The Army documents the cuts expected from the sequester

From Gretchen:

And here is the article referenced:

Army lays out state-by-state cuts in report

Tom Vanden Brook – USA Today – Posted : Tuesday Feb 19, 2013 18:21:57 EST

The Army estimates automatic budget cuts scheduled to take effect March 1 will have a $15 billion economic impact and affect more than 300,000 jobs nationwide, according to documents obtained by USA Today.

Hardest hit states include Texas, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Among the least affected: Delaware, Wyoming, Montana and Rhode Island.

The military faces $500 billion in budget cuts over 10 years from sequestration — automatic budget cuts. The Army anticipates that it will need to slash $18 billion in spending by the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30.

“It reaffirms what we have continued to say about the serious implications that sequestration will have on our national defense and broader economic well-being,” said Mike Amato, a spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

More at the link; the Army document can be found here.

Your Editor does not particularly like the form of the sequester, but he certainly likes the amount, and only wishes that it were significantly larger. Far less should be cut from the military, and far more from domestic spending programs, but regardless of from which programs the cuts are to be made, cutting federal spending is essential.

14 Comments

  1. Unlike some conservatives, I’m not sure the military cuts are any big deal. Just how big does our military need to be, anyway? The war in Iraq is won, and there are no enemies of significance on the horizon.

    Our military spending should be based on the following two criteria:

    1. What do we want our military to do?

    2. How much money is worth spending to do it?

    Those should be the driving factors, not concerns about “Cuts” in a military that may already be much too big for what we actually need it to do.

  2. Well, Eric, first of all the “cuts” aren’t really cuts. They’re cuts in growth. They are screwing with our brains again and still getting away with it. But I do agree we could use major real cuts in defense. I’d start by cutting our defense of other countries. Screw’em, they gotta pay to play or they’re on their own. Period. I’d cut all foreign US bases save at the 38th in Korea because the North is still a viable threat ( and I would present the S. Korean government with an annual bill for said defense ) and needed Naval bases around the world to refuel our warships. We do not need ground troops in fifty countries.

    However, I do not agree with your funding criteria:

    1. What do we want our military to do?

    2. How much money is worth spending to do it?

    Because we already know what we want our military to do: defend our country and attain Victory when it is engaged. And we also know it’s worth any amount of money to do that. But in our high tech world “boots on the ground” is the last thing I want to see. I like the idea of killing the enemy from Langley.

    Which brings me to my own criteria for funding:

    1. Providing the most modern equipment available to the fewest ground troops needed.

    2. Developing the most modern and destructive weapons on land, sea and air ever devised.

    3. Creating an environment where any potential enemy will understand we will bring Hell down on them and risk very little to ourselves.

    4. Develope a missle defense system which is inpregnable and a Missle Offense System which is horrifying.

    5. Defining the Rules of Engagement to include men, women, children, pets, farm animals and cockroaches. Nothing lives! Oh, and we hit the Leaders FIRST! ( I found in Vietnam that killing the officers was very effective ). Answer me, would we have had the Second Gulf War if we had slaughtered Hussein and Sons right off in the First Gulf War? Kill all the leaders and negotiate surrender with the captain of the high school football team.

    War is not supposed to be clean and if there ever was Glory and Honor in it those days are long gone thanks to terrorism. The more horrible we can make war for the enemy, the less apt he is to engage in it. And when the enemy does not wear a uniform, they all become targets.

  3. Hoagie wrote:

    Answer me, would we have had the Second Gulf War if we had slaughtered Hussein and Sons right off in the First Gulf War?

    The elder President Bush’s greatest mistake. He took the advice of the experts, who told him that there was just no way Saddam Hussein could politically survive the terrible beating he just took. Perhaps if President Bush had thought President Hussein would survive in power, he’d have continued the war for just one more stinkin’ day and finished off the Ba’athists.

  4. Our Editor said: “Perhaps if President Bush had thought President Hussein would survive in power……”

    That’s why I never left anything to chance. I saw an enemy, I killed an enemy. I didn’t leave him for someone else to kill. How many more of Our soldiers died because he left Saddam alive? I wouldn’t have, even if I had to do it myself. And rest assured, any enemy I came across never had the opportunity to kill one of ours again.

    In battle you’re not fighting for your country, you’re fighting for the guy next to you, or behind you or the guy just leaving the States to join you. You kill the enemy so they will live.

  5. 2. Developing the most modern and destructive weapons on land, sea and air ever devised.

    As far as “Destructive” goes, it’s hard to beat the atom bomb. And we’ve had those since 1945.

  6. The more horrible we can make war for the enemy, the less apt he is to engage in it.

    I had thought about a month ago that maybe we should go back to using napalm, only this time on terrorists. Hard to think of a weapon more frightening than that.

  7. The elder President Bush’s greatest mistake. He took the advice of the experts, who told him that there was just no way Saddam Hussein could politically survive the terrible beating he just took. Perhaps if President Bush had thought President Hussein would survive in power, he’d have continued the war for just one more stinkin’ day and finished off the Ba’athists.

    Actually, if I recall correctly, the problem was that, as a condition of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War, Saddam’s generals asked that they be allowed to keep using their helicopters. The reason given was that, since we had blown up so many of their roads and bridges, it was the only way they could get around.

    Shortly thereafter, the Shi’ites in the south and the Kurds in the north rebelled. This was our golden opportunity to aid the resistance and use them to topple Saddam, but we failed to do so (Bush’s greatest error) and further, Saddam used those helicopters as gunships tp put down the rebellion. As a result, we lost a great deal of goodwill among the oppressed peoples of Iraq, such that, when we finally did liberate the country 12 years later, they didn’t exactly greet us with wine and roses.

  8. I’d cut much more from domestic and far less from the military, but the cuts have to be made!

    Good luck with that! No one has been able to successfully cut government in 80 years, going back to FDR’s first term. The Dems have so successfully sold the notion that we need to be dependent on government that breaking the voters’ lips from the federal teat is next to impossible.

  9. The ARMY and NAVY are to be funded. Obamacare is not liable to be funded by the Constitution. I wish Congress had the BALLS to fund the military and screw all things not mentioned in this document to be NOT FUNDED. But that’s like asking the sun to rise in the WEST!

    ARTICLE 1 US Constitution
    Section 8

    12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

    14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

  10. Pingback: Economics 101: When you have less money to spend, you will spend less money. Unless, of course, you are the federal government. « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Comments are closed.