Fiscal cliff - could be worse

I wonder how much money would not be spent if ...


–Cut the number aircraft carriers in the fleet from 11 to 6 and reduce carrier air wings appropriately, which would save operations and support (O&S) costs and long delay the need to buy expensive new ships and aircraft.

–Cut Army division-equivalents from 10 to 5 (similar savings in O&S and new equipment).

–Cut Marine divisions from 3 to 1 (similar O&S and procurement savings).

–Cancel the F-35 for the Navy, Marines, and Air Force and instead upgrade current model fighters with new electronics.

–Cancel purchases of Virginia-class submarines, but provide some modest funding to keep the submarine industrial base warm.

–Eliminate costly dedicated military housing, health care and commissary systems and buy such items from the existing civilian market.

–Abandon the unnecessary American Empire, eliminate all U.S. military bases overseas, and decommission the forces stationed there.


http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/29...y-contractors/

Is your post in response to mine? If so...really? You see only *one side* playing politics here?! Wow that's absurd, IMO. Both sides are playing. ...

A hard-fought bipartisan compromise passed in the Senate early Tuesday to spare all but the richest Americans from painful income-tax hikes teetered on the edge of collapse as angry House Republicans denounced its lack of spending cuts.
. . . .

A report released by the Congressional Budget Office Tuesday complicated matters further still. The nonpartisan group "scored" the Biden-McConnell compromise as likely adding nearly $4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, hardening opposition among many Republicans seeking further spending cuts.
. . . .

That's not remotely what I said, that "only one side" is playing politics. I'm disappointed in the President's leadership on the subject, as also indicated by both Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Krauthammer.

I can not imagine you really think I said only one side is playing politics either, but chose none the less to throw up a straw man in order to continue the narrative that criticism of the President's lack of action on this subject is absurd.

When the previous fiscal year ended on September 30, 1995, the president and the Republican-controlled Congress had not passed a budget. A majority of Congress members and the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, had promised to slow the rate of government spending; however, this conflicted with the president's objectives for education, the environment, Medicare, and public health.[1] According to Clinton's autobiography, their differences resulted from differing estimates of economic growth, medical inflation, and anticipated revenues.[2]

When Clinton refused to cut the budget in the way Republicans wanted, Gingrich threatened to refuse to raise the debt limit, which would have caused the United States Treasury to suspend funding other portions of the government to avoid putting the country in default.[2]

The House of Representatives late Tuesday easily approved emergency bipartisan legislation sparing all but a sliver of America’s richest from sharp income tax hikes -- while setting up another “fiscal cliff” confrontation in a matter of weeks.

Lawmakers voted 257-167 to send the compromise to President Barack Obama to sign into law. Eighty-five Republicans and 172 Democrats backed the bill, which had sailed through the Senate by a lopsided 89-8 margin shortly after 2 a.m. Opposition comprised 151 Republicans and 16 Democrats.

. . . .

Monday morning will be interesting. I imagine the equities markets will pop up with a deal, and tank if there is no deal.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The "fiscal cliff" deal that slowly, painfully took shape in the U.S. Congress in recent days fulfills some of corporate America's tax policy goals, but leaves others unmet, including a big one - meaningful deficit and debt reduction.
. . . .

Some big-ticket items were part of that, including an extension through 2013 of the widely claimed research and development tax credit. Also included was a provision allowing businesses to write off immediately half the value of new investments, known as 50 percent bonus depreciation.

The legislation also includes a wide range of other favors for select industries, including tax breaks for railroad track maintenance, restaurant and retail store improvements, auto racetracks, film and television production, and rum production in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

WIND POWER BACKED

Numerous tax breaks for wind power production and other alternative energy technologies were also included.

"This agreement might not be seen as perfect by everyone, but it gives American consumers and businesses the certainty they need to put worries over this issue behind them," said Matthew Shay, head of the National Retail Federation.
. . . .
The compromise also makes no mention of setting up a new method of taxing profits made offshore and brought into the country by U.S. multinational corporations. Many such businesses have been pushing for a "territorial system" that would let them bring foreign-earned profits home with little or no taxation.

As President Barack Obama heads into his second term, he faces a pessimistic and weary public, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll released late Tuesday.

The percentage of Americans satisfied with the direction of the country stands at a paltry 23 percent in a poll taken Dec. 14-17. By a margin of 50 to 47 percent, respondents said the country's best years are over.

Fifty percent of respondents said it is somewhat or very unlikely that today's youth will have a better life than their parents.

That pessimism and negativity extends to the president, according to the poll.

When respondents were asked to choose adjectives to describe their feelings about the president's re-election, the poll showed the excitement and pride many Americans felt about the president's first term has diminished.

Sixty-seven percent of respondents in November 2008 said they felt optimistic about the president's election and the same percentage said it made them feel proud. Last month those numbers fell to 52 percent for optimistic and 48 percent for proud. Forty-three percent of Americans surveyed also said they feel pessimistic about the president's re-election and 36 percent said it made them feel afraid—both increases from 2008.

Although members from both sides of the aisle representing the region struck by Superstorm Sandy lashed out at House Speaker John Boehner on the House floor today, Boehner will meet at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon with Republican members from the area to tell them that his first priority in the next session of Congress is a resolution to the imbroglio.
. . . .
The 113th session of Congress begins Thursday at 12:00 p.m., when Boehner loses a little of his majority after Democrats gained 10 seats in the House in November.
. . . .
When members reconvene Jan. 14, they’re only in session for three days before taking another break leading up to the Jan. 21 inauguration. Then the House is scheduled to be back in session Jan. 21 until Jan. 23, before taking the rest of the month off.

That's not remotely what I said, that "only one side" is playing politics. I'm disappointed in the President's leadership on the subject, as also indicated by both Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Krauthammer.

I can not imagine you really think I said only one side is playing politics either, but chose none the less to throw up a straw man in order to continue the narrative that criticism of the President's lack of action on this subject is absurd.

mheslep, you're right, I totally misread your post . My apologies.