enlistments expire combined with less vigorous recruiting efforts.

Have the Department of Defense become the Department of DEFENSE rather than Police Force to the World.

[TheKentuckian]

16. Please let this be the end of the chess messiah bullshit.

Hagel wasn't selected to cut the military, he is just another agent of the status quo and only strengthens the opposition and eats Democratic credibility in these areas.

Team of rivals my ass, it is a team of the same neoliberals with D's and R's next to their names but the ideological spectrum is pretty tight.

"Team of rivals" is a fucking scam, a phony logic designed to cover terrible appointments.

[kentuck]

17. It didn't take long to disprove that theory, did it?

That a Republican was put in charge of the Defense Dept so it would be easier to cut defense spending. How many, besides me, fell for that one?

[TheKentuckian]

31. I'm sure lots. I'd already seen that play in the first term and it turned out to be bull

So I wasn't inclined to buy it. Dared to hope just a little bit with it being the second term as justification? Sure. Believe? No way, man.

There is a such a thing as dangerous levels of optimism. Good souls are at the greatest risk.

[reflection]

18. Considering the Army found 900M

worth of tank parts it didn't know it had earlier this year...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/31/187297/dod-inspector-general-finds-900.html

I think they're going to be ok. Cry me a friggin river, Hagel.

[cali]

19. Of course it would, Catherina! Cutting one thin dime, would immeasurably damage

our capacity to defend this country. That's why defense needs a zillion quadrillion dollar increase, right fucking now!!!

And good morning,

[Autumn]

20. Well there ya go.

Yeah, right. Now who didn't have this one figured out? My hope is that someday, there just might be an actual Democrat that's "qualified".

[Hubert Flottz]

21. The cuts the Pentagon has already made so far means that...

the troops are the ones doing all the tightening of belts and the contractors and arms builders are still living the high life. Always the low man on the chain of command gets the shaft even after some service men and women have done four of five tours in combat zones over the past 12 years. A hell of a way to run a volunteer military.

The cuts need to be made from the fat cats down, instead the other way around. Sequestration needs to be applied to the contract soldiers and the Arms Manufacturers, just like it's applied to the disabled vets and the active duty volunteers. I believe that Chuck Haggle is still just a republican in sheep's clothing.

[hobbit709]

23. Yeah, to people like General Dynamics, Lockheed, General Electric, Halliburton.

[burnodo]

24. Looks like the military is a huge welfare program

Welfare of the warmongers

[Coyotl]

25. Maybe they should persue peace then.

[byeya]

27. Oooh! Bite your tongue. Some things are sacred.

We should go back to its old name: The War Department

[Coyotl]

28. Hagel is saying the Bush tax cuts are having "severe and unacceptable effects"

I know how to fix that easily

[djean111]

26. Cutting food stamps and Social Security and doubling student loan interest rates will also cause

“severe and unacceptable effects.”
I guess the poor and the students and the elderly could all join the army, though.......

[on point]

29. They should cut ten times the amount! Roll back the empire of corporations

[indepat]

30. If DOD cannot absorb the $52 billion cut, wonder where those cuts will come from?

Bet I can guess.

[WinkyDink]

32. Tell me again why Hagel was the "good Republican" we could "accept"?