The House passed a bill yesterday that would force the Office of Management and Budget to detail how they would deal with the sequestration cuts that would trigger on January 1 if Congress takes no further action. While it has the added benefit of forcing the President to detail specific cuts to the federal workforce, which could theoretically get used in an election campaign, the bill had strong bipartisan support, passing by a 414-2 margin. Similar legislation passed the Senate as part of their version of the farm bill. So this is likely to get done. In fact, Harry Reid said he would consider a floor vote for it.
Importantly, the legislation would require detail on sequestration in both defense and discretionary spending, which goes against the grain of the single-minded focus in Washington on just the defense budget.
That consensus against cuts to defense spending faces a challenge from a bipartisan set of lawmakers. Barney Frank and freshman Republican Congressman Mick Mulvaney have an amendment to the upcoming defense authorization bill that would freeze defense spending, providing time to assess how to institute the trigger cuts.
“How do you do you say, ‘We want to cut the FBI’s budget by 20 percent, you want to cut the Department of Education by X percent,’ but you want to plus up the defense budget?” said Mulvaney. “I think it undermines the severity [of the country's budget woes.]”
On Wednesday, executives from top defense contractors told the House Armed Services Committee that the looming threat of $500 billion in automatic cuts to the Pentagon would soon have a dramatic impact on employment. Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevenson said his firm alone stands to lose 10,000 employees if the cuts go into effect.
Frank and Mulvaney said some of that could be prevented by more intelligent cuts to the defense budget.
“It’s like a geological thing — there are layers and layers and layers” of programs addressing outdated threats, Frank argued.
We’ve heard a lot over the years about “war-weariness” from the right, and a sea change on defense matters. Right now I would caution not to believe it. But where the defense budget intersects with deficit hysteria, strange coalitions can form.




14 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
No, we need to leave the defense budget as it is, or increase it, the Mayans are gonna invade in December, we need to be ready to destroy the planet ten times over.
Oh, and “you people” will pay for the budget, we can’t ask the Leona Helmsleys of this world to drop a dime or a billion to help, now can we…
/S
Or the Mitt Romney’s
“Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!”
It takes bulldozers to push huge piles of taxpayer cash into the coffers of politically-connected military and aerospace contractors, while wounded servicemen and servicewomen are forced to pay for clean underwear and are then thrown out on the streets to panhandle.
Is this a great country, or what?
They could lower their profits and their prices and stop gouging the country. Defense money is all theft and overpriced products. Nothing ever works as intended, and arrives years late and always over budget. Maybe we should outsource purchases of military hardware to China also? At least maybe the defense establishment will start lobbying Congress to bring jobs back from China? Nothing like fear to constrict one’s sphincter.
You know some 67% of the people surveyed think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Unfortuinately, the 1% don’t agree and they are the ones with the money, with the influence and with the attention (meaning they own them) of our legislators.
Yep. We be screwed.
If only we had listened to Eisenhower’s warning about the MIC. Now they own most of the government.
The US Military budget needs to be slashed by 50% or better. If our client countries around the world want our continued protection they can put up the cash to fund it.
What.
Saw an interview with one of Ike’s female relatives, (I forget which one), and she said the original warning in.re. the MIC had an additional “C” which stood for Congress, the source of funding. It was supposed to be MICC – Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
Maybe we should wage peace, but that would ruin our standing as No.1 in the world for the export of weapons and totally destroy our “economy”.
Peace is not an option.
How we will keep creating veterans and all the holidays connected to “our boys”?
War is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. Since Britain was much smaller and had colonies, they kept shipping their restless elements there, so that they could exhaust their energy. We have no colonies, so we need wars to exhaust the energy of our youth, so that they don’t become troublemakers here.
This does not constitute an incisive comment, but I want to note for the record I was in the House gallery yesterday when the vote total was announced. The two no’s were Elliot Engel of New York (three of his constituents were sitting to our left and yoo-hoo’ed him over, but didn’t ask why he voted no) and…hell, I can’t remember who the other no was.