Leon Panetta: Pentagon Budget Cuts In Debt Ceiling Deal Are 'Dangerous'

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Silent for days amid the Capitol Hill debt standoff, the Pentagon has finally thrown down a marker, vowing to fight against military budget cuts officials say would endanger national security and mean job losses for thousands of Defense Department employees.

In his first public comments on the new deficit-slashing debt ceiling legislation, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Wednesday that the department will do its part to help get the nation's finances in order. But he said a second round of potentially across-the-board spending cuts later this year would be "completely unacceptable."

"I will do everything I can to ensure that further reductions in defense spending are not pursued in a hasty, ill-conceived way that would undermine the military's ability to protect America and its vital interests around the globe," he said in a message to troops and civilian department employees.

Under the bill signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday, Pentagon spending over 10 years would be reduced by $350 billion from projected increases. That's pretty much in line with what defense officials expected, Panetta noted, since Obama announced in April that the Pentagon must accept $400 billion in defense cuts over 12 years.

At that time, defense officials warned that such cuts couldn't be made without reducing military forces and setting priorities on what missions the country was willing to do without. Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for a Pentagon-wide strategy and budget review, which officials say is continuing.

INSIDE THE PENTAGON
Watch more free documentaries

What has defense officials more worried is the second step in Tuesday's legislation: A 12-member, House-Senate committee must propose as much as $1.5 trillion more in deficit cuts over a decade and do so by year's end. If it deadlocks or Congress rejects its recommendations, the Obama administration would impose $1.2 trillion across-the-board spending cuts, with half hitting the Pentagon.

That "would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families and our ability to protect the nation," Panetta declared Wednesday. "I will fight for you and your families as we face these budget challenges."

It would lead to furloughs of civilian employees, layoffs, destruction of programs and possibly even a reduction in troop levels, a senior defense official told reporters in a Pentagon briefing Wednesday.

It was pretty much the same thing his predecessor Gates had been saying, but the first time Panetta put himself forcefully into the fray.

Comments

[Czechster]

08:25 PM on 08/05/2011

Something is going wrong with HP. They keep killing stories on Defense Reduction.

[Upcoming]

04:25 PM on 08/05/2011

This kind of threat makes me ill. We waste colossal, truly absurd amount of money that on military spending. We don't even have cold war non-sense as an excuse now. Our military spending is primarily to support the oil industry and to to some degree to "influence" for other extractive industries.

We talk about the inherent glories of the competition of capitalism yet we need to have the largest military ever conceived to make it work for us. Clearly there is a logical, moral, and philosophical aporia to truth.

Half of the military budget could eliminate our dependence on oil in 4 years. Not just foreign oil but all oil. That money in massive infrastructure projects for solar and wind sources and conversion to electric transportation could make it happen in short order. We would then be leading the rest of the world in sustainable energy production and could export the know-how so others wouldn't fight over oil. We would also have economic growth we would have to work to slow down.

If we can't defend ourselves from all the countries threatening to attack us with half our current budget, it is an indication of the most massive incompetence ever foisted by a government on its people. The military should be headed by someone who doesn't have an interest in continuing the status quo. The budget hawks should be where the military hawks are and the military hawks have no reason to be in the world today.

[Littlewords]

03:45 PM on 08/05/2011

Norm, we need to spend way less.

Our spending is up in defense by $600B per year over tear 2000 levels. This is the BIGGEST factor of spending change and top US debt creator and cause of deficit spending. Further, all of our peers, even China, have cut back on defense, all but the USA. So figure out how to trim down your bloated spending habits (hint....stop outsourcing low cost military work to extremely high priced private businesses on exclusive and outrageous contracts which alone will cut $100B a year out of your cost envelope).

[Bumpkins]

03:36 PM on 08/05/2011

The sacred defense budget, that ballooned in the first decade of the 21st century is now at point where it is greater then very other nation in the world......madness, forever war. The Pentagon will never give up a dollar....there are enemies all around us, we can't leave Iraq. By the way, we are trying to get the Iraqi Govt. to ok 40000 American troops staying after December. Why, no reason, except there is a lot of money made by contractors in supplying our forces.. The forever wars, not paid for. Here is one example...think about it......the defense budget takes 40 cents out of every dollar in the budget......there is the problem...and the war machine chugs on and on finding new enemies to fight....If there are cuts I bet, they will be fake cuts in the future...that is the usual game.

[dadw5boys]

03:28 PM on 08/05/2011

Will someone send Gate Crashers past Congressional Security to send them a message about challenging Military Control ?

[dmsdzinr]

03:13 PM on 08/05/2011

What is "DANGEROUS" Mr. Panetta is standing against any cuts to defense spending when the ENTIRE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX is thoroughly riddled with WASTE!

[timber1647]

02:04 PM on 08/05/2011

I read this morning that one of Mr. Panetta's concerns is that the cuts, $1T over ten years would prevent us from... "confronting Islamist Terrorism worldwide and defending democracies from well armed enemies". Mr. Secretary, Pax Americana is not sustainable. The world's democracies need to get more skin into the game and be ready to defend themselves before running to us. Europe doesn't need our bases. Japan? Doubtful. We have aircraft carriers that can project American power across the globe. The $1T saved could be put to better use repairing our infrastructure and educating our kids. The only ones who gain financially from our over commitment around the world are those companies firmly intrenched in the military-industrial complex. Where's DDE when we need him.

[fourex]

02:01 PM on 08/05/2011

Leon, relax. All the acts that created the current debt, have been taken off the table. You see you can't have another cup of tea, when your glass is still full, can you Alice.

[kennyfloyd]

01:43 PM on 08/05/2011

Cutting, nay, gutting the American defence industry could well turn out to be a good thing for the world, never mind the country. How many places on earth do the Americans have bases and troops? How many other places are there troops and bases, that are secret and off the books. how much does this anger people(s) around the world? Cutting or gutting the American military machine would reduce that resentment and thus lead to fewer bases, troops, secret jails and torture sites, and that will save money. Think of the American military machine as a mountain (of cash in this case). The mountain is there that is why people climb it or engage with it. If there were no American soliers in Ahghanistan, would there be fighters streaming over the border with Pakistan? The world and the U.S. will get by, with just a few less fighter jets, bombs and bullets, and if a war, a giant war breaks out, the money will be there.

[timber1647]

02:06 PM on 08/05/2011

And if it is, god forbid, a giant war.........well why have the tactical nukes if you're not prepared to use them?

[Aarroonn Fleszar]

02:57 PM on 08/05/2011

Believe me I'm sure he knows and understands this, but all these guys think about all day and are paid to think about is what is a threat and how to engage it. In a matter of decades I think anything America can't control has become a threat to unelected officials.

[connie o]

01:30 PM on 08/05/2011

Maybe if we quit spending obscene amounts of money on national security, other nations will maintain their own military. Recently Robert Gates testified before Congress that we should get out of NATO because the other members were not doing their part. Why should they when the US is spending more than enough for everyone? The Europeans talked Obama into getting into the mess in Libya because we had "unique" capabilities. Of course we do because we spend the money. Obama should have told them that we would step in if they paid the bill. No more sticking the American taxpayer with defending other country's borders. We can't even afford to defend our own borders.

[timber1647]

02:07 PM on 08/05/2011

The time for Pax Americana is over. Let's not go the way of Rome and Great Britain.

[connie o]

02:57 PM on 08/05/2011

Agreed.

[JustinP213]

01:10 PM on 08/05/2011

Ah, more scare tactics from the new leader of the Military Industrial Complex. I am sick and tired of people, especially on the right, trying to scare people into thinking if we don't spend TRILLIONS of dollars a year on defense, we're hurting our nation's security. That claim, however, is absolutely ridiculous. We all know that the vast majority of federal agencies waste money. And, the DoD leads that category. Also, why do we need 400 plus bases across the world? Why do we need 11 air craft carriers? Why do we need to run a Wal Mart like store on almost every base? Why do we need new fighter jets? Why do we continue to pay defense contractors mostly on time while many of their programs are behind schedule?

This is one of the many reasons why I am not a Republican (or a member of any political party). I rarely ever see Republicans point out the waste, fraud and corruption in our defense department. The only one who does is Senator Coburn. I encourage people to read his staff's exhaustive 600 plus page report. TRILLIONS can be cut from the federal budget TODAY, without gutting entitlement programs.

[timber1647]

02:11 PM on 08/05/2011

I don't have any issues with the Carriers, yet, or the PX's as they allow our troops and their families to buy goods w/o sales taxes and at low margins. And the profits go to maintaining recreational areas. But the overseas bases? I'm with you 100%. The Europeans and Asians need to have more skin in the game. And I don't want the picking up the tab for us staying as that just makes us nothing more than mercenaries. Bring our kids home. Use the money saved to start a re-building of America's infrastructure, i.e., roads, bridges, etc..

[JustinP213]

02:13 PM on 08/05/2011

Why don't you have any problems with the air craft carriers? We have 11. We don't need 11. As for the PX, it's costing way too much money to run them. At least you agre with me about the biggest waste, the bases.

[JBS]

01:09 PM on 08/05/2011

Just setting the stage to screw the troops later.

[Erik Rieder]

12:49 PM on 08/05/2011

You mean to say that Leon is unwilling to let us go from spending 5x the amount of the rest of the world combined on defense to 4x?

[Gestas]

12:18 PM on 08/05/2011

Sounds like Panetta has found a unlimited source of campaign funds.

[timber1647]

02:12 PM on 08/05/2011

The Republicans who never saw a conflict they didn't like.

[Hoogey]

11:26 AM on 08/05/2011

Mr. Leon Panetta,

What's that saying, "Fully fund libraries and if the Air Force needs a bomber, let them hold a bake sale."

If the military wants to stop being a thug enforcer of capitalist pigs in raping the planet, then I think there is more than enough reason to cut to a 'defensible' position.

An American Vet

Chris H.