Question: Sequestration - the fear of cuts in military spending

[Tide1986]

With more than $700 billion in annual military spending, why do some Republicans fear the imminent cuts in military spending due to sequestration? I am certainly a supporter of the military, but it seems to me that fiscal restraint and "creative" use of available resources are principles that should apply to military budgets as much as any other aspect of government spending.

Why should we fear military belt-tightening?

Do you support reductions in military spending? If so, to what degree?

GOP Divided on Sequestration

With less than a month left to replace the $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts scheduled for March. Republicans revealed Wednesday their party is divided over what is more important: protecting the Department of Defense or pushing spending cuts no matter the cost.

Republican Sens. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona continue to speak out about how devastating across-the-board spending cuts would be to the Pentagon, while their GOP colleagues in the House say sequestration, no matter the cost, may be the only way to force spending cuts from the White House.

This perspective resonates with me.

 

[Bamaro]

I think that overall, we should let all the cuts take place. It will cause a temporary hit to the economy (jobs, GDP etc) but in the long run it will be for the best.

 

[crimsonaudio]

We need cuts across the board, and $700B is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on defense.

 

[bamachile]

Amazing. I agree with the first three posts on a NS thread.

 

[cbi1972]

Considering the size of the increases that have been allocated to defense spending in recent years, a return to previous levels of spending should alarm no one without a vested interest in the spending.

 

[bama_wayne1]

Considering the size of the increases that have been allocated to defense spending in recent years, a return to previous levels of spending should alarm no one without a vested interest in the spending.

I'm vested. :blush:

 

[Tidewater]

The way the game is played in Washington is that whenever Democrats propose defense cuts, the Republicans scream that Democrats are stabbing soldiers in the back during wartime. The Democrats react like vampires when shown a crucifix and they agree to whatever defense dollars Republicans want.
Whenever Republicans propose social safety net cuts, the Democrats scream that Republicans are "mean spirited." The Republicans react like vampires when shown a crucifix and then agree to whatever social safety net spending Democrats want.
Rinse.
Repeat.

Yes, it is time to cut the defense budget. A lot.
Unfortunately, the Republicans will ensure that what is cut is spending on soldier/sailor/airman/marine pay, soldier/sailor/airman/marine housing, soldier/sailor/airman/marine health care, and what is retained is big budget end items like unbelievably powerful (and unbelievably expensive) aircraft carriers, ridiculously capable (and ridiculously expensive) airplanes, etc. Rather than cut the number of units, the military will keep lots of force structure, but not fund training it, making it a "hollow army" that will fail spectacularly in the next shooting match we send it to.
That is a long-standing American tradition.

 

[OreBama]

I don't agree with cutting the defense budget. We need that money to further our research on laser cats.

 

[Tidewater]

I don't agree with cutting the defense budget. We need that money to further our research on laser cats.

True. Private enterprise isn't going to develop laser-cats on its own.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Depends on what they cut. From the sounds of it it is going to be things that effect the individual soldier (benefits, pay, etc) as opposed to actual wasteful spending, like gay-bombs. I am not optimistic that sequestration will lead to similar cuts in social entitlement spending. Most likely we will have these billions in cuts (which I think is on top of 500 billion over the next 4yrs) but see no cuts anywhere else. Sure we may here about meaningless cuts in future spending, but actual reform? Never.

Also, if the do it "right" again we will all be wondering why we have ineffective equipment (**cough ACUs cough**) when we go to war without the army we wish we had. But I am biased.

It all depends on what we want to be able to do with our military. Up to now we have always wanted the ability to strike anywhere in the world on short notice and be able to fight in two theaters at once. It would be cool if we could be all isolationist again, but that is no longer an achievable reality. I think it is important to keep the biggest stick for both defense and economic reasons.

 

[jthomas666]

I don't agree with cutting the defense budget. We need that money to further our research on laser cats.

Will SOMEBODY please just get me some sharks with frickin' laser beams?

 

[RammerJammer14]

Will SOMEBODY please just get me some sharks with frickin' laser beams?

Well, all we have is sea bass. But it is MUTATED sea bass.

 

[BamaPokerplayer]

I have wanted military cuts for a long time but I don't want the enlisted to get crapped on.

 

[bamacon]

If the Clinton years were so great like the admin. preaches lets return to those spending levels.

 

[Bamaro]

If the Clinton years were so great like the admin. preaches lets return to those spending levels.

Sounds reasonable but revenues should be considered also. Anybody access to how that would translate to today?

 

[crimsonaudio]

Sounds reasonable but revenues should be considered also. Anybody access to how that would translate to today?

2000 expenditures: $1.765 T
2000 revenue: $1.883 T

Accounting for inflation, this would equate:
12 year inflated 2000 expenditures: $2.347 T
12 year inflated 2000 revenue: $2.504 T

Actual 2012 numbers:
2012 expenditures: $3.796 T
2012 revenue: $2.627 T

IOW, we have more than enough revenue to cover the inflation adjusted spending from 2000 in 2012 dollars, but the 2012 actual spending is 67% higher than it should be to match the inflation adjusted spending from 2000. At 2012 revenue rates, we'd be able to pay down the national debt @ $280b/year - 2.4x more than we would have in 2000.

As I've said over and over - it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

 

[TideEngineer08]

2000 expenditures: $1.765 T
2000 revenue: $1.883 T

Accounting for inflation, this would equate:
12 year inflated 2000 expenditures: $2.347 T
12 year inflated 2000 revenue: $2.504 T

Actual 2012 numbers:
2012 expenditures: $3.796 T
2012 revenue: $2.627 T

IOW, we have more than enough revenue to cover the inflation adjusted spending from 2000 in 2012 dollars, but the 2012 actual spending is 67% higher than it should be to match the inflation adjusted spending from 2000. At 2012 revenue rates, we'd be able to pay down the national debt @ $280b/year - 2.4x more than we would have in 2000.

As I've said over and over - it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Thank you. Why this simple knowledge cannot be accessed by the super intelligent liberal brain, I don't know.

 

[Tidewater]

As I've said over and over - it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

But the President says we do not have a spending problem.

The president’s insistence that Washington doesn’t have a spending problem, Mr. Boehner says, is predicated on the belief that massive federal deficits stem from what Mr. Obama called “a health-care problem.” Mr. Boehner says that after he recovered from his astonishment—”They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system”—he replied: “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with ObamaCare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” He repeated this message so often, he says, that toward the end of the negotiations, the president became irritated and said: “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”

 

[Bama Reb]

The way the military looks at spending is directly related to budgeting. To be more precise, the money that is budgeted for this year must be spent, and absolutely none must be left over. It is thought that if any is left over, that much will be deducted from the budget for the following year. Not only that, but it goes further. They also feel that if they spend more than their budget allows, then the amount that is overspent will be added to the following year's budget. Thus the only way to increase a unit's budget is to spend more than they have.
I guess this thought process has permeated all of Washington DC. I know it's confusing to many, as it should. But to government workers who don't have to be concerned with where the money is coming from, it makes perfect sense.

 

[GreatMarch]

The way the military looks at spending is directly related to budgeting. To be more precise, the money that is budgeted for this year must be spent, and absolutely none must be left over. It is thought that if any is left over, that much will be deducted from the budget for the following year. Not only that, but it goes further. They also feel that if they spend more than their budget allows, then the amount that is overspent will be added to the following year's budget. Thus the only way to increase a unit's budget is to spend more than they have.
I guess this thought process has permeated all of Washington DC. I know it's confusing to many, as it should. But to government workers who don't have to be concerned with where the money is coming from, it makes perfect sense.

That is the thought process of every government agency at local, state and federal levels.....