Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- Connected Government
- Consolidating Mission-critical Systems
- Constituent Servicing
- The Data Privacy Imperative: Safeguarding Sensitive Data
- Eliminating the Pitfalls: Steps to Virtualization in Government
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal Tech Talk
- Government Cloud Brokerage: Who, What, When, Where, Why?
- Government Mobility
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Mobile Device Management
- The Modern Federal Threat Landscape
- Moving to the Cloud. What's the best approach for me
- Navigating Tough Choices in Government Cloud Computing
- Satellite Communications: Acquiring SATCOM in Tight Times
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- Understanding the Intersection of Customer Service and Security in the Cloud
Shows & Panels
Defense hawks insist on sparing military from cuts
Tuesday - 11/22/2011, 11:57am EST
By DONNA CASSATA
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress' defense hawks insist the military should be spared from automatic spending cuts after a special panel failed to reach a deal on reducing the deficit.
No way, says President Barack Obama, who vowed Monday to veto any effort to undo the roughly $1 trillion in across-the-board cuts, half from domestic programs and half from defense.
"There will be no easy off-ramps on this one. We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure," Obama said. "The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if Congress gets back to work and agrees to a balanced plan to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion."
The confrontation will play out in a politically charged atmosphere, with Obama's Republican presidential rivals Mitt Romney and Rick Perry already criticizing the commander in chief for the looming defense cuts.
Actually, those big federal deficit reductions wouldn't begin until January 2013. That allows plenty of time for lawmakers to try again to produce a debt plan, or for a new post-election cast of characters _ with possibly a different president _ to reverse them.
Protectors of the Pentagon budget argue that last summer's debt accord between Obama and congressional Republicans already inflicted enough damage. That law set in motion some $450 billion in reductions to planned Pentagon spending over the next decade.
Defense hawks are backed in part by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who warned of a hollow fighting force and implored Congress to produce a debt plan avoiding "cuts that will tear a seam in the nation's defense."
Now the supercommittee's failure sets the stage for the automatic cuts Panetta had feared. Combined with the earlier reductions, the Pentagon would be looking at nearly $1 trillion sliced from projected spending levels over 10 years.
"Those who have given us so much have nothing more to give," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., promising to introduce legislation to prevent the cuts.
Sens. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the panel, said they would "pursue all options" to avoid deeper defense cuts.
"As every military and civilian defense official has stated, these cuts represent a threat to the national security interests of the United States, and cannot be allowed to occur," the two said in a joint statement.
Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said even the specter of automatic reductions "will be extremely disruptive and could lead to cut backs in defense spending well before January 2013." He implored Democrats and Republicans to act with urgency to produce a budget plan.
But there's hardly unanimity in Congress. Deficit-cutting tea partyers in the GOP are siding with liberal Democrats in signaling they're ready to allow military reductions. In addition, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said they would abide by the consequences of last summer's deficit-fighting law _ and they control what legislation moves forward.
Freshman Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a tea party favorite, even questioned the legitimacy of the outcry over the military reductions.
Paul points out that the spending cuts aren't to the military's existing budget, but rather a scaling back of the Pentagon's plan to increase its spending every year.
"If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23 percent over 10 years," Paul said in an interview on CNN Sunday. "If we sequester the money, it will still go up 16 percent. So spending is still rising under any of these plans."
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the planned Pentagon budget for 2021 would be some $700 billion, an increase over the current level of about $520 billion. The cuts agreed to last summer plus the automatic reductions would trim the projected budget by about $110 billion.
If the automatic cuts go through, the Pentagon would face a 10 percent reduction in its $550 billion budget in 2013. On the domestic side, education, agriculture and environmental programs would face cuts of around 8 percent.
Social Security, Medicaid and many veterans' benefits and low-income programs are exempt from automatic cuts. Medicare is limited to a 2 percent reduction.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it is imperative for Obama "to ensure that the defense cuts he insisted upon do not undermine national security," as Panetta has warned.
McCain and Graham have been working on legislation that would undo the automatic defense reductions and instead impose a 5 percent across-the-board reduction in government spending combined with a 10 percent cut in pay for members of Congress.