iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Leon Panetta, Secretary Of Defense, Defends Slimmed-Down Military Budget Plan

Leon Panetta Defense Cuts

LOLITA C. BALDOR   02/14/12 04:47 PM ET  AP

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the nation's top military leader on Tuesday defended the Pentagon's slimmed-down, $614 billion budget, telling lawmakers it's time to show Congress is serious about reducing the deficit.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Panetta warned lawmakers that budget cuts will hit all 50 states, but he says the reductions have been carefully planned and there is little room for changes.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the budget tradeoffs were tough and complex, but they will produce the savings mandated by the $487 billion in reductions over a decade the President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to last summer.

"They will not lead to a military in decline," Dempsey said. "Rather, this budget will maintain our military's decisive edge and help sustain America's global leadership."

The testimony immediately met resistance from members of the committee. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the panel's chairman, insisted that the military look to closing bases in Europe and overseas before targeting installations in the United States. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the committee's top Republican and Obama's presidential foe in 2008, expressed reservations with the budget and complained that it "continues the administration's habit of putting short-term political considerations over our long-term national security interests."

The proposed defense budget for the year beginning Oct. 1 includes $525.4 billion in base spending and another $88.5 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The total is nearly $32 billion less than this year's budget.

"It was this Congress that mandated, on a bipartisan basis, that we reduce the defense budget, and we need your partnership to do this in a manner that preserves the strongest military in the world," Panetta said. "This will be a test of whether reducing the deficit is about talk or action."

Defense officials have laid out plans to find about $260 billion in savings over the next five years, including moves to slash the size of the Army and Marine Corps, cut back on shipbuilding, and delay the purchase of some fighter jets and other weapons systems.

The plan also slashes war spending. Money for Iraq and Afghanistan will drop from $115 billion this year to $88.5 billion, with less than $3 billion spent for security in Iraq. It also cuts in half the amount spent on training and equipping Afghanistan's security forces – a key element to the U.S. effort to gradually withdraw forces and transfer security responsibility to the Afghans.

While military personnel still would get a 1.7 percent pay raise, retirees would get hit with a series of increases in health care fees, co-pays and deductibles. The impact would be greater on those who are under 65 and are likely to have another job, as well as on those who make more money.

Senators on Monday also complained that President Barack Obama and his defense team have made no plans to deal with an additional $492 billion in across-the-board military cuts that will occur in January 2013 if Congress doesn't act to avoid them.

Panetta said that since it is now apparent what the current cuts will do, he hopes that Congress will be persuaded to avoid the additional 2013 reductions.

Dempsey said that even though there are fewer than 90,000 troops deployed in combat, compared with more than 200,000 just two years ago, the military must spend money to reset and restore itself. War-torn equipment must be replaced, weapons need to be modernized and troops need to be retrained, he said.

"We will have to do all of this in the context of a security environment that is different than the one we faced 10 years ago," Dempsey said. "We cannot simply return to the old way of doing things, and we cannot forget the lessons we have learned."

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the nation's top military leader on Tuesday defended the Pentagon's slimmed-down, $614 billion budget, telling lawmakers it's time to show Congres...
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the nation's top military leader on Tuesday defended the Pentagon's slimmed-down, $614 billion budget, telling lawmakers it's time to show Congres...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,661
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (25 total)
11:50 PM on 02/14/2012
the good of the new world order outshines the life of the United States, huh leon
11:23 PM on 02/14/2012
How is it that a $600B budget is considered too small? What a sacrifice the DoD is making. Maybe if we took more money away from welfare cheats and education, we could fully fund the military industrial complex and invade Iran. That should puff up the neocons.
10:42 PM on 02/14/2012
Howdy Doody really does exist!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
aztrukin
I am the leader of opting out of badges.
09:14 PM on 02/14/2012
To all conservatives. Opt out of badges unless this makes you feel important. Identify by this and it will be the best badge you have, one of distinction.
08:19 PM on 02/14/2012
"...we cannot forget the lessons we have learned."
One of those should be that there is no such thing as a post-war period, only a between war period.
There will be more wars, right or wrong is a different discussion, and young folks WILL die on future battlefields to pay for these cuts. Just as the beginning of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. It won't be generals and admirals who bleed for this, so they lose nothing by supporting it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
08:18 PM on 02/14/2012
So, how many F-35s do we need? 100? 500? Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion. Add in the $650 billion...needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion. In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion). The F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history, and reveals massive cost overruns, a lack of clear strategic thought, and a culture in Washington that encourages incredible waste.

...the cost of each plane had soared by over 50 percent above the original projections...An internal Pentagon report concluded that: "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar." ...even Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a champion of the aircraft, voiced his frustration: "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint."

The F-35 is meant to be the future of U.S. tactical airpower, but the program harks back to the Cold War, when we faced an aggressive great power rival...We still need a deterrent capacity against China and Russia, but how much is enough? In a decade's time, the United States plans to have 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia."

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
aztrukin
I am the leader of opting out of badges.
09:12 PM on 02/14/2012
Clue. Superpower means formidable forces.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ed whowannaknow
If u fav a comment, plz comment!
11:17 PM on 02/14/2012
and how many will china have? Russia have? Got a clue? How about china+N Korea+some third world "low level" war at the same time, guess things like that will NEVER happen huh?

In todays environment of taking decades to build a new weapon, and being able to manufacture very low numbers of even existing weapons, if there is any war/wars, what you start with is what you finish with. We better start with enough!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
01:12 AM on 02/15/2012
Never learned to read? "A mind is a terrible thing to waste"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
12:26 PM on 02/18/2012
WHEN YOU ASK A QUESTION?....KNOW THE ANSWER!
07:06 PM on 02/14/2012
A big problem in any government department is spending habits, like having a money tree. How about giving all military departments one year to cut, get spending and waste under control. Incentive not to have departments, jobs cut or bases closed. Build ships, planes, new military technology creating many jobs and associated industry growth. They have one chance move it or loose it approach.
05:58 PM on 02/14/2012
Panetta is Obama's boy---what would you expect his to say.

Gutting the military is not a good thing, regardless of the spin.

Guess Team Obama has to come up with dollars to buy votes with----gutting the military is probably not the best of places to find them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ed whowannaknow
If u fav a comment, plz comment!
11:22 PM on 02/14/2012
I agree military should never be cut. I like an overwhealming force.

BUT..guess you missed "...the savings mandated by the $487 billion in reductions over a decade the President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to last summer." This cut was done by REPUBLICANS. Remember, when they were holding the govt hostage over debt cieling? Which downgraded americas credit rating? Remember all that? These cuts were mandated by REPUBLICANS. You know, the ones in charge of congress, which can pass no bill without their blessing? So get off the Obama train. Its not his fault, you can thank republicans for these cuts
11:28 PM on 02/14/2012
Gutting the military? We spend more on guns and bombs than the rest of the world combined. You could cut it in half and still have the most expensive military in the world by a large margin. I guess deficits don't matter when it comes to war spending.
05:32 PM on 02/14/2012
Most people are not aware that one of the greatest military powers in the world in the early 1920's was Italy. Immediately after the end of WWl they invested heavily in planes, tanks, ships, cannons, etc. Unfortunately it was all based on 1918 technology, which was soon enough revealed to be obsolete by the time WWll started. So it's sometime best to modernize slowly and constantly re-evaluate what will be needed tomorrow, not what you used yesterday. Considering that the US could not achieve a clear victory in Iraq and Afghanistan after almost a decade of combat, obviously what we have and how we used it just isn't good enough. Hell, we defeated Japan, Germany and Italy in 3-1/2 years!
04:59 PM on 02/14/2012
This is the problem with cutting the deficit. As soon as something is identified for cutting (like the military), everyone starts to complain.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ed whowannaknow
If u fav a comment, plz comment!
11:25 PM on 02/14/2012
and republicans were the ones who set cut targets. And refuse to raise taxes on the mega rich who pay far lower percentage taxes then middle class. I hate to see military cuts. I directly blame teapublicans
04:54 PM on 02/14/2012
I'm begining to wonder where his allegians lies.
04:31 PM on 02/14/2012
Why haven't all these countries attacked us,because we know where they are and what they are up to,relax people,we buff up our security period,we are not going to need tankd outdated fighters outdated warships etc.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
rockymtnal
The spaces between your words make the most sense.
04:24 PM on 02/14/2012
In August, he was claiming that any further cuts in the Defense budget would cripple the military and create holes in our national security. Today he says we can cut even more would have no significant impact. A true politician!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joe w2
Love is All, everything else is Commentary
04:22 PM on 02/14/2012
To All who have been decrying cuts to our Nation's Vets w/ this new Budget. This Dept of Defense Budget Is Not the VA Budget. Get your facts straight before mindlessly harping about what an insult / impact this new DoD Budget is to Our Vets. The Veterans Admin. is a separate Department with its own Budget.
According to the VA website, ' The Department’s resource request for 2013 is $140.3 billion. This includes almost $64 billion in discretionary resources and nearly $16.4 billion in mandatory funding. Our discretionary budget request represents an increase of $2.7 billion, or nearly 4.5 percent, over the 2012 enacted level'. Enough of the mindless quasi-patriotic chest-thumping!
05:06 PM on 02/14/2012
Obviously you can't read or understand what you read!
The Article stated: While military personnel still would get a 1.7 percent pay raise, retirees would get hit with a series of increases in health care fees, co-pays and deductibles. The impact would be greater on those who are under 65 and are likely to have another job, as well as on those who make more money.
To increase health care fees, co-pays, and deductibles for retirees is an insult to those who have served and were promised other wise!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joe w2
Love is All, everything else is Commentary
12:10 AM on 02/17/2012
I totally blew through that paragraph and missed the point.I was wrong & hope you will pardon my negligence, my most sincere apologies...jw
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joe w2
Love is All, everything else is Commentary
12:25 AM on 02/17/2012
I completely breezed through that paragraph, and totally missed the point. Please pardon the error, and accept my most sincere apology...jw
06:38 PM on 02/14/2012
Hey Joe, are you implying the veterans are not taking it on the chin? We have many more vets because of the Middle East. Insurance and co-pays are going up A LOT. Check the declining benefits and increases in cost of declining benefits before you start calling people morons.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joe w2
Love is All, everything else is Commentary
12:13 AM on 02/17/2012
I totally blew right through, and completely missed the point of cost increases and decreased benefits. My profound apologies, pardon me...jw