Kyl tries to prevent impending defense cuts...

gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
edited November 2011 in A Moving Train
what is wrong with this picture? both sides can not work together and if they do not come to an agreement by wednesday these cuts automatically take effect in 2013. so defense will be cut by 1/2 a trillion bucks, and jon kyl wants to prevent that from happening now. listen, you want cuts, you have to stick by the paramaters of the deal, or else why are they even going through the drama of this "stupidcommittee"?? defense spending is one of the main reasons we are in this mess to begin with, and if everything else is going to be cut, so should defense spending...

Super Committee Member Jon Kyl Turns Eye Towards Saving Pentagon From Trigger Cuts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 ... 03821.html

WASHINGTON -- Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) a member of the congressional super committee charged with devising a plan to shrink the national debt, pledged on Sunday to find a way to limit the defense budget cuts that would be triggered by that committee's likely failure.

"I can't imagine that knowing of the importance of national defense that both Republicans and Democrats wouldn't find a way to work through that process so that we still get the $1.2 trillion in cuts but it doesn’t all fall on defense as [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta pointed out," Kyl said on "Meet the Press." "I think there is a way to avoid that if there is good will on both sides. And again I think when the reality sets in even those Democrat friends who would like to see more defense cuts ... will find ways to work around that."

As it stands now, the super committee's failure to reach a deal by Wednesday would result in automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion, half of which would come from defense. But because those cuts won't actually happen until 2013, Congress has the capacity to alter or even prevent them fully.

Kyl, who is retiring from Congress, ruled out simply wiping away the triggers altogether. But his argument that the sequester falls too heavily on defense has picked up steam on the Hill. The president has, recently, said he would not support changing the parameters of the trigger. And when pressed privately, White House aides have always argued that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) shares their sentiment. But operatives within the Democratic Party are already waxing skeptically about their own lawmakers keeping those particular cuts in place, predicting that they'll buckle to avoid being branded soft on defense.

Speaking after Kyl on "Meet the Press," Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), another supercommittee member, sounded the alarm against that happening.

"Jon just talked about how they are not going to do that sequester," Kerry said. "He just talked about how they are going to get out from under it. There is a real threat that not only will there be a downgrade but that the market on Monday will look again at Washington and say, 'you guys can't get the job done.' And just the political confusion and gridlock is enough to say to the world: 'America can't get its act together.'"
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • dasvidanadasvidana Grand Junction CO Posts: 1,349
    what is wrong with this picture? both sides can not work together and if they do not come to an agreement by wednesday these cuts automatically take effect in 2013. so defense will be cut by 1/2 a trillion bucks, and jon kyl wants to prevent that from happening now. listen, you want cuts, you have to stick by the paramaters of the deal, or else why are they even going through the drama of this "stupidcommittee"?? defense spending is one of the main reasons we are in this mess to begin with, and if everything else is going to be cut, so should defense spending...

    Super Committee Member Jon Kyl Turns Eye Towards Saving Pentagon From Trigger Cuts

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 ... 03821.html

    WASHINGTON -- Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) a member of the congressional super committee charged with devising a plan to shrink the national debt, pledged on Sunday to find a way to limit the defense budget cuts that would be triggered by that committee's likely failure.

    "I can't imagine that knowing of the importance of national defense that both Republicans and Democrats wouldn't find a way to work through that process so that we still get the $1.2 trillion in cuts but it doesn’t all fall on defense as [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta pointed out," Kyl said on "Meet the Press." "I think there is a way to avoid that if there is good will on both sides. And again I think when the reality sets in even those Democrat friends who would like to see more defense cuts ... will find ways to work around that."

    As it stands now, the super committee's failure to reach a deal by Wednesday would result in automatic cuts totaling $1.2 trillion, half of which would come from defense. But because those cuts won't actually happen until 2013, Congress has the capacity to alter or even prevent them fully.

    Kyl, who is retiring from Congress, ruled out simply wiping away the triggers altogether. But his argument that the sequester falls too heavily on defense has picked up steam on the Hill. The president has, recently, said he would not support changing the parameters of the trigger. And when pressed privately, White House aides have always argued that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) shares their sentiment. But operatives within the Democratic Party are already waxing skeptically about their own lawmakers keeping those particular cuts in place, predicting that they'll buckle to avoid being branded soft on defense.

    Speaking after Kyl on "Meet the Press," Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), another supercommittee member, sounded the alarm against that happening.

    "Jon just talked about how they are not going to do that sequester," Kerry said. "He just talked about how they are going to get out from under it. There is a real threat that not only will there be a downgrade but that the market on Monday will look again at Washington and say, 'you guys can't get the job done.' And just the political confusion and gridlock is enough to say to the world: 'America can't get its act together.'"
    Sen. Kyl is a right wing lunatic for sure.....
    It's nice to be nice to the nice.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 40,245
    Not one single member of this comittee needs to go on television before a deal is done. BS partisan rhetoric is all it is. Same shit, same town, different day.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    and the thing that pisses me off the most about this is kyl is retiring. he will not have to face the voters or a challenger so he can do whatever he wants. he can be as beholden to defense and pentagon interests as he wants becuse he faces no repercussions for his position and his vote.

    if they really wanted to make progress with this "stupidcommittee" they would have made it so that no retiring politicians could be on it, and that those on the committee would have to defend themselves in a campaign against a challenger and they would have to face the voters that they are supposed to represent...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • The whole thing is stupid. If there was an agreement in place for certain cuts in the event that a deal couldn't be reached, then that's what should happen. Otherwise, what was the point of agreeing to it? I also wonder why a 12-person committee was needed if there was already a plan in place for what cuts would be implemented if they didn't reach an agreement. It's no surprise that they didn't come up with an agreement, really. Both sides went into that committee with certain things they wanted and weren't going to budge because there was already a backup plan in place, so why give the other side anything more than that plan contains? Now some Republicans ant to change the backup plan, others want to keep it because they feel bound by their word, and some Democrats might cave to the changes some Republicans want so they don't get labeled as trying to weaken our defense. Idiots, all of them.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    and whose bright idea was it to make it a 12 person committee? 6 dems and 6 reps...given the last 3 years of history everyone knows it was going to be split along party lines 6-6 so it is a momumental waste of time. there needed to be a tie breaking vote, either 11 or 13 people.

    fucking stupid...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • True, but then the short-handed side would have complained that it was unfair to them. Republicans would have said they were being set up to be out-voted from the start and Democrats would have said Obama sold them out to the Republicans. If anyone didn't know deep inside that this committee wouldn't come to an agreement then they haven't been paying attention for the last 200+ years.

    I'm starting to think both houses of Congress should just be forced to spend their days sitting in session watching Barney videos.
    and whose bright idea was it to make it a 12 person committee? 6 dems and 6 reps...given the last 3 years of history everyone knows it was going to be split along party lines 6-6 so it is a momumental waste of time. there needed to be a tie breaking vote, either 11 or 13 people.

    fucking stupid...
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    i like how they are waiting for time to run out and then they are going to ammend the prior paramaters and cuts that had been agreed to.

    that would be like me signing a legal and binding contract and then trying to change the terms once it had been signed.

    unbelievable.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    i like how they are waiting for time to run out and then they are going to ammend the prior paramaters and cuts that had been agreed to.

    that would be like me signing a legal and binding contract and then trying to change the terms once it had been signed.

    unbelievable.


    did you honestly think this would go down any other way...now everyone can go back to their constituents and say they tried hard AND the democrats get to show cuts that were made and make it seem like they had a hand in it, and the republicans get to fire up their base and make sure they know that evil lurks around every corner and this has now made us unsafe...genuis agreement for both sides...because no one person will be blamed for the cuts.

    they just get to bitch about rules and no politician will be blamed except Obama, because, well that is what happens to the president.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
Sign In or Register to comment.