Boehner and Obama's Defense Secretery reject deeper defense cuts

[Cali_Democrat]

Why do we need such a gargantuan defense budget? To fight useless wars and line the pockets of oil companies and defense companies while the poor and the middle class get their medicare and social security cut?

What a bunch of bullshit.

WASHINGTON -- Top congressional Republicans, Democrats and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are united in a single message to a special bipartisan committee looking for ways to cut the U.S. government's deficit: Leave military spending alone.

The Defense Department's budget has almost doubled to US$700 billion in the 10 years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. That does not include the trillion-plus dollars spent on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Thursday, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. John Boehner, told reporters the Pentagon budget was cut more than enough this year in a debt agreement between President Barack Obama and Republicans.

<snip>

“I would argue that they've taken more than their fair share of the hits,” Boehner said.

His comments echo the argument made by other lawmakers as well as Panetta, who in recent speeches and congressional testimony insisted that the Pentagon be spared further cuts.

Read more: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/americas/2011/10/29/321265/Boehner-Panetta.htm

I have a feeling that this whole super committee thing is going to be an unmitigated disaster.

[Vincardog]

1. this whole supper committee thing is going to be an unmitigated disaster. If they make any real cuts

the next congress will just reverse them

[hughee99]

2. The super committee will do exactly what it was always intended to do.

Which is to appear that they are going to do something about spending, but not actually do anything.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Oh they'll do something.....

You can bet they'll cut Medicare.

Count on it.

[hughee99]

4. They won't cut anything,

everything they put out will end up having to go through the house and Senate anyway.

[NorthCarolina]

5. I thought there were automatic cuts involved that would NOT have to go through

Congress and the Senate.

[hughee99]

7. Wait and see that get challenged and taken through the courts.

Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked to see some repuke or repuke organization be the ones to take this to the courts, although it could also be a Dem or progressive organization.

[NorthCarolina]

8. Not likely

The Committee was established for the express purpose of cutting entitlement spending without forcing Congress to have to vote on it. A cowardly, but ingenious, plan of protection, affording legislators the advantage of plausible deniability.

[hughee99]

9. McCain-Feingold was (supposedly) established for the expressed purpose

of cleaning up the elections, did not in any way accomplish this and still, many of it's provisions were stripped by the courts. They often appoint "special commissions" to do the dirty work and even then the recommendations are usually not adopted. The special commission, committee or blue-ribbon panel is just a diversion to convince the people that something will get done about the issue, but the only real assignment is to delay the process until people forget what they wanted.

Congress got out of doing any cutting entitlement spending by creating this Committee. The Committee will get out of doing by being declared unconstitutional. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[polichick]

12. Exactly, and the American people should fire both houses of Congress...

...asap.

[SkyDaddy7]

11. Then the 1.2 Trillion in automatic cuts will trigger!

Half of which is military & non is Medicare or SS benefits.

[hughee99]

17. And that is what I'm saying will be challenged in court. n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

19. How will it be challenged in court?

It is law that was signed by the POTUS...Are you saying it could be declared unconstitutional? I am not trying to be a dick I just don't understand what you are talking about...Could you explain?

[hughee99]

21. It will be challenged as being unconstitutional.

The government passes a lot of laws that can be challenged (and aren't). For example, Congress essentially ceded it's authority to * to declare war in Iraq, rather than actually voting on and passing a declaration of war. Essentially, congress is now giving power to this committee to make tax policy without the consultation of congress, which is not just their constitutional authority but DUTY to do. Regardless of the outcome in court, stays will be issued and the process will grind to a halt in the courts.

[former9thward]

23. Like it or not the super committee is constitutional.

They have done this before when they established a super committee to close military bases. That way individual congressmen did not have to vote on closing bases in their district. It will not be challenged in court and no stays will be given. Your example on the Iraq war is not a good one. The Vietnam war was challenged several times because there had been no declaration. Courts tossed out all challenges.

[hughee99]

24. Regardless of how it fares in the courts,

I think they'll get a "stay" to prevent the cuts from being made while it's being decided and drag out the process at least until after the election.

[SkyDaddy7]

25. Then the 1.2 Trillion in automatic cuts will be...

the law of the land. Half of which is military cuts.

[indepat]

6. A bet better than money in the bank

:patriot:

[polichick]

13. Well, money in the bank ain't such a good bet these days...

Maybe a mattress would be better. :)

[quakerboy]

10. Ya think?

I suspect that the best option we have is to work to kill any agreement they come to and let the automatic cuts go into effect. Which is a sucktastic option that will deeply hurt this country. But I have 0% faith that any deal that they could make would be better in any way.

[polichick]

14. We NEED all 800+ bases around the world!!!

:sarcasm:

[blkmusclmachine]

15. 11-Dimensional Chess:

We're all fucked.

[Vattel]

16. I share your pessimism.

Democrats (including Obama) don't want big cuts in defense anymore than Republicans. The most likely outcome of the stupid debt deal is that there will be big cuts in domestic spending, including Medicare. I hope I am proven wrong, but I'm not optimistic.

[ProSense]

18. Boehner

can cry all he wants to if the Super Committee doesn't agree on a deal, the cuts are automatic.

[Tanelorn]

20. Ahh united at last. Bipartisanship in action.

BTW how do you use the sarcasm emoticon?

[Worship Money]

22. We all saw this coming

What a fucking joke.