When did Leon Panetta become such a wanker? (further cuts have to come from entitlements)

[spooked911]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/dems-take-on-panetta-for-pushing-medicare-social-security-cuts-over-defense-cuts.php?ref=fpa

"Enter Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who yesterday complicated the Democrats' calculus. "We're already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt-ceiling agreement, and those are going to be tough enough," Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday. "I think anything beyond that would damage our national defense."

He said savings need to come from entitlement programs and from higher taxes -- not further defense cuts. In effect, that puts the six Democrats who will soon be appointed to the committee on notice: don't screw around with this.

Democrats are now demanding clarity from the White House: does President Obama think Medicare and Social Security can be cut by $500 billion over 10 years, but the bloated defense budget can not?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-ME) put the question to Obama in a Friday letter. "I urge you to make clear that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta did not speak for the Administration when he stated yesterday that additional spending cuts, beyond those in the recent debt-ceiling agreement, should come from non-discretionary spending such as Social Security and Medicare while the military budget is spared," Frank wrote."

[villager]

1. It's a whole party of wankers. The other party's filled with sociopaths.

Great choice, eh?

[RKP5637]

4. Yeah, it's like jumping off a bridge or jumping off a building. Choice, but the

end result is the same.

[SusanaMontana41]

21. Perfect analogy. n/t

[spooked911]

34. something's got to give though

I feel like there is more disenchantment here with the Dems than I've ever seen

[RKP5637]

2. The MIC must be giving him some big checks and promises. n/t

[DJ13]

3. He was always a DLC wanker

[Peregrine Took]

12. +100 Old Clintonista

[spanone]

5. 600 billion just ain't enough for the warriors

[TwilightGardener]

6. Second time in weeks I've said: I miss Gates.

Panetta is not the boss. He can express his concerns privately with the administration, he can't publicly draw a line in the sand like this. I think he might end up being Obama's biggest mistake.

[eShirl]

7. I would be THRILLED to be represented by Barney Frank, but alas he is from MA not ME

[FiveGoodMen]

8. They're not so much looking for sources of more money

as they are trying to wipe out all 'entitlements' so that the serfs will have to obey orders and work like slaves or else starve.

This is an attack on human freedom.

Period.

[Yavapai]

9. He is a leftover from the Clinton administration.

Hasn't changed at all!

[chill_wind]

10. He became a wanker and a weasel in my book

the minute he started weaseling about Bush admin CIA torture.

http://www.newser.com/story/50135/cia-hopeful-panetta-retracts-torture-remarks.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/smooth-sailing-for-panett_b_164784.html

[jeff47]

11. He's the defense secretary. Protecting the military's budget is his job.

This is a little like "how come the McDonald's CEO is talking about how great McDonald's food is?"

[theoldman]

13. I agree he is doing his job but it could include spending the money wisely.

I am sure there is at least 10% waste in every budget.

[jeff47]

20. One person's waste is another's vital program

See: Volcano Monitoring and Bobby Jindal.

[chill_wind]

14. Right. He's a politician, screaming and threatening "Doomsday"

might come to America and the permawar on terror if he doesn't get more. Funny thing is he only started this up a day or two ago, and despite what his budget analysts said when the deal passed.


Debt deal in line with DoD budget expectations

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/defense-spending-expectations-largely-unchanged-by-debt-deal-080111/

They were not crying. Not crying at all.

[jeff47]

19. That's not inconsistent.

His job at this point is to try and reduce the cuts coming to his department. The Sec. of HHS has the same job for HHS. Commerce for commerce (if we had a Secretary of Commerce atm).

His job is also to figure out how to make it work even if the cuts mostly land on his department, and to start that planning early.

Then Congress and the President make their decisions based on each department fighting against cuts.

[FiveGoodMen]

16. So... Department before country, then.

[jeff47]

18. His job, on behalf of the country, is to look over that department.

So his job is to advocate for that department. It's up to the rest of the country to make budget decisions, based on each department head fighting like hell for their department.

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Our military budget is about the same as the rest of the world's combined

And it's killing our economy.

Claiming it will be a disaster if we don't keep wasting all that money is a terrible thing to do.

If it's not a lie, it should be.

And lying to get more money should not be anyone's job.

That places the burden on others to figure out what the lie is and what the truth is. Thereby precluding any useful info being obtained from the guy in charge.

I don't accept for a moment that we should be running things that way.

[jeff47]

24. The budget is that large because of the job we assigned our military.

We took on the mantle of "world's policeman" at the end of WWII. As a result, we are the majority of the defense capabilities of our allies. For example, the British and French defense ministries plan on our help in any significant conflict, reducing the money they spend on their militaries.

We can drop that job, but it's not as simple as spending less money. Is it OK for China to conquer Taiwan so we can save money? It's a trade-off, and we should have a debate on things like that.

But as it is we have not changed the job we assigned our military but are now planning large cuts. That's not gonna work and results in the "disaster scenarios". If we're going to do the budget cuts, we also have to cut the workload and expectations.

I don't see any politicians laying the groundwork for that, so like Panetta I am concerned we're going to demand the military keep doing the same mission without giving them enough money to do so.

[FiveGoodMen]

25. We could save an awful lot just by ending the current wars

which were started based on lies.

And which Obama was going to do something about.

We also should not end retirement and real health care in America in order to remain the world's policemen.

I also don't think we really ever agreed on that role for the military. It's just that politician after politician has ratcheted things up and refused to stop anything, ever.

Furthermore, a lot of the budget is devoted to paying ridiculous amounts to weapons manufacturers. We've all heard the stories. We shouldn't be doing that either.

[jeff47]

29. And we are winding down the wars.

We could leave nearly instantly, but the power vacuum wouldn't be a terribly good thing. See: Somalia.

As for retirement vs. policemen, that's the debate I'm talking about. We should have one. What are we willing to lose in order to save the money?

"I also don't think we really ever agreed on that role for the military. It's just that politician after politician has ratcheted things up and refused to stop anything, ever."

We agreed by electing and re-electing those politicians.

"Furthermore, a lot of the budget is devoted to paying ridiculous amounts to weapons manufacturers. We've all heard the stories. We shouldn't be doing that either."

You either have the technology to kill your enemy without many of your own casualties, or you take more casualties. Again, a trade-off. One could argue that we're saving money because our military can do the same mission with a lot fewer soldiers....I doubt anyone has run the numbers.

You also have to remember that money paid to weapons manufacturers is stimulus spending that can not be easily off-shored. And it can get through a right-wing Congress. Just another trade-off we have to consider.

[WinkyDink]

27. I'm sure you are aware of egregious Pentagon procurements; no-bid Halliburton; "missing billions";

etc.

"The Defense Budget" includes MUCH more than what we assign to our Armed Forces.

[jeff47]

30. By and large there's not a lot of that kind of waste.

Defense contractors have to submit to annual audits by the DoD, thus having to justify the spending. That's how we learned Boeing was overcharging for parts.

No-bid Halliburton and the missing billions were W and Co breaking the procurement rules.

[sad sally]

15. From his past...

In foreign affairs Panetta consistently opposed defense and foreign policy initiatives promoted by President Ronald Reagan, especially financial aid to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. He also voted against authorizing President George Bush to use armed force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

Panetta's constant call for spending constraints differentiated him from most Democrats. His deep knowledge of financial matters, as well as his political courage and unsparing realism, help explain why President Bill Clinton nominated Panetta for director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). At the confirmation hearing in January 1993, Panetta stressed that he would make reducing the federal deficit his top priority.

http://www.bookrags.com/biography/leon-e-panetta/?du

[spooked911]

33. thanks-- I had the impression he was decent back then

I guess he got the DC disease

[chill_wind]

17. His budget analysts' numbers preceeded him

and contradict him. Didn't hear him yelling or complaining when the deal passed either.
Only now after a few days. Why is he only just now jumping up and politicizing this further?

[wiggs]

23. That's fine. More medical insurance and health care reform is needed to bring

costs down, especially for primary care. I'm against cutting benefits that results in less care...as we all are. But should we find a way (ie prescription drug negotiations, all primary care is by non-profits, etc) to reduce cost of care, then I'm for reducing cost to the taxpayer. That must be what Panetta is talking about.

Increase access to health care. Lower the cost of health care.

No cuts to SS.

More jobs and rising wages for middle and lower income earners = more contributions to SS and Medicare.

[WinkyDink]

28. "reducing cost to the taxpayer. That must be what Panetta is talking about." Wanna bet?

[WinkyDink]

26. Since forever.

[Bake]

31. He's SecDef. He doesn't want HIS budget cut.

That's his turf now.

Bake

[_ed_]

32. Make no mistake - this is what Obama wants

He selected Panetta, and you can be sure that Panetta doesn't shoot his mouth off like this without the OK from Obama.

We're being had again, people...