February 20th, 2013
01:37 PM ET

Military shows Congress where mandatory cuts will hit home

By Mike Mount

Having warned about freezing weapons systems and risks to national security, the armed services are now trying to show members of Congress exactly how mandatory budget cuts will impact their states.

Just days before the forced spending cuts could begin to take effect, the Army and Navy are circulating estimates about which areas will be economically hit the hardest.

In documents sent to Congress and obtained by CNN, both the Army and Navy lay out the impacts on the services and industry that would be hit by the measures that may go into effect starting March 1. The forced spending cuts, mandated by a 2011 agreement to raise the federal debt ceiling, will take effect unless lawmakers come up with another deficit reduction plan.

Pentagon warns Congress of coming furloughs

The Army estimates that the cuts, known in Washington jargon as sequestration, will have a $15 billion economic impact across the country and affect more than 300,000 jobs nationwide.

The hardest hit states include Texas, Virginia and Pennsylvania, home to major Army facilities and industrial bases for the service.

The Army anticipates it will need to slash $18 billion in spending by the end of this fiscal year, ending September 30.

If the spending cuts are carried out, the Army would be required to furlough 251,000 of its civilian employees. It estimates that would save it $1.9 billion through the end of September.

According to the Navy documents, the hardest hit regions will coincide with the location of major Navy facilities in California, the Mid-Atlantic, Florida, Washington state, parts of the Northeast and Hawaii.

McKeon and Inhofe: Forced budget cuts a disaster for military

The Navy anticipates it will need to slash about $12 billion in spending by the end of this fiscal year. The impact would affect more than 300,000 sailors with cuts to Navy operational programs and cost some 186,000 Navy civilians 20% of their paychecks though furloughs.

Ahead of the congressional notification, at least three Air Force bases have cut their publicly popular annual air shows - one each in Arizona, Virginia and South Carolina. Air Force officials said the cuts were due to "budgetary-related issues" and the looming possibility of the forced spending cuts.

Air shows can cost an air base a minimum of $100,000, according to Air Force officials. If the sequestration does hit, both the Air Force air demonstration team, known as the Thunderbirds, and the Navy's air demonstration team, known as the Blue Angels, would stop operations for the rest of the year.

Why Congress doesn't seemed concerned about looming cuts

Post by:
Filed under: Congress • Military
soundoff (171 Responses)
  1. Same Here

    What part of "BROKE" don't we understand???? WHO is going to bail out the US Govt??

    August 11, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Reply
  2. shooter

    We are all in the same mess. The only way out of this mess is EVERYBODY in USA chips in and support America. Rich people can afford to help more and less fortunate people contribute according to their take home money.
    We need to stop supporting third world countries and close all overseas military bases. We can no longer play the role of the world police anymore.
    Everybody should take a pay cut and support USA.

    August 8, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Reply
    • Army Vet

      Why should anyone be willing to take a pay cut when Congress shows their example by exempting themselves from Obama Care and giving themselves a raise and no pay cuts. Lead by example. That is what is wrong with our Country is greed. No the middle class shoulder's all pay cuts. The poor can't pay and the rich won't. Go look somewhere else.
      Middle class takes the hit every time something comes up. The seniors carry the rest.

      August 9, 2013 at 11:25 pm | Reply
  3. Steve Lyons

    Obama should be forced to work for NO PAY ! ! ! As should ALL OF CONGRESS and their good for nothing staff.

    August 7, 2013 at 10:53 pm | Reply
    • Phyllis LeCuru Ryan

      I agree with you 100 %, Steve. This is where the present administration has put us. Guess while we're worrying about it the Obummers will just take ANOTHER vacation, that we can pay for.

      August 8, 2013 at 12:21 am | Reply
      • Salty Bob

        Your nuts Phyllis LeCuru Ryan Obama wanted to stave off the cuts, But the Tea bummers in CONGRESS and their good for nothing staff wanted to make the country suffer and blame the Obama administration on the effects of those
        cuts. Over the past 20 years the republican party has spent, spent, spent, now were in this mess I could be fixed if the Tea Bummers would get the hell out of the way.

        August 8, 2013 at 8:59 am |
      • Nexant

        I really do not care about either of your parties I just vote for who I think will get the job done or is at least lying the least. I have friends in the DoI as I was a Ranger in college. They had strict instructions from the White House in some of the major parks that despite the fact they could solve budget cuts in some parks they were required to have restricted services for Americans to feel the issue which lends credit to me that both sides stupidly played the middle trying to make ye of little minds to blame the other party you are brain washed to follow like a cult.

        August 8, 2013 at 10:17 am |
  4. Sly

    Republicans just don't have the guts to make the tough choices we need. They are cowards.

    All during the election, all we heard from the gutless cowards was "Obama=Big Government – we NEED to cut government spending". These wussies even created a new Party the TeaBillies, to cut government.

    Then, the wussies got their panties handed to them by the American people, and guess what? Now they DONT want any government spending cuts – they want BIGGER government.

    Fools. You will lose. Our President won, and he will win again, and the American people will FINALLY get over the huge spending deficits created by the Bush's. (Yes, deficit has skyrocketed under Republicans in the past 20 years, and less under the Democratic Presidents).

    February 21, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Reply
  5. Sly

    Easy to cut our defence spending – most of it goes right into corrupt bankers hands.
    We spend more than the rest of the world put together.

    Time to go off the fiscal cliff and reduce our government. Amazing, me a liberal agreeing with Tea Party beliefs that we have too big a government, and too big a debt.

    This is a no-brainer, and by the way, this is the solution the Republican Congress proposed.

    I for one am tired of an America that has bombed and invaded 25 nations in 30 years. THAT is what our military spending is for – to attack Iraq, Afghanization, Libya, Vietnam etc... All for money.

    February 21, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Reply
    • Army Vet

      Would you rather them come over here and destroy us. That is why we have a strong military to protect us from invasion on our soil. So we take a look at your thinking, if we don't go over and destroy rogue countries in advance of the evil that wants us destroyed then we will be the battlefield of the future. Hope we continue to have a strong military
      and continue building the advanced weapons that will protect us.

      August 9, 2013 at 11:35 pm | Reply
  6. TSB8C

    Remember that Obama proposed these cuts and then signed them into law back in the summer of 2011 to get an increase in the money he could borrow. He then defended these cuts in Nov 2011 when he stated "there will be no off ramp" for the cuts and that he would "not support any attempt to cancel" these cuts. He has not proposed any measurable alternatives of what he would rather cut back on to replace the "across the board" cuts with other managed cuts instead. He made this mess, let him fix it.

    February 21, 2013 at 11:54 am | Reply
    • El Flaco

      1. Republicans proposed the sequester.
      2. Democrats opposed the sequester.
      3. Republicans threatened to default on the national debt unless Democrats caved.
      4. Democrats caved and went along with it.
      5. Today, Republicans support the sequester.
      6. Today, Democrats oppose the sequester.

      February 21, 2013 at 12:10 pm | Reply
    • S1N

      It's the job of Congress to propose and pass legislation. The President can suggest or veto That's about it, numb nuts.

      February 21, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Reply
  7. Al

    Sounds like it's time to let the civilians go, and allow the defenders of the country to do the job. After all it would cost the tax payers less to pay the military person than the civilian, and that way those who are active duty and coming back will still be employed.

    February 21, 2013 at 11:53 am | Reply
    • El Flaco

      Why should we pay civilian employees more than active duty employees?

      February 21, 2013 at 12:11 pm | Reply
    • Mike in Seattle

      Funny stuff. So replace the civilian positions with military. That requires a big increase in recruiting across the board. Who fills the senior civilian positions? You have to recruit more civilians to fill the military ranks to support your idea. Also, keep in mind that the military benefits include basic pay, housing expenses, all medical paid for, travel benefits, etc. More expensive than a civilian which is exactly why a lot of shore billets have been converted to civilian. Do some homework next time.

      February 21, 2013 at 12:13 pm | Reply
      • JB

        Right on Mike, I also think they should do some homework into this. After totally all the benifits up to include retirement, it costs a whole lot less to hire and maintain a civilian than thier military counter part. Some of the people on these post just amaze me with the comments they make with no prior knowledge of reality.

        February 21, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
      • muzets

        I live across the water from you and I DO work for the navy AND I work in a financial/budget office. I just love it when someone who has no clue comments on military costs. You have it correct, it is way more expensive to pay for active duty members as compared to civilians. What people don't realize is that a sailor/soldier usually comes with a family. The DoD spends millions on care of that family as a holistic approach to care for the military member. The military also deploys often and so there is major support given to the family members left behind. Add that to just the cost of recruiting and then training military members to do the job of civilians and again you are talking millions. Add to the fact that the majority of the ranks of the military are under 30. They come with no skills and a lack of wisdom and maturity as compared to the average middle aged civilian. We also pay to move that military member every 2-4 years as well as their family. Civilians stay put. There is no comparision between the two-it will always be cheaper to have civilians provide the support system for the DoD.

        February 21, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
  8. mike

    The waste is amazing. We are not being invaded and a Military is not the only basis for an economy. We will survive with less stuff that kills.

    February 21, 2013 at 11:02 am | Reply
  9. Karen McCormick

    Having served in the military and having seen that many civilian employees do little, have a "you can't fire me" mentality, my guess is that letting a quarter million civilian employees will have a negligible effect on our forces.

    February 21, 2013 at 10:08 am | Reply
    • El Flaco

      Conservatives on these blogs call active duty military and military retirees "double-dipping welfare bums who could not get a job in the real world."

      You can expect Conservatives to want to start cutting military pensions and military hospitals.

      February 21, 2013 at 10:54 am | Reply
    • Mike in Seattle

      I served 26 years in the Navy. You can apply that same criticism to active duty members. The majority of active duty and civilians perform their jobs well. Sorry you had the unfortunate luck to work with those few who drag everyone else down.

      February 21, 2013 at 11:34 am | Reply
    • Mark D

      Sorry to hear that Karen, I have worked for the Navy for 32 years, faithfully. I dont just collect a check. I work hard to support my family and I dont appreciate the beatdown by clueless people like you. Let me tell you how it works: I am an aircraft structural examiner (civilian) at a Navy base on the east coast. My skills were honed and sharpened during years of training and hard work to get this far. The aircraft from the squadrons that I inspect are poorly maintained by the enlisted Navy personnel and it's my job to ensure during their overhaul period that they are returned safe for flight and all structural defects are corrected. You dont honestly think that these undertrained young people are going to have the extensive knowledge of aircraft systems. The military just doesnt have time to train them for that. There are many ways to cut waste here at DOD but doing it on the backs of those of us who have worked so hard for our country wont cut it. For those who think all of us have high paying jobs and great benefits, forget it. I'm making less than you think I do. If I was doing this job for the money, I wouldn't have chosen this career path. I do this because I love my country and want it to be safe from our enemies. It is the people in congress (both parties) and our president who have failed us here. So Karen, next time you want to give the beatdown on us remember one thing, we are all going to suffer for the fail ed leadership in Washington D.C. Mark my words on that.

      February 21, 2013 at 11:35 am | Reply
      • Bob Green

        Mark D,

        Thanks for your hard work. I've been working for the Navy for 36 years and earn my paycheck as you do. I spent the first 30 years on active duty and the last six as a DOD civilian. The Navy pays folks like you and me for our knowledge and experience. I'll suck up the coming 20 percent pay cut due to furlough with knowledge that readiness will suffer greater than my personal finances.

        Folks who post claiming DOD employees are lazy are guilty of painting with a broad brush. The majority of DOD employees are knowledgable, hardworking people dedicated to serving our great nation!

        February 21, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
      • JB

        Bob G,

        Thank you very much for your service. The one thing I would like to point out is that a 20 Percent reduction in you DOD Civilian pay although harsh would probably not affect you to much as you are also collecting a military pension, that after thirty years is well deserved. However, the people that do not have the military pensions are the ones that will feel this the most.

        JB

        February 21, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
  10. Linda

    Screw OVOMIT!. He AGREED to this sequester so he could get the debt ceiling raised so he could keep spending our money. NOW he says it's not a good idea. WHAT A FRIGGIN IDIOT WE HAVE AS A PRESIDENT. GOD i HATE HIM!!!!!!!

    February 21, 2013 at 9:54 am | Reply
    • El Flaco

      I think it would be more consistent with traditional Conservative family values if Conservative women would stick to their housework and let their husbands speak for the family.

      February 21, 2013 at 10:52 am | Reply
      • mike

        ZING!

        February 21, 2013 at 11:03 am |
      • IowaConnie

        Stupid Comment.

        February 21, 2013 at 11:03 am |
  11. confused

    I am confused as to how everyone is getting off on this tangent of Military cuts. If you have done any research at all, you will notice that the furloughs ONLY pertain to DOD civilian employees, not Active duty military personnel. DOD employees have not had a pay raise in over 3 years and there has been a hiring freeze in effect for 2 years. Now I know there are those of you out there that think that ALL DOD civilians sit around collecting fat paychecks for doing little work and that may be the case for some but like with any job, its not the case with all of us. I am a veteran of the US Army and proudly served my country for 8 years active duty. I was then a contractor for the Army for 8 years and am have been a DOD employee for 5 years. I am an emergency essential, deployable employee. This means that I go where the Soldiers go. I go for a MANDATORY 6 months at a time. I had to sign a transportation agreement when I got this job stating that I would move and deploy at the needs of the Army or I would NO LONGER HAVE A JOB! If anyone else has ever served in the military, you know this is the same type of agreement you sign AS A SOLDIER. I am sick and tired of hearing everyone whine about how its time that DOD Civilians get cut, they dont do anything anyway. Stop stereotyping. Not everyone bleeds the system dry. Some of us still support our troops as Civilians in the same type of crappy living conditions, away from our families, without pay raises, still trying to be the best mommies and daddies that we can, etc, etc AND we dont complain about it. We deal with it. We deal with it when they say we are going to have to take 22 days of mandatory unpaid leave this year because our government, whom we work for, cant afford to pay us. Its just what we do. Stop trolling. Stop trying to insight anger. BE HUMAN! Where has the humanity gone in the United States?? People dont even act like they care about anyone anymore. Its completely disgusting.

    February 21, 2013 at 8:58 am | Reply
    • Pete

      I am a veteran also, and I hate to see the DOD cut funds for the military. But, instead of cutting funding here in the USA, why not close the bases overseas that really have no impact, other than the economic impact that foreign city will feel. A lot of these bases overseas were opened after WW 2. We kept them open because of the Cold War. I was stationed at 2 bases that were intelligence gathering bases. Now that the Cold War is over, it's time to close these bases up. Most of the intelligence gathering missions, thanks to new technology, are being performed right here int the States.

      February 21, 2013 at 9:42 am | Reply
      • Dean

        An E6 in Heidelberg Germany gets an OHA allowance of up to $2550.00 per month to live off base. Maybe we could ask him to live on the base.

        February 21, 2013 at 10:24 am |
      • TheMan

        I've had similar money-saving ideas. As a airman in the dorms, I can say that they can get rid of the dfac. Nobody eats there, it's disgusting, and they could save money by just giving us BAS- the same amount we would spend on a meal- and shutting down the facility. Increased morale + more money= one happy fellow.

        March 6, 2013 at 2:57 am |
    • Karen McCormick

      If you're an actual worker, we support you. And thank you for your service both in the military and as a civilian. But still, we could cut the 'non-workers' and feel little effect. Which is a great idea. If GS employees new they could actually be let go, maybe more would be like you!

      February 21, 2013 at 10:11 am | Reply
      • OldNavy

        The problem with cutting the "non-workers" is that many of them are represented by labor unions. Now it could cost more to terminate a bad employee than it does to just carry them. Corporate America finally started to figure out that unions were killing them so they sunk their teeth into the government sector...which this administration fully supports.

        February 21, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
      • Sarah

        Karen, the same could be said for deadbeat soldiers. It's not just civilians that can be lazy and suck up a paycheck. There are quality DOD civilians just as there are quality Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines still proudly serving. It's time to cut the fat whether we like it or not. Unfortunately the Army will be suffering the loss of some of these quality people and the experience and knowledge they have to offer.

        February 21, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
  12. carlos

    Buck Ofama!

    February 21, 2013 at 8:17 am | Reply
    • DanBun

      Helpful comment....

      February 21, 2013 at 9:35 am | Reply
  13. are122

    Hopefully the cuts will be deep enough to pay the unemployment and welfare of those cut.

    February 21, 2013 at 7:15 am | Reply
    • Natch

      Depends on how the furloughs are done, actually. Federal workers (at least, those working for the Air Force) are being told they'll be furloughed up to 22 days, between now and the end of this fiscal year (September 30th). That's 22 work days, or approximately one full month.

      If the furloughed days occur all at once, they'll qualify for unemployment benefits.

      However, the government could also elect to have them take one furlough day per week, for 22 straight weeks. That means, in effect, that they would all work 32 hour weeks, and take a 20% cut in their gross pay. More importantly, since they're still employed, they would NOT qualify for unemployment benefits.

      It's entirely possible that the government feels that the best way to control costs will be to do the one day per week furlough, since then they won't have to pay out unemployment benefits. Nice way to stick it to your own employees, isn't it??

      February 21, 2013 at 7:32 am | Reply
      • Andy

        Every single civilian employee from the military I know (many... very very many) is grossly overpaid just like practically every other government employee. I served in the military; there is a metric crap ton of waste that can be cut. If combat capabilities suffer due to these cuts that must happen across the board (civilian and military, non-military spending, etc), it is the fault of the leadership of each branch for not recognizing that we don't need to spend 10 billion dollars on a terrible Army uniform that had to be replaced, 500 million dollars on ships that don't work, and silly ceremonial and parade units (bands, etc) that do NOTHING to help bolser our combat capabilities.

        February 21, 2013 at 8:13 am |
    • nclaw441

      Just a reminder– there ARE no real cuts, only reductions in the rate of future spending. No department will receive less after the sequester than before it. If I am wrong, please provide before/after sequester numbers (not %).

      February 21, 2013 at 9:23 am | Reply
  14. Gary in Maine

    As a federal worker, I am apalled by the total disregard for the american people that is being shown by the GOP/Tea Nuts. These out of touch nut job lawmakers, have absolutely no idea what our government really does. Our nation's problems are not the people, but corporate greed.
    Where I work, the vast majority of us are veterans from every branch working together, all with security clearences. We are all law abiding citizens, tax paying citizens, middle class citizens, all dedicated to our country, and to the young people now serving in our military. From what I have see, the people are aour greatest asset, our problem is the contracts to these huge companies that charge us astronomical prices for the smallest of things. Bloated contracts that just fatten the wallets of the super rich.

    From a former republican, I am absolutely sickened by what the GOP has become.

    February 21, 2013 at 6:29 am | Reply
    • Dean

      As a federal worker does it bother you that we have to borrow about half of your salary from China to pay you?

      February 21, 2013 at 10:26 am | Reply
      • Shawn

        No, but it bothers me that we are borrowing from China because we are giving away billions of dollars in Welfare to other countries!

        February 21, 2013 at 11:35 am |
  15. Beefburger

    What would save the most money is to weed out shifty contractors and parts suppliers. Every time you turn around you see some greedy bassard bilking the U.S. taxpayer for Million$.

    February 21, 2013 at 6:07 am | Reply
  16. John

    I am retired from the military. I served in every conflict America had from 1984 until 2006. During most of my time in service military members were forced to live as service members should. For example doing details around the buildings, picking up trash, doing yard work, painting and cleaning common areas. In fact, this was the image of the military that kept people away from joining, Even so the military was strong disaplined. We called all these tasks character building!
    We also used every available moment Mon – Fri Training. Training and More Training. Physical training, Technical and tactical. every day. In the workplace or in the field. Money was always an issue. There were times when we deployed to the parking lot and played war games there. Our leaders knew the value of training.. I can say it was often frustrating the amount of training we did. But this was how things were until the era of GW Bush and Co.

    I am proud of our boys and girls who fight for us. But there is a diferent standard now. Now contractors do all the cleaning and yard work. I go into the base once or twice a week and I never see any soldiers soldiering, marching drilling, training using space and time effectively to get the know-how.

    Just driving around an army base today you can see the differences from my cold war and after time frame. the young soldiers are driving new sports cars, familys have SUVs and many more children. These are all indicators of a well paid force. The soldiers also get 1 four day weekend a month and early release on thursdays so they can have family time. Great perks. So nobody should be complaining.

    With the ending of our two newest wars there should be no shock that cutbacks are coming. Replace those civilian workers that were hired so soldiers can deploy. Get the soldiers working save money and build character!

    February 21, 2013 at 2:23 am | Reply
    • mike987789

      Your right, we need to cut the contractors that work at bases around the world. It is 1. rediculous what they make and 2. they are not needed. They were emplaced simply because we were fighting two wars. One war is over and the second is winding down. Get rid of the contractors and have soldiers do the job as we did in the past and when I say past I mean 80's and 90's, your were expected to do KP, Guard Duty, Police Call, Maintenance etc..., Now we pay civilians 80-120,000 a year for these services. Its criminal.

      February 21, 2013 at 4:12 am | Reply
      • FactCheck

        Your impressions of contractors is far off. First thing is that it was under the Republican run Congress in the late 90s that the military shifted much of its civilian force from DOD Civilian employees to contractors for many of the same tasks. This was proposed as a cost-cutting strategy, though I've always found it hard to believe that employing the same number of people with similar benefits but having to pay a company's profit would be cost-saving. Second, the amount the US government pays to contractors goes to cover their salary and benefit, and is often on par with what a DOD Civilian will make ( when you factor in benefits and profit to the company–but that's from the above sentence). Many actual contractors tend to make less in salary and benefits than DOD civilians after their company takes out their "fair" share of profit. What astounds me is that many contracting companies to the DOD get paid for overhead costs (like electricity, heat, water for the building that their employees work in, yet many of their employees spend much of their time on government facilities). That's the real fraud, waste and abuse. But then, contracting out jobs was supposed to be cost-cutting.

        February 21, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    • Nathan Murph

      I should of joined the army then. Wow a 4 day weekend and sports car pay?
      I Think you are delusional. I am in the navy, and i work 12 hours a day monday through friday. I only got one hour off prior to christmas. my last four day weekend was for christmas, but then again I had duty too. Oh yeah this is shore duty, i am not even deployed to a ship.

      February 21, 2013 at 5:01 am | Reply
      • John

        Could be that I lost my marbles.... but if you read Soldiers (Army)... I never mentioned the other services. The Navy, Air Force and Marines have a job todo outside of fighting a war. When soldiers (Army) are not deployed or training they should be doing something? or? With contractors doing most of the maintenance and details what do soldiers (Army) do?
        With huge sign up bonuses etc it is nowonder they have cash.

        February 21, 2013 at 5:42 am |
  17. John Smith

    America is the root of all terror. America has invaded sixty countries since world war 2.
    In 1953 America overthrow Iran's democratic government Mohammad Mosaddegh and installed a brutal dictator Shah. America helped Shah of Iran to establish secret police and killed thousands of Iranian people.
    During Iran-Iraq war evil America supported Suddam Hossain and killed millions of Iranian people. In 1989, America, is the only country ever, shot down Iran's civilian air plane, killing 290 people.
    In 2003,America invaded Iraq and killed 1,000,000+ innocent Iraqi people and 4,000,000+ Iraqi people were displaced.
    Now America is a failed state with huge debt. Its debt will be 22 trillion by 2015.

    February 21, 2013 at 1:19 am | Reply
    • bppbbd

      Tell it like it is man......You really told the truth.

      February 21, 2013 at 2:09 am | Reply
  18. DAVE

    i hope the cuts will be deep enough to stop us from being the worlds police force. we have better things to spend our money on than letting the western world get off as cheap as they are now. we don't have to be ready to fight 2 or 3 wars at a time we just need to be able to fight the war that defends our country only! the GOP hawks will just have to go through need for war withdraw cold turkey!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we don't have a spending problem as big as the problem on what we spend it on. 6 trillion down a sand hole in the middle east is enough of that BS. could have done the whole thing with special forces ans been out years ago!

    February 21, 2013 at 12:23 am | Reply
  19. Jack33

    The cuts aren't enough. With the US military spending putting us at greater than the next half of the world combined, we can afford to cut a lot more and still be more powerful than anyone by a long shot.
    We're tired of bankrupting ourselves in playing cop of the world for everyone.

    February 20, 2013 at 11:43 pm | Reply
    • Gary in Maine

      Jack, tell us about yourself. Are ex military or did you serve your contry in some other fashion? Are you self employed or a business owner? Do you consider yourself rich, (upper, middle, lower middle class), or one of the working poor?

      How would YOU, make cuts, and why?

      To be straight honest, your post decries the selfishness seen only the tea party.

      February 21, 2013 at 6:39 am | Reply
  20. JST

    Right on! Cutting military spending was way past due. I am happy that congress made the right choice on this. Hopefully, we can use the freed up money to lower the country's debt and to keep up spending on education. Finally, we can see some progress to make cuts we were hoping to see years ago.

    February 20, 2013 at 11:36 pm | Reply
  21. Capone

    Notice how defense spending seems to be the only cuts anyone cares about.

    Why worry about the cuts to Medicare that will hurt seniors?

    Why worry about the cuts to Medicaid that will hurt the working poor?

    Why worry about the cuts to Social Security that will hurt the disabled and the needy?

    February 20, 2013 at 10:17 pm | Reply
    • Andrew

      Because none of those things would matter if there wasn't a military...

      February 20, 2013 at 11:03 pm | Reply
    • Dragon 68

      Medicare, medicaid, and Social Security are considered mandatory programs, not discretionary spending. The cuts they are talking about only affect discretionary spending, which will hit the military, public broadcasting, education, parks and nature preserves, justice department, etc, etc. All of that represents less than 40% of federal spending. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid comprise over 60% of our annual budget. If you eliminated every "discretionary" program, we would barely balance our budget. So, If the Men and Women of our Armed Forces our Government Civilian Employees can make the sacrifices needed here, my question to you is, why can't everyone else? If we want to keep the services our government provides we need to increase taxes. If we want to keep taxes low, we have to cut government services and benefits.

      I am a National Guardsmen currently serving overseas, and when I am not deployed, I serve as a dual status technician. I go to work every day in my military uniform, performing the exact same duties as the Active Guard Soldiers I work with. When I return home later this spring, I face a 20% pay cut in my job due to the pending rolling furloughs (though the Active Guard Soldiers I work with will retain their full benefits and pay.) I have not had a pay scale increase in 3 years, while my counterparts have had regular pay increases. I am tired of taking it on the chin when others don't. But, I keep on serving. My work load will not decrease by 20% – I will just end up taking work home with me and doing it on my own time. Because if I don't, my next performance evaluation will ding me on reduced capacity. So, before you go criticizing the military and government workers, I ask you, have you ever actually seen the hours most of us put in every day?

      February 21, 2013 at 1:58 am | Reply
  22. Rightster

    "Wait until the troops come home?" That won't happen until "hell freezes over", as Adlai Stevenson told Nikita Khrushchev said.

    February 20, 2013 at 9:16 pm | Reply
  23. vincent

    funny people are saying the Republicans are forcing this on the poor President but didn't he just a few short months ago vow to veto any attempt to block the sequestration from happening?

    February 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm | Reply
    • NoBama_Flopper

      “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.” “There will be no easy off ramps on this one.,”

      – Barrack H. Obama, November 21, 2011

      February 20, 2013 at 10:38 pm | Reply
    • Gary in Maine

      The GOP/Tea nuts are. Though your quote is true, it is out of context. The president and Mr Bohner agreed to this plan, to force congress to work together. They wanted to make so unpallatable to the public as possible, so the lawmakers had absolutely no choice but to compromise. Neither the president nor Mr Bohner EVER intended the sequester to happen.
      The problem is that damn Norquist Pledge and the Tea Pary nutjobs will NOT compromise.

      February 21, 2013 at 6:45 am | Reply
      • JB

        Gary,

        I am guessing you are a liberal. Just for the recond, I am a registered independent, middle class, white male, U.S. Navy vet that has done 11 deployments. Oh and by the way was part of a PRECOM ship in Maine. Now currently working in the civilian sector. So you are saying that the GOP are the only one not wanting to strike any kind of deal? The DEMS have not submitted any reasonable bill that has the slightest chance of passing both houses. I am not saying that all parties including the President are not to blame because I think they all are to blame. I also think that if the american people are that upset about any of this, they should get out and vote when the primarys come in 2014. However, they might want to get smart and actually do some research this time prior to submitting thier vote. For clarity I DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA NOR WOULD I. But I have a hard time feeling smypathietic to an american people that got exactly what they voted for.

        JB

        February 21, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
  24. Chesty

    I'm glad this article felt the need to mention the Marine Corps, at all

    February 20, 2013 at 8:28 pm | Reply
    • Responder

      They already only have a few good men.

      Actually the Marine Corps is part of the Department of Navy, so their budget cuts are likely included with the Navy's.

      February 21, 2013 at 12:35 am | Reply
  25. Carol Jonnson

    We need less 5 grade republicans in congress and more that can count pass ten without taking off their shoes!!

    February 20, 2013 at 8:09 pm | Reply
  26. Dave in Arizona

    The irony, of course, is that most of the economic impact will come as a result of the military no longer sending funds to the private sector. You know? What Republicans hate seeing; tax payer money going to businesses with little to no visibility or say? But of course they're just fine with it if it's the military choosing where it goes...

    February 20, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Reply
  27. daigawn

    Foreign aid is where we need to be cutting. We're giving nations heaps of cash that hate our guts with no return on our investment in sight.

    February 20, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Reply
  28. Rob Y.

    The military needs to cut and cut a lot. I was in the navy and the waste was unbelievable. Cut some unneeded weapons programs, I'd review the entire military from the top down, I'd make up a panel that is completely safe from Congress and I'd be a cutting fool. I'd keep manpower at current levels, I'd keep platforms at current levels but I'd be a cuttin fool after that.

    February 20, 2013 at 7:20 pm | Reply
    • George Patton-2

      I wouldn't, Rob Y. We need to reduce all branches of the military. Let's turn our military bases in Germany over to the Germans, for instance. If the Germans are so adamant on having foreign troops on their soil, then let the Czechs, Hungarians and Poles man these bases or better yet, turn them over to the Italians!

      February 20, 2013 at 7:42 pm | Reply
      • joe doherty

        is this a real patton ? a real patton from hamilton mass. i don't think so i live two towns over from the pattons and i believe the grandson passed last year.

        February 20, 2013 at 8:44 pm |
      • JST

        I don't think the Germans are asking for any nations to put troops into Germany. They just have been there for so long that people got really used to having them around. But that's more an economic thing and the local cities would fairly quickly recover if they would leave...

        February 20, 2013 at 11:39 pm |
      • John

        Please! Think about this, we have troops in Germany, so the very clever german government can slash its defense spending. Most recently the closed over half of there bases in germany. Not just germany though all the EU nation rely on the US. Costs are astrinomical for the US. $500mil to stay in NATO per year and we supply 75% of all the defense. Who is dumb? I guess we are.

        February 21, 2013 at 6:03 am |
  29. Sophie

    Seems to me there is a time, and not a time, to talk about Military cuts, now is not the time, with troops over seas, wait until they return, would be the more appropiate "time". Remember, nothing but the best for the troops. Especially the USA troops. It goes with, the money talks and b/s walks. Our troops have been there for us and they should not have to accept any form of dishonorment. Cutting anything at all they need, is not acceptable. Wait until they are "home."

    February 20, 2013 at 7:17 pm | Reply
  30. M

    We need to start somewhere. This is a start. It stinks. But it needs to be done. We spend and employ a little to much for defense at the moment. Better here than education.

    February 20, 2013 at 7:02 pm | Reply
  31. Rightster

    When European countries have had economic problems we've told them to tighten their belts in order to obtain IMF loans. The chickens have come home to roost.

    February 20, 2013 at 6:43 pm | Reply
  32. omeany

    I don't have an issue with military cuts, we spend more there than we should as a nation and not very wisely. I am more concerned about cuts to Medicare, Social Security, education and job training.

    February 20, 2013 at 6:36 pm | Reply
    • Miquel

      You should be concerned with these cuts. These are not the same as making cuts when appropriate or over time. These cuts will have dramatic immediate impacts on the economy. With fewer people employed there will be fewer taxes and less money for Medicare, and the like.

      February 20, 2013 at 6:45 pm | Reply
    • Steven

      At face, I agree the Defense Budget is fair game for budget cuts. However, what's happening here is the difference between surgery and a blow with a hatchet.

      February 20, 2013 at 6:58 pm | Reply
  33. kenneypco

    Republicans agreed to this sequester betting they'd take the Senate and/or WH. So they agreed to military cuts in exchange for cuts in social programs thinking they could just undo the military cuts while leaving social program cuts in place.

    The military has to be like private sector and do more with less. The military CAN NOT ACCOUNT for BILLIONS of taxpayers money in Iraq. Now they want to hold national security hostage with cuts to essential operations while leaving non-producing overbudget civilian projects in place.

    February 20, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Reply
  34. Ord_Miller

    Boehner voted "yea."
    McConnell voted "yea"
    Obama signed it.

    Everything else is crocodile tears.

    February 20, 2013 at 6:26 pm | Reply
  35. tuscany590

    Destruction of the military happens every time there's a Democrat in the WH.

    February 20, 2013 at 6:20 pm | Reply
    • Wali

      The US spends more on its military than the next 13 (!) countries combined. How can anybody in their right mind think that some minor cuts will "destroy" the largest and most sophisticated military force in world history? It's hysterical reactions like yours that make rational debate about the overblown military budget so difficult.

      Finally, re your cheap shot at the Democrats: was it not Ike Eisenhower – Republican president and ex-general – who warned of the military-industrial complex?

      February 20, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Reply
    • greg693

      Try telling that to FDR.

      February 20, 2013 at 7:35 pm | Reply
  36. barbarianofgor

    Raise taxes on the rich. Start taxing income from investments and from stock trading. NYC has a sales tax, well tax any stock trades. They want to move outside the USA, fine, but they do business OUTSIDE the USA or face severe tariff.

    The only reason this country is so poor is that the rich elite have bled the country to enrich themselves. And it's not just hoarding the money, it's like punching a hole in a dam to power a tiny generator, costing the real generator 9 parts of energy for every one gained.

    February 20, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Reply
    • Gary in Maine

      EXACTLY, and programs such as NAFTA. Who the heck did that help? Oh yea, .....the rich.

      February 21, 2013 at 7:21 am | Reply
  37. Paul

    I had a college professor that would always say, "How many elephant guns do you need to kill a mouse"???? Good question. Saw a special the other day that showed thousands of tanks being manufactured and "stored" somewhere just in case. A few years later, those tanks (or fill in the blank for your choice of military equipment) are obsolete and we need new "tanks". It must be true because the legislator from that district says so.

    February 20, 2013 at 5:54 pm | Reply
  38. wake up

    The entire middle east is on fire since we as a nation started "leading from behind". Reagan proved peace through strength.

    Figure it out.

    February 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm | Reply
    • Reisk

      The US spends 4.7% of its GDP on the military. 711 billion dollars a year, more than three times the amount of any other nation, almost 40% of the world market for military goods.

      Since World War II we have spent more on our military than our budget could afford. Only two presidents have reigned in spending so we could pay off some of our debt; for the most part, we have gone further and further into debt. Now are facing collapse. We can't do this forever, and if you think we can, you're an idiot.

      February 20, 2013 at 6:02 pm | Reply
      • tuscany590

        Maybe that's why no one will screw with us. Now, all we need to do when some one does, is fight the non-PC war & fight to win.

        February 20, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
  39. Syd Chaden

    The cuts will result in a drawdown of naval vessels and long range bombers from the Gulf region, and will provide Obama with the perfect explanation as to why he could not fulfill his pledge to not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

    February 20, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Reply
    • Pax

      Syd–what would you do to stop Iran?

      February 20, 2013 at 5:36 pm | Reply
    • The REAL Truth...

      I guess you missed all the RW tirades about Obama NOT wanting the defense cuts to go into effect... but hey.. what's FACT got to do with opinion..

      February 20, 2013 at 5:46 pm | Reply
  40. mebo

    We need a natonal sales tax so that every pays something and get rid of the IRS. Social Security can be fixed by upping the retirement age and get rid of the income cut off. After that we can look at ways to cut back on spending for the services

    February 20, 2013 at 5:16 pm | Reply
    • volsocal

      A national sales tax would spur an international black market. The idea is simple and fair, but it would not work.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:26 pm | Reply
      • Ted

        It has worked in Canada and virtually every other civilized country. Why would it not work here?

        February 20, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
  41. Doingthemath

    My income is reduced by: about 28% by federal government; 6.7% state income tax; 6.2% social security deduction; 1.54% medicare deduction; sales tax of money spent another 6.7% and property tax of what I spent my disposable income on -I will let that just slide. SO...the federal government has trouble with a reduction of about 7% while I can expect every year a reduction of ...ohhhhh....sayyyyy.....42.44% without including sales tax or property tax in that. For many of us this is what is expected of us but taking 7% from those who took 42+% cannot be accomplished. The really cool thing is our leaders can just decide to take more from us at any time and we have to live with it and still they cannot balance a budget while we are expected to- and we do! So, please, do NOT expect me to think sequestering 7% cannot be accomplsihed without reducing the pain far more than they are telling us. WE have ALL been DOING IT.

    February 20, 2013 at 5:05 pm | Reply
    • Setting the record straight for Doingthemath

      You need better math skills, Doingthe math. I'm assuming your "28%" tax is max federal. Actually max is 25%. Either way, If your employer is withholding that max amount on you, you need a financial advisor, and reduce that down to something like 15-18%. If you have a home (I assume you do, you state you pay property tax) and have a mortgage (likely) you have deductions you can likely itemize. If you normally expect a big refund every year, the government is already stealing your money(temporarily) interest free until it refunds it. You're better off paying just a little every year, or getting back just a little, and have more in your regular paycheck throughout the year.

      Sales tax & state tax are also both itemizable against Federal taxes. Get an accountant, or a better one, to help out.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm | Reply
      • I wish

        I wish I could get my stubborn headed wife to see the reason in getting just a little back or payng a little every year, rather than the government hanging on to the chunk for free. See claims 0 with single status and refuses to change.

        February 20, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
  42. Gary

    All they have to do is go onto any military base in this country and our troops will tell them the amount of wastefull money spent that they see everyday on the bases.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Reply
  43. Kevin P

    It really is simple, either raise more money (taxes) or cut spending. A nation cannot afford to spend more than it makes any more than a household can. Seems we're locked up tight with no desire to do either right now. Let it implode and vote out everyone currently there.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Reply
  44. litmus

    One has to laugh out loud. For the greater part of my forty years of adulthood, there has been a cry to reduce the military by democrats and we spend too much on it. I know, I was raised a Cape Cod Kennedy Democrat. Now, all of a sudden we look at a sequestration doing exactly what the Democrats have always wanted, and actually helped write, to do exactly that. We live in a funny world where what we say we want year after year and when we get it we find out we really did not want it after all. On top of that, we educate our children and tell them how important it is to study math. We send lots of money to do so and drill them all their young lives in math, algebra, geometry, calculus and then when they are adults, our leaders of this country tell them if we cut 5 to 7 percent in spending, the other 93 to 95 percent of money will not be enough to run our nation and everything will fall apart. I do not understand how it is possible for such a small percentage in cuts to create such irreversible havoc. So, why do we put so much money into education of those taught math and proportions actually believe such rhetoric. Perhaps we should scrap education and let them simply believe the rediculous becasue it seems they will anyway. LOL

    February 20, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Reply
    • RichP

      Fear mongering,it's second nature to politicians and every officer above O-7 at which point they become de-facto politicians.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:05 pm | Reply
  45. GIUK

    We don't need armed forces who are ready to fight. It just makes it easier and more tempting for politicians to plunge the US into another poorly planed, poorly executed, and pointless war. Giving politicians access to a well equipped and prepared military is like giving teenaged boys access to liquar and the keys to your new Corvette.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:36 pm | Reply
  46. Mr. McGoo

    These cuts are a drop in the barrel. We need many, many more of these to help fix our desperate economy! It is interesting to watch the Prez cry like a stuck pig over such minor budget adjustments, and it does not bode well for having a Prez that can show leadership and tackle the debt. The Bond rating agencies are going to have a field day down-grading US Debt if we don't go through with this, and it will hurt our economy a lot more in the long run.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:35 pm | Reply
    • Ted

      You are right. But Mr. Obama wants big government not smaller government.

      February 20, 2013 at 5:37 pm | Reply
      • Learn History

        The government has actually gotten smaller under the president. The previous president invented a whole new group called TSA for stupid reasons along with the department of tapping your phone because we want to.

        February 20, 2013 at 7:39 pm |
  47. ghost

    I served 12 years in the USMC infantry making cuts in the military is fine as long as it does not affect our operational ability. We can not afford to make cuts that will decrease our combat power. I fear that is where they will come from though. This is leading down a dangerous path. First we lose combat power and then our rights to carry and own firearms. there is no way our country will survive with a weak military and an unarmed miltia. I did however read the the new question in the air is wether or not the president should get a raise. I feel that cuts should start there in the white house and congress. Not our much needed military or medicare packages to help fuel obama care. There is a clear area that can be cut.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm | Reply
    • Andy

      I agree with you. For eight years I've served as a reconaissance specialist in the Army with multiple tours overseas. We worked very hard and did our job. I agree that a lot of money can be cut from the defense budget, but this needs to be done in a thoughtful way that gets rid of deadweight troopers and excess programs, but does not reduce the mission readiness of the military. What makes me angry is that for ten years the US military has done a tough job overseas to the best of our ability. No one I worked with ever quit, gave up or stopped fighting, even when the going got tough. But now we've got these politicians in Washington that can't get their act together, are more concerned with social reform than fiscal reform and are going to leave us and our children with a debt burdened, weakened nation. Their salaries ought to be suspended or halved, the same way as ours would have been if we didn't do our job.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:55 pm | Reply
    • K Ols

      Except for one problem. Congress wrote into legislation that their pay could not be cut or taken away, which would also apply to the president. Congress always writes laws so they don't affect them. This is why some in Congress have mentioned withholding their pay temporarily meaning they would still get paid but not on time.

      February 21, 2013 at 2:50 am | Reply
  48. Alverant

    Why not just not keep bying all those electronic toys and focus more on the soldiers. We don't need all those stealth bombers. But still there are people who would rather cut education than give up one billion dollar gadget we don't need.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Reply
    • ethosX

      sorry :"comrade" all those toys you are talking about are keeping soldiers alive and giving us a superiority over the enemy. Education? You want some? pay for it yourself....

      February 20, 2013 at 5:04 pm | Reply
    • John K

      Those expensive toys keep the troops out of harms way. You apperantly know very little about military operations. please find something else to comment on.

      February 21, 2013 at 10:17 am | Reply
  49. Boo Hoo

    So when all of these jobs are drastically cut, what do you think will happen to our economy? Cuts are needed, but suddenly telling hundreds of thousands of people that they will be making 20% less for the rest of the year is not the way to do this. Our country, like it or not, is now focused on the services industries. When these people don't have any discretionary funds, or even enough funds to pay the bills, that impacts all of the services around them. Major purchases aren't made, so there goes the car industry back into the tank. Houses get forclosed, forcing the housing market back into the duldrums. People don't go out to eat, forcing the food industry to take a hit. I can go on and on and on. Doing this in a dumb across the board manner like this, will only hurt the entire economy.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Reply
    • Diane

      You are absolutely right. But we know what this is all about.....hatred for our president is fueling this, how sad.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:39 pm | Reply
      • litmus

        I wonder how a 7% unemployment rate got this man re-elected if that percentage is so devastating? Hatred I guess?

        February 20, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
      • The REAL Truth...

        You are absolutely correct.. I read the hate in far too many of the uneducated posts here and elsewhere.. the predicament we face is being fostered onto the POTUS by the RW media and those that stand to gain from it.. Fox news is as skewed right as MSNBC is left. Do some FACT checking folks.. 7% unemployment, the Nat'l Debt, sequestration are all tactics employed by those who will do the UTMOST to make the POTUS look bad, so they can put their own people back in power in 2014/16 and attempt to continue the rape and pillage of this country – as they have been for the last 12 yrs.

        February 20, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
  50. UnDead

    This is what happens when Bankers (who run our government) are trying to deliberately destroy our economy. Wake Up People! The people in your government Have NO Loyalty To You.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Reply
  51. UnFred

    This is what happens when Bankers (who run our government) are trying to deliberately destroy our economy. Wake Up People! The people in your government Have NO Loyalty To You.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:10 pm | Reply
  52. LB

    The cuts are not even real cuts, just reductions in automatically scheduled budget increases. They only reduce the rate of growth.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Reply
    • Greg S.

      Not REAL cuts? Reductions in planned increases? Who the hell was planning on increasing my salary by 20%?? Nobody you kool-aid drinking fool. They are taking away 1/5 of people's salary for the rest of the year. For many families that 20% means all of their discretionary income and then some. Get over your ideal driven non-sense and realize this will cause REAL immediate financial hardships for REAL working class families.

      February 20, 2013 at 9:40 pm | Reply
      • fatblackfrancis

        You mean a lack of cable TV and having to sell one of your 2 cars? Oh, the hardships! Maybe you can eat your wife's Jimmy Chu's?

        February 21, 2013 at 4:57 am |
  53. Kent

    With 5000 Colonels, that's 100 Colonels for every state in the union, we can definitely afford to cut some defense spending. Heck, we cannot even win a war when the other side doesn't even have an army.

    February 20, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Reply
  54. kenneypco

    Shrinking the size of government is what we are trying to do. Looks like it is working. I didn't see the problem.

    Republicans are looking reduce spending there it is. Now Congress should go double check to make sure the military isn't using scare tactics to restore their money train.

    3 out of 50 states hit the hardest to save ALL of us billions. Sounds fair!

    February 20, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Reply
  55. la

    HOW ABOUT WE CUT MONEY TO ALL OTHER COUNTRIES PERIOD. KEEP THE MONEY MADE HERE TO HELP OUR PEOPLE. WE HAVE REAL DISASTERS AND POVERTY RIGHT HERE IN THE USA. OTHER COUNTRIES DO NOT GIVE US MONEY.

    February 20, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Reply
    • James Scott

      That is because we do not use their money as our reserve currency.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:14 pm | Reply
  56. aardvark

    It's about time the military-industrial complex took a hit. Get rid of the bloat and along with it the ability to invade other countries on a whim and we'll all be better off.

    February 20, 2013 at 3:35 pm | Reply
    • hawkeyenez

      Ignorant.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • Kevin P

      The military does not decide who to invade, the President does.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Reply
      • The REAL Truth...

        Yup, and we're STILL paying for the last 2 illegal and unfunded wars started by the last President.. the worst in history.

        February 20, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • Mike Wiggins

      In the past 30 years look how many bases have been closed in the US and around the world. Look at how much shipbuilding has been reduced. Look at how much the armed forces manpower has been reduced.

      The armed forces have paid dearly over all these years. So for you to say that "It's about time the military-industrial complex took a hit." indicates that you don't know your history. Yes, there are programs that SHOULD be cut, but the military has paid a disproportionate price in order to solve the nations' fiscal problems. Just be careful what you ask for or the US is going to end up like Great Britain years before WWII when the RAF was almost eliminated. Think about it.

      February 20, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Reply
  57. Maine Liberal

    Cut the space shield (star wars) it has produced nothing in 30 years. has failed over 90 percent of the time when all variables are known. 80 billion per year to the MIC

    February 20, 2013 at 3:33 pm | Reply
    • Lakatu

      I have seen these technologies from the star wars programs working. Many are tested in the RMI. It's not that they don't work. The problem is that our "Defense" is really being used for nation building and protecting our access to resources.

      February 20, 2013 at 3:48 pm | Reply
  58. blue max

    ironic twist. red states hit the hardest.

    February 20, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Reply
    • Purple Mark

      Red states will be hit hard but so will the coastal stats and if you look at each states GDP you will see that the blue state will suffer more from the decline in military jobs then the red.

      February 20, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Reply
  59. Pete

    Our military is larger in monetary spending than the next 13 countries combined..Time to do a little cutting of military fat to balance our budget and our future ones as well..Quit getting into wars,intervensions and quit buying military equipment that we don't need ,not because a senator,congressional rep says so on a lobbyist advise!!Spending money like drunkin sailors, its killing this country financially and the military is a large part of it!!Quit with foriegn aid as well,if they can't contribute something then cut them off,the likes of Isreal,Pakistan and India come to mind..

    February 20, 2013 at 3:22 pm | Reply
    • K Ols

      I have long thought air shows should be completely eliminated. What a waste of money! And recently there have been quite a few accidents at those military shows.
      We also have something like over 700 bases in foreign countries many of which could and should be closed.
      I think the defense budget could be cut considerably and never hurt our troops because of all the excess waste. One reason the military is probably trying to convince Congress how devastating these cuts would be is because they want to impress upon Congress that it might hurt some of the defense spending in their state. The other think I have always thought peculiar is why do we need multiple military bases in the same state? Why can't they be downsized and combined into just one base within a given state?

      February 21, 2013 at 3:01 am | Reply
  60. Former Troop

    There are plenty of places the military can cut expenses without cutting combat capability. Air shows, regional bands (which are full time assignments), and overhead staff are a start. Honestly, there are way too many civilians on the armed forces payroll now making way too much money due to handshakes (when certain troops retire) to provide them a job and due to the bargaining unions. Additionally, locations of some bases are politically driven, and there are numerous overseas locations that could potentially close with minimal security impact. The technology of today's aircraft and weapons systems reach farther than when many of these bases were put in place.

    February 20, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Reply
    • la

      I have 2 brothers and my daughter in the military. They say the same things you said.

      February 20, 2013 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • Mary S.

      There are many civilian jobs that can be cut, but unfortunately some are in vital positions, e.g. operating rooms. I know of several service personnel that work 18 or more hours 5 or 6 days a week because of the loss of civilians not being replaced by service personnel. Our military service personnel deserve the best treatment possible. I'm wondering why folks haven't brought up the jets to Egypt worth several $100's of millions? We can afford to send them aid, despite their anti-American rhetoric, but undercut our military. What are your thoughts?

      February 20, 2013 at 5:10 pm | Reply
      • Standards

        I completely agree with you. What about cutting some of the social programs as well? I agree the DoD needs to have cuts but only IF there are the same cuts for social programs. Social programs have plummeted drastically out of control.

        February 20, 2013 at 8:35 pm |
  61. NYC REPUB

    SMH.....dear America, you flawed deeply in hiring the tea party.......they never took yes as an answer when the 4 trillion dollar grand bargain was presented.....To not default as a country, (b/c republicans refused to raise the limit i.e pay the bills) republicans, dems, and this WH wrote and signed a bitter pill into law, designed to force cooperation, and compromise.........Being that thatwas again, dashed by the GOP.....here come the cuts, and als, they are forecast to NOT be good medicine for the economy.......And so, the GOP will burn after this, after their theory that spending cuts, and tax breaks heaal all ills, is destroyed before their eyes.......

    February 20, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Reply
    • The REAL Truth...

      Yet many of your fellow Repub's will argue to the death that this is all caused by Obama. Unfortunately, this is not your father's GOP any more. It's the party of extremists who will not negotiate or compromise on anything, yet continue to have as high a percentage of followers due to their propaganda machine.
      The dumbing down of the red state electorate continues ...

      February 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm | Reply
  62. boungiorno

    ENTIRE COUNTRY NEEDS OVERHAUL LETS MAKE SURE 1% PAY THE DUES THAT R HIDDEN IN BANKS OUT OF US AND THEN START OVERHAULING WH SENATE CONGRESS BUTTT NOT MILITARY US NEEDS TO STAND ON GUARD @ ALL TIMES IN ORDER TO DEFEND OUR BOARDERS

    February 20, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Reply
  63. Boston Larry

    We spend 47% of the planet's military expenditures - we are either paranoid or stupid or both....... This is not about national defense –this is about the defense industry lobbyists and their bloated defense contracts getting rich off all of us. We should be cutting far more than we are – far more

    February 20, 2013 at 3:11 pm | Reply
    • Tim W.

      Start by stopping all foreign aid.....starting with Iseral ! America first............lets get ourselfs back in the green before we are so broke we have to sell ourselfs to China !

      February 20, 2013 at 4:51 pm | Reply
  64. RONALD

    Our country is going bankrupt & every dept. needs to cut back spending.

    February 20, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Reply
    • Boston Larry

      Agreed and the cuts should be a heck of a lot deeper than this sequester –which is a pittance

      February 20, 2013 at 3:12 pm | Reply
    • Boston Berry

      and if I may add, we need to cut foreign aid to Pakistan, they are useless crooks anyway.

      February 20, 2013 at 3:39 pm | Reply
  65. George Patton

    CUT MONEY TO ALL MUSLIM COUNTRIES SUPPORTING OR HARBORING TERRORISTS

    February 20, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Reply
    • James Scott

      You may be missing the point. Whether or not they harbor terrorists is secondary to bribing their governments into using our dollar as their reserve currency.

      February 20, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Reply
    • Alverant

      Why restrict it to muslim countries? Cut aid to all countries who support terrorism and criminal enterprises. Of course that would upset Isreal and the Vatican but who cares?

      February 20, 2013 at 4:28 pm | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.