Senate panel approves freeze in defense spending

[ProSense]

Senate panel approves freeze in defense spending

By DONNA CASSATA

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Senate panel on Tuesday approved a freeze in defense spending at $513 billion for the next military budget, including a $1.6 billion cut in funds that the Pentagon says it doesn't need for Afghanistan security forces even as the U.S. Embassy in Kabul came under attack.

By voice vote, the Appropriations defense subcommittee gave the go-ahead to the sweeping legislation that would slash $26 billion from President Barack Obama's request for the Defense Department in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. The bill is a reflection of the congressional clamor for fiscal belt-tightening and stands as the first installment in defense cuts of $350 billion over a decade as spelled out in the deficit-cutting compromise worked out by Obama and congressional Republicans last month.

"While some of the cuts will be considered tough, we believe they are not only fair but prudent, and represent an important step in improving the department's fiscal accountability in this difficult budget environment," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the subcommittee.

The bill puts the Senate at odds with the House, which earlier this summer passed a defense bill that's $17 billion more at $530 billion. The difference represents a significant obstacle that must be overcome in the coming weeks as Congress tries to produce a budget.

more

Senate defense bill includes deeper cuts than House version

By Leo Shane III
Stars and Stripes

WASHINGTON — Senate defense leaders on Tuesday proposed dramatic cuts to the Defense Department’s budget request for fiscal 2012, including ending the joint light tactical vehicle program and delaying the production of new F-35 aircraft.

The $513 billion base budget plan is $26 billion less than White House officials requested last spring and $17 billion less than the House approved in July. It does not include almost $118 billion in funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that is included in separate legislation.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, acknowledged that the lower defense spending would be considered “tough” by many military planners, but added that “we believe are not only fair but prudent, and represent an important step in improving the department’s fiscal accountability in this difficult budget environment.”

Future defense spending has already come under close scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers agreeing to at least $350 billion in defense spending cuts over the next decade. A supercommittee looking at $1.2 trillion in additional federal cuts could scale back those military dollars even further.

more

Republicans aren't taking the prospect of more defense cuts well!

Kyl has defense industry-sponsored hissy fit

<...>



<...>

There is the slight problem that if he quits and the committee fails, defense cuts are automatically triggered. Of course, he might not have intended that to be a factual statement.

So John Boehner wants to renege on the debt limit deal ...

<...>

Boehner's agenda?

First, pro-defense Republicans close to Boehner fear that the August deal was tilted too far against Pentagon spending—and Democrats will find it easier to extend the CR than bargain on the individual bills.

Second, beyond the dollars themselves, Republicans will want to use the appropriations bills to advance the party’s anti-regulatory agenda. Legislative riders impacting policy decisions by President Barack Obama—including his health-care reforms—are sure to be in the offing, whereas the CR will be relatively clean of these provisions.

As Beutler points out, mucking around with the spending levels from the debt deal could set the stage for another budget standoff like we had in April, complete with a threat of government shutdown. But what strikes me here is that Boehner's motives are very different than they were back then. In April, he couldn't talk about anything but reducing spending. Now, he's trying to help his congressional allies deliver military pork to their districts and special regulatory waivers to their contributors.

Unless I'm missing something, that doesn't have anything to do with a tea party demand. It's just Republican politics-as-usual. Boehner will probably aim to confuse the debate, but there's really no chance he wants to shut down the government. But it does suggest that when it comes to jobs legislation, Democrats might actually have the ability to give Boehner something that he wants.

And it's also a reminder that despite all the hot air surrounding the debt limit deal, the agreement, such as it is, is only binding for as long as Congress and the White House want it to be, regardless of which party controls which chamber, or what president is sitting in the Oval Office. It's not a deal that was designed to last.

[Phx_Dem]

1. This is great if so no other reason than to get Kyle to quit the committee.

[rhett o rick]

2. .

[ClarkUSA]

3. This would never happen under a GOP prez & a GOP-controlled Senate.

Republicans must be furious. All the more reason to work hard to re-elect President Obama and try to keep the Senate out of Republican hands. Taking back the House would be necessary in order to pass any meaningful legislation.

It's a shame that some alleged Democrats seem to care less about helping the Democratic Party in these goals despite their loud moaning and whining over the past 2.5 years that their purist goals have not been met.

[vaberella]

4. Huh...I guess this super comittee isn't all that bad. n/t