E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Kristina Young / Handout / EPA
The USS Harry S. Truman at an undisclosed location in the Atlantic Ocean in December 2012.
Published 6:30 p.m. ET: Budget constraints are prompting the U.S. Navy to cut back the number of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region from two to one, the latest example of how contentious fiscal battles in Washington are impacting the U.S. military.
According to Defense Department officials, the USS Harry S. Truman, which was set to leave for the Persian Gulf region on Friday, will now remain stateside, based in Norfolk, Virginia.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered the change to the department’s “two-carrier policy” in the Persian Gulf region early Wednesday.
The U.S. has steadily kept two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf for much of the last two years. In 2010, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a directive to keep two in the area given the volatility of the region.
The cutback is largely a result of automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration, passed by Congress during the summer of 2011. Congress has failed to pass a budget for the fiscal year, and has instead opted on passing legislation that will keep spending at the same level as last year. But that means the Pentagon has been operating with less money and is unsure of what the future holds for its bottom line.
Under sequestration, the Navy would lose $4 billion over the next six months, the last half of fiscal year 2013. The Navy was already $4.6 billion in the hole for this year because the continuing resolution for 2013 was budgeted at 2012 rates.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta tells NBC's Chuck Todd if a sequester is allowed to happen it will "badly damage" the readiness of the U.S. military.
Navy officials say the Defense Department ordered members of their branch and all services to “prepare for sequestration,” even though it’s not yet clear the automatic budgets cuts will kick in next month.
“We cut back to one carrier in the Gulf region to save money now, or wait until sequestration and be forced to cut back to zero carriers,” a senior defense official told NBC News.
It’s not certain whether the Defense Department or the White House would permit a zero carrier presence in the Persian Gulf, no matter what the budget constraints, given rising tensions over Iran. The Truman would still conduct exercises off the US East Coast and would be “surge ready” in the event of an emergency or disaster.
A statement from Pentagon Press Secretary George Little assured that the United States will “maintain a robust presence” in the area, but cited the pending sequestration cuts as the reason the Navy sent Panetta the request.
“This prudent decision enables the U.S. Navy to maintain these ships to deploy on short notice in the event they are needed to respond to national security contingencies,” read the statement.
Revelation of the cutbacks comes the same day as news that Panetta is recommending military pay increases be limited to one percent in 2014. Uniformed military will still get a raise, but it will be much smaller “to reflect the difficult budget decisions” facing the department, a defense official told NBC News.
At a speech Wednesday, the outgoing secretary of defense warned that the budget battles in Washington are putting America at risk.
“The Department of Defense and other agencies across government have been living under a serious shadow -- the shadow of sequestration ... Today, with another trigger for sequestration approaching on March 1st, the Department of Defense is facing the most serious readiness crisis in over a decade,” he said to a crowd at Georgetown University.
“Make no mistake, if these cuts happen there will be a serious disruption in defense programs and a sharp decline in military readiness,” Panetta said in his speech Wednesday.
“We have begun an all-out effort to plan for how to operate under such a scenario, but it is already clear that no good options exist.”
On Tuesday, President Obama called on Congress to pass “a small package of spending cuts and tax reforms” to avoid the automated cuts set to kick in at the beginning of next month.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Kelly Ayotte – who have toured the country warning that sequestration cuts could put U.S. national defense at risk – responded on Wednesday by introducing a bill that would avoid cuts by slashing the federal workforce by 10 percent.
Additional reporting from Courtney Kube
Leave a Comment:
Illegal use of EP, protecting holder from prosecution!!!
Illegal appointments to the NLRB!!!
Killing Americans!!!
Bankrupting America!!!
Depleting our military!!!
Attacking the second amendment!!!
Wake up America, before we become amerikka!!!!
@Gary K: that is only in the low informed GOP mindset. Ronald Hussian Reagan started us down that road towards third world status, and every President since has helped. Obama is trying to stop that descent, but the GOP is too busy hating that 'uppity' black man, so all they can do is to say NO to everything.
sallyann
Are you a blonde?
I love how people trying to dicredit Pres. Reagan give him Odumbo's middle name. They kind of make the case against Odumbo that much easier
The responsibility for this lies squarely on the shoulders od Ex-president Bush and the current Republican Congress.
Unless of course if you want to "share the wealth" and "fundamentally change America"
That would make you an anti-American progressive!!!
Which flavor of kool-aid do you prefer?
Great way to destabilize the region. We're emboldening Iran and making Israel feel even less secure.
Defense is about 20% of the federal budget. The social programs and entitlements are eating us alive. New records are being set for food stamps and social security disability insurance daily. Priceless.
We spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined yet we are obviously no safer.
What does that tell us?
@Procrustes, yes those sticky social programs, such as food stamps. Almost 2/3rd's of the people on food stamps are non management employees of Walmart. Yet this past year, Walmart made a bunch of millions in profit.
But they can't pay their employees a liveable wage. So in a sense, every American should be mad as hell towards Walmart, as we pick up the slack for them when it comes to wages and food stamps.
But not one, NOT ONE of the GOP will say anything about that. Every wonder why that is? All they can do is complain about Social Security and Medicare, that everyone is/has paid into, like an insurance policy is.
The GOP wants smaller govt, unless it comes to women reproduction rights. Then they want the govt to become the pussy police. So much for the smaller govt people, the GOP has always grown the govt. The most recent uptick in unemployment came from govt workers being laid off by Obama. He is making the govt smaller.
Just wait, they will now claim Obama is making people lose their jobs by making the govt smaller, and that is what the GOP is advocating for. Guess you haters never give up. But guess what, you still LOST the election. That FACT will never go away.
Sally--Have some class. The only way to have a strong military is by having a strong economy. Obama has done everything in his power to scare the business community and deter growth. Women and minorities are victimized by his zero growth economy more than most others.
Ways to defeat an economic recovery:
By all means boycott Walmart. Americans shop there because the prices and selection are good. The employees could switch to other jobs but, oops, the Obama economy is flat-lining with slow or no growth.
Don't worry America. Once the US Navy leaves, the Chinese Navy will come in to help protect the safe passage of energy in the Gulf.
That may a while coming...they landed their first jet on a carrier just a few months back.
China is too smart to think they can police the world.
And so the sun begins to set on the United States of America. The world has just become a more dangerous place. As the US retreats from the global stage, and isolates itself from world events, which country will step in to fill the vacuum? The US is now just another bankrupt paper tiger. And the world knows it.
Never has the world not been a dangerous place. Now is no different.
It's difficult to understand what the many trillions of dollars in defense spending and war-making over the last decade has accomplished in terms of keeping us safer that we would have been otherwise.
Reasonableness test: we spend almost as much as the rest of the world on defense, are we any safer from external enemies than, say, Germany or China or Russia? At best, that answer is debatable.
What's ironinc is that we borrow from the Chinese and make them safer as a result of making the world supposedly safer for ourselves.
These idiots in Congress along with this administration of misfits are destroying this country little by little.
Acting as the world's policeman is incredibly expensive.
And obviously not very effective.
It's obvious that this overly DRAMATIC move was made to SCARE Americans in to calling their congressmen and demand money for defense.
I won't ask for one more dime for defense. Pannetta could have easily cancelled one of the many weapons systems he has on order from any of the multiple Defense Contractors that have made $TRILLIONS in profits from the past 10 years of wars.
AN OBVIOUS PLOY THAT WON'T WORK ON MOST OF AMERICA. Defense is still bloated with waste. Panetta should be trying to make the defense acquisition process more efficient instead of using bogus drama to try to get more $$$ from cheap blackmail tactics.
Like all government agencies, the Defense Dept. will not look at eliminating unnecessary costs until it is forced to do so. There is no way for the federal government to get onto a sustainable financial track without major cost reductions in defense. That does not necessarily mean a less effective or capable military.
Since the US
spends more than the next 20 countries COMBINED efficiency is not the military’s
strong suit. With the bloated budget the country does not need an aircraft
carrier on every body of water. The “thinking”
of more military is always the answer is been proven many times to be
antiquated at best and usually wrong, Iraq and Afghanistan are just the latest
farces. Can’t forget Beirut in the 80’s that was a Reagan disaster. Scrap the
WW2 requirements of countries not to have an adequate defense. Have Germany and
the rest take care of their own needs. The U.S. spending to guard others boarders
are another form of foreign aid.
We do need a strong defensive military. WE DON'T NEED TO BE THE WORLD COPS. Why do we have troops in Europe? Is it to protect them from the Soviet Union? If so, then let the European nations fund and support their own military. Why spend our money their, and not get any benefits from that?
Same as the far East, if some country needs protection, what is stopping them from doing it themselves? They can fund their own military, they don't need our daily presence there.
Why can't other nations help pay for the protection of shipping oil through the gulf? What, England and France have the ships, let them take up the slack as we pull back. This spending of our money on the military that freely helps other countries that dislike us has to stop.
Same as foreign aid of military supplies. Let some of them have their Russian fighters, or Chinese fighters. Those planes are not as good as what we have, so let those two countries spend their military money for aid. We can use the troops and the money to repair the intrastructure in our country.
It's time for America to fix America. First and formost, then help who we choose to help, after we get repaired.
“Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s…..
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.”
The column makes many of the points made on this blog in the past. For example, it points out that when Obama took office in 2009, the fiscal 2009 budget year was already four months underway, driven by spending and revenue programs put into place under President Bush.
If we rank spending increases for presidential budgets since 1980, it looks like this:
Reagan, 1982-85: Annual increase of 8.7 percent
Reagan, 1986-89: Annual increase of 4.9 percent
Bush I, 1990-93: Annual increase of 5.4 percent
Clinton, 1994-1997: Annual increase of 3.2 percent
Clinton, 1998-2001: Annual increase of 3.9 percent
Bush II, 2002-2005: Annual increase of 7.3 percent
Bush II, 2006-2009: Annual increase of 8.1 percent
Obama, 2010-2013: Annual increase of 1.4 percent
(It should be noted that in the interest of fairness and accuracy, the above numbers attribute increased 2009 spending from the Obama stimulus to Obama, who initiated it and signed it into law, rather than to Bush.
So what is driving the debt? Decreased revenue;
Federal Revenue by year in Trillions
2001 1.991 (Bush tax cuts begin)
2002 1.853
2003 1.782 (more Bush tax cuts)
2004 1.88
2005 2.153 (housing bubble begins)
2006 2.40
2007 2.57
2008 2.524 (Bush recession begins)
2009 2.105 (Bush recession continues)
2010 2.162 (Bush recession ends)
2011 2.30
AW J. Willard, now you got those regressive's into a tail spin and panice, teeth gnashing and all. You published REAL FACTS that they won't believe.
We will still continue to hear how the that 'uppity' guy is spending money and the deficit is growing. Didn't VP Cheney (R) say that deficits don't matter. Guess it only matters when a D is doing it. When a R is doing it, everything is groovey. Ya, we understand how the low informed do think.
One of them will be along shortly with cherry picked data. You can count on it.
Has the recession ended? Somebody better tell the unemployed and my bank account!
It helps to know the definition of a recession when discussing about one. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.
It helps to know English when speaking about one. I'm clearly a little dim, so that mean we have had positive GDP growth to stop the consecutive streak of negative quarters of GDP right? Please quote me some numbers from the Huffington Post or some other reputable unbiased outlet to show me this positive I was not made aware of. How's that unemployment number too?
OK so... as Iran continues its campaign to become an aggressive nuclear nation, the United States Navy pulls back a carrier group in the ONE region of the world where it's needed most? Cut back spending at the cost of national security? Have I got this right?
I fail to see how this will save The Pentagon any money. Whether berthed in port or stationed overseas, it is still a carrier group with a crew that needs to be paid and aircraft that need to be maintained.
Strategically, this is a REALLY bad idea. If Iran loses any form of common sense and acts aggressively towards Israel, and I think they will (nukes or NO nukes), America will be compromised in its ability to respond. Only a WEAK Commander-In-Chief would give such a blatantly FOOLISH order.
Iran has never attacked another nation, though certainly they are involved with support for insurgencies in Iraq and supporting Syrian government. If Iran decides to launch nuclear missiles against Israel or Europe (which is about as far as they can shoot their missiles), a carrier isn't capable of stopping it.
Essentially, you are putting a very expensive carrier group in the region to defend against something they are unable to defend against and that is highly unlikely to happen in the first place, and borrowing money from CHina to do so.
This is reassuring, let's reduce the military spending and put our country at risk defense-wise so we can overfund universal healthcare with it's 11 million+ illegal participants who won't contribute a dime.
That is a cute little talking point. Too bad not a lick of it is true.
It costs $1.5 million per DAY to operate 1 aircraft carrier.
And what is the cost to fund universal healthcare for someone that cheats the system to be here and not pay taxes? Infinite.
We don't have universal health care, nor will we anytime soon if ever.
Really? What is ObamaCare? Does it not pay for all people to have some form of healthcare regardless of their resident status? Will military funding not have to be cut to fund this? Are there not 11 million+ people here illegally and their children not being granted amnesty? I realize you don't like my facts and maybe Obama can just keep borrowing money from China or printing money but eventually the bell will toll and all of the inflation will come due.
That was a brilliant attempt at dodging the question too Mr. Marriot. Here it is again, what is the cost to pick up the tab for healthcare for one person that cheats the immigration policies and doesn't contribute a dime tax-wise? Now multiply that by 11 million+. My keyboard doesn't have a sign for "infinite".
Obamacare is not universal health care, nor does it cover illegals. That is an old talking point that was debunked 4 years ago.
Really? I hadn't heard that. Tell me, how do they differentiate between paying members and non-paying members when offering healthcare? Your blind allegiance to liberal ideaology is getting in the way of common sense.
We already have tens of millions of nonpaying members of our health care system. They use ambulances and emergency rooms for their health care. The hospitals pass the cost on to the rest of us in the form of higher bills.
Mr. Marriot, please stop. Without immigration policies in place to stem the tide of illegal immigration an ObamaCare system will bankrupt the country, if we are not headed there already. Going to the emergency room is a lot different than asking me to pick up the tab for all of someone's healthcare that is here cheating the system and forcing me to pick up the tab. You cannot have ObamaCare without addressing illegal immigration, it will further the strain on the fewer and fewer employed in this country that Obama seems destined to further burden with increased taxes and punishments for doing well.
Obamacare does not cover illegals. Period.
The same "bankrupt America" surfaced with Social Security and Medicare. Never heard a peep out of GOPers when Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) was passed ~ ~ unfunded! ~ ~ but that was a Republican initiative, wasn't it? The others, including Obamacare, were Democratic initiatives.
This carrier pull-out is just the first demonstration that will be orchestrated by the Joint Chiefs to underscore their argument that they will be hamstrung if their budget is cut. It needs to be cut. We currently spend more than the next thirteen (13) nations combined on defense. Yet if you listen to the rhetoric, we live in more government-induced "fear" than any of those thirteen nations ~ combined! If we have to appropriate almost a trillion dollars annually for defense and intelligence, it is obvious that we need some new management in the Pentagon and at Langley.
But were those illegals to become citizens, which it appears they will, they would have access to Obamacare.
Mark, thanks for bringing that up, but this whole discussion has revolved around who this program covers, don't bring up how it will be paid for, the libs have that covered already. Borrow more from China and tax the employed more. Good ideas need not be thought out thoroughly, like how to pay for it.
The fact that we shouldn't lose sight of though is that the US is one of the only countries in the industrialized world that doesn't provide routine health care to its poor.
Not exactly a compliment to our national morality.
Actually Obamacare does not cover illegals... yet. With a "quickie" path/amnesty etc to citizenship that will be take care of. It does however cover 20 million citizens with new free healthcare. It also no gives free coverage to 10 million pre-existing conditions that cost double what the 20 million do.
The main difference is prior to Obamacare they were "billed" for their healthcare and it was not free. At least if they came into money, married, inherited things etc we could recuperate some of the taxpayer losses. The medical bills stayed with the individual and not directly billed to the taxpayers.
With Obamacare it is like welfare.... free money with no strings attached. They can collect a million in medical costs then marry a millionaire, inherit money/land etc the next day and have no obligation to pay back any money. They are now under an insurance plan they pay little or nothing for.
It is basically a scam to move the non paying debts from the medical corporations and insurance companies to the taxpayers. The taxpayers are also not allowed any such collection agencies etc.
Pretty much all the western countries providing routine healthcare to everyone are bankrupt and running massive deficits to pull it off. They are simply letting their children and grandchildren live in massive taxation, depressions, national bankruptcies etc to pay for their healthcare now. There is also no such thing as "routine" heathcare. A $300,000 heart surgery to extend life 8 months is a given for someone who never grossed that much in their entire working life.
I will just say this there are alot more programs that could be cut I think they should cut the walfare office to start with if you have a big family they give over 800 for food I as a tax payer think this is to much on top of what they get in cash and we all know why they don't get a job because why should they they get more then my family for food and cash maybe if they wouldn't give them that much they would try to get a job I know they have programs for the to look and as work sometimes put then they pay for the daycare and that also comes out of the tax payers money I have to pay my day care my rent my food I don't get help the elderly don't get it . So, they could start there and if they have not found something in a year get them off of it. There not looking ! why should they they have it made and a hole lot of them play the system
Good and valid points that absolutely should be addressed.
But that's not to say we aren't wasting tens of billions of dollars a year trying to impose our will on the world, especially as we aren't succeeding at it.
There is absolutely no doubt that many (millions) have learned how to game the system and they do so on a daily basis. It has become a way of life ~ but it is more than that. It is part of our "culture" and that doesn't happen overnight. Reversing cultural trends will not happen overnight, either ~ and not within one budget cycle as some seem to think. There is also the misguided concept that if we don't fund a problem that it will go away. Reforms will require as much or more time than has been required to establish the culture of welfare gaming ~ and that is unfortunate. How strange that the "hard working taxpayer" revolts at helping our own people but says little about spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually meddling in the affairs of other nations and societies where the return on our investment is virtually undetectable.
Sorry Jim but over 100 million are gaming the system.
Yep, the federal spending junkies make up about 60% of the population. We have over 47% that pay zero federal income taxes and use the most entitlements/services. Then we have all the federal employees, federal retirees, military, military retirees, defense contractors, other federal contractors, union pensioners that were bailed out, corporations that were bailed out, retirees of bailed out corporations, banks that were bailed out, student loans etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. The list simply goes on for about 100 million people. There are 50 million on food stamps alone.
The majority of voters are in some way tied to the government spending. They will never turn that around given the current voting system. The same thing happened with slavery. It would never have been downsized or voted away. The majority had the power and that is the end of any political solution. They will not allow a political solution because they don't have to…. Majority rules
We also do not have the time to borrow for 5 more decades, or even 1, to slowly downsize dependency. The credit and currency are ready to crash. There is no more time for graceful solutions or exits from these programs and employment. If that was to be done it had to be done decades ago but was not (majority rules). Downsizing this how we "want" to do was a privilege we gave up long ago.... majority rules
The majority is now bailing with teacups on the Titanic believing they can somehow continue this charade.
This is sheer grandstanding to scare America into supporting current levels of military spending. The costs of operating that carrier are the same whether it is in the Persian Gulf or at home. The crew are still paid, the ship is still maintained, flight crews are still flying to keep up their proficiency.
All this is happening while the Army is telling Congress "We don't want or need any more tanks." and Congress keeps telling the Army, "Yes, you need all these tanks that are manufactured in our states to keep MY budget where it needs to be." Congress is screwing this country as often as possible just to keep their own pockets lined. Stop paying all of Congress retroactively to last Thanksgiving until they get the budget balanced and the spending limit set. It is Congress that is causing this country to fail.
He said he was going to cut 1 carrier to save money. How is it saving money when no mater where it is you still have to pay the crew and feed them and pay for every thing the ship needs to stay afloat and keep the planes flying. The cost is the same were ever it is. retired Marine Semper Fi
Pure propaganda. Moving a ship from one location to another will not save a dime. The sailors will be paid, ship maintained. Nothing changes.
Actually it will cost more because any troop strength removed has ALWAYS been replaced with equal defense contract labor at 4 times the cost. Every troop removed from Iraq was replaced at quadruple the expense to private corporations.
To make matters worse we have moderate to no control over the contract labor as opposed to military troops under direct command. It is also a VERY unclear line where military troops end and contract labor begins.
Whenever the federal government talks about "saving" they talk about one of many spreadsheets. They are always simply taking from one high profile spreadsheet and adding even more to another low profile spreadsheet because there is no spending cap. Defense spending has literally hundreds of spreadsheets from university R&D to space to actual military arms and supplies.
The most important thing to making cuts and savings is to first CAP the spending. Only then do you have a benchmark to ascertain a real saving. Without a spending cap all you have is Peter to Paul crap.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;
In short, protect our sovereignty, protect our rule of law, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Amen, so be it.
Another pawn in the ,money spending train bush started
we need to feed the mexicans, we don't have money for the troops
Thank you Anti Defense Republicans!