Panetta orders defense cuts before Congress does

[chance1]

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is being proactive .....

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has ordered the military to begin implementing cost-cutting measures aimed at mitigating the risk of significant budget cuts should Congress fail to reach a deal in coming months to avert or soften them

He tried to reassure troops that President Barack Obama "indicated his intent to exercise his legal authority to exempt military personnel" from the cuts.
But the same promise couldn't be made to the Defense Department's civilian employees. Instead Panetta said the agency may "have to consider" furloughs should it have to operate under reduced funding levels for "an extended period of time."

How much funding does the military need? how much of the cuts will be manpower? and just shift employed military to unemployed civilians? how much of the cuts will create unemployment in companies that supply the military?

cuts in the military are needed but but the impact to the economy is unknown

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/0...hem/?hpt=po_c2

[Jack Springer]

There is a lot of waste in the military. The special deals for retired military would be the first cut - massive amount of waste and fraud, followed by cutting back or closing bases in Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.

[Kulindahr]

Much could be saved by closing all the bases the Pentagon has said we don't need, and drawing down the strength scattered all over the world.

[DonQuixote]

Kuli,
Surely you don't mean all of the bases that are key to local economie's of individual Congress folk and Senators?

I know our own have fought for some of the bases in NY - trying to point out valid reasons for what they do, theorhetically not strong arming budget discussions. Some give and take. We've kept/upgraded some bases, closed and sold off real estate of others.

[Kulindahr]

Kuli,
Surely you don't mean all of the bases that are key to local economie's of individual Congress folk and Senators?

I know our own have fought for some of the bases in NY - trying to point out valid reasons for what they do, theorhetically not strong arming budget discussions. Some give and take. We've kept/upgraded some bases, closed and sold off real estate of others.

For any base that has that as the sole reason it's open, I say close it, and give the congresscritter thirty-nine lashes.

[Stardreamer]

The problem is closing bases particularly overseas does not represent an immediate savings, in fact it will cost more money up front than leaving the base open for several years. The word came down at work yesterday that everything non-mission essential was being shut down, no travel, and civilian hires frozen. We're being warned of possible furloughs (prelude to firings).

[DonQuixote]

I'd read that contractors and contracts that could be terminated were among the first to feel the budgetary axe.