Lankan Ranger
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Messages
- 12,550
- Reaction score
- 0
Panetta Paints Dire Future as Warning Against Cuts
With time running out on the supercommittee's clock, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has provided lawmakers with a detailed forecast of what he thinks could happen to the Defense Department under sequestration.
In a Nov. 14 letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Panetta provides new information on what would happen in 2013 and beyond if the supercommittee fails and across-the-board cuts are applied to the Pentagon.
The Budget Control Act that Congress passed in August created the 12-member supercommittee and tasked it with identifying $1.2 trillion to reduce the federal deficit. The law set a Nov. 23 deadline for the panel to reach an agreement. If the committee fails or Congress is unable to approve the plan by the end of the year, roughly $1.2 trillion in spending cuts would be enforced beginning in 2013.
Panetta urges the committee to reach a deal to avoid bigger defense cuts, but his letter is likely to energize the efforts of McCain and Graham to write legislation that would exempt and/or protect the Pentagon from sequestration.
Last week, President Barack Obama told leaders of the supercommittee that he would oppose any effort that would subvert the automatic cuts, saying they were put in place for a reason: to get the committee members to compromise and reach a deal. With that threat gone, the committee may not have the motivation to act.
Panetta says that the more than $450 billion the Pentagon is already cutting from its projected 10-year budget requires the department to "take some risks, but they are manageable."
Sequestration, on the other hand, would harm the military services and disrupt the Pentagon's plans beginning in 2013.
It would hit the Pentagon particularly hard because the law, as currently written, does not allow the department to decide how to distribute the cuts.
Under maximum sequestration, with the president exercising his authority to exempt military personnel, defense spending would face a 23 percent reduction in 2013, according to Panetta.
"Under current law, that 23 percent reduction would have to be applied equally to each major investment and construction program," Panetta writes. "Such a large cut, applied in this indiscriminate manner, would render most our ship and construction projects unexecutable - you cannot buy three quarters of a ship or a building - and seriously damage other modernization efforts."
The Pentagon would also have to consider laying-off and furloughing civilians, he writes.
Under the worst case scenario, the Pentagon would have to consider cuts to major weapons programs, Panetta says, and cites the Joint Strike Fighter, the Navy's P-8 Poseidon aircraft, the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle and Navy ships as examples.
"Reductions would delay receipt of capability and drive up unit costs," he tells lawmakers.
In an attachment to his letter, Panetta provides more details on what would happen to the military under this worst-case scenario.
If the sequestration cuts are applied over the next 10 years, a highly unlikely scenario given the upcoming election, they would result in the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest fleet of ships since 1915, and the smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force, Panetta says.
Panetta Paints Dire Future as Warning Against Cuts - Defense News
With time running out on the supercommittee's clock, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has provided lawmakers with a detailed forecast of what he thinks could happen to the Defense Department under sequestration.
In a Nov. 14 letter to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Panetta provides new information on what would happen in 2013 and beyond if the supercommittee fails and across-the-board cuts are applied to the Pentagon.
The Budget Control Act that Congress passed in August created the 12-member supercommittee and tasked it with identifying $1.2 trillion to reduce the federal deficit. The law set a Nov. 23 deadline for the panel to reach an agreement. If the committee fails or Congress is unable to approve the plan by the end of the year, roughly $1.2 trillion in spending cuts would be enforced beginning in 2013.
Panetta urges the committee to reach a deal to avoid bigger defense cuts, but his letter is likely to energize the efforts of McCain and Graham to write legislation that would exempt and/or protect the Pentagon from sequestration.
Last week, President Barack Obama told leaders of the supercommittee that he would oppose any effort that would subvert the automatic cuts, saying they were put in place for a reason: to get the committee members to compromise and reach a deal. With that threat gone, the committee may not have the motivation to act.
Panetta says that the more than $450 billion the Pentagon is already cutting from its projected 10-year budget requires the department to "take some risks, but they are manageable."
Sequestration, on the other hand, would harm the military services and disrupt the Pentagon's plans beginning in 2013.
It would hit the Pentagon particularly hard because the law, as currently written, does not allow the department to decide how to distribute the cuts.
Under maximum sequestration, with the president exercising his authority to exempt military personnel, defense spending would face a 23 percent reduction in 2013, according to Panetta.
"Under current law, that 23 percent reduction would have to be applied equally to each major investment and construction program," Panetta writes. "Such a large cut, applied in this indiscriminate manner, would render most our ship and construction projects unexecutable - you cannot buy three quarters of a ship or a building - and seriously damage other modernization efforts."
The Pentagon would also have to consider laying-off and furloughing civilians, he writes.
Under the worst case scenario, the Pentagon would have to consider cuts to major weapons programs, Panetta says, and cites the Joint Strike Fighter, the Navy's P-8 Poseidon aircraft, the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle and Navy ships as examples.
"Reductions would delay receipt of capability and drive up unit costs," he tells lawmakers.
In an attachment to his letter, Panetta provides more details on what would happen to the military under this worst-case scenario.
If the sequestration cuts are applied over the next 10 years, a highly unlikely scenario given the upcoming election, they would result in the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest fleet of ships since 1915, and the smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force, Panetta says.
Panetta Paints Dire Future as Warning Against Cuts - Defense News
