Is Obama Pulling Out the Rug on Defense Cuts?

Is Obama Pulling Out the Rug on Defense Cuts?

Is Obama Pulling Out the Rug on Defense Cuts?

 Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Congress yesterday that President Obama opposes any further reductions in defense spending.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has, for months now, said that the initial $450 billion in defense cuts that were part of the debt ceiling deal are all that he wants to see—meaning that Panetta doesn’t think the supercommittee should cut a single cent from defense spending when it decides on up to $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction.

Panetta reiterated this view to the House Armed Services Committee yesterday, and added an explosive revelation—that President Obama agrees with him:

During a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Panetta was asked by Representative William M. Thornberry, Republican of Texas, whether he believed that no further cuts in the military budget should be made beyond those already enacted.

“Correct,” Mr. Panetta replied.

When asked whether Mr. Obama shared that view, the defense secretary stated, “He does.”

If the supercommittee were to forgo any further defense reductions, then every dollar it cut would necessarily have to come from discretionary spending, which funds most of the government’s domestic functions, or from programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If Obama does endorse that principle, it would likely set off a firestorm in the Democratic base.

In the past, Obama has said that defense cuts are needed and that everything needs to be on the table for the supercommittee. But Panetta’s testimony raises important questions about where the president now stands.

The White House did not respond to my request for comment, but Representative Barney Frank, a longtime proponent of defense cuts, had some strong words of warning for the president. “It’s inconceivable to me that [Obama] would be for further reductions in military cuts, because he would be for saving military spending and cutting housing, education, environmental protection and other areas,” Frank told me.

“I hope that’s not true,” Frank added. “I’m not confident that it’s not true.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x