Panetta, Clinton Unite to Condemn Potential Spending Cuts

Panetta, Clinton Unite to Condemn Potential Spending Cuts | Panetta: Cutting budget ‘would break faith with troops’

In comments that started with  “I’m not saying we should be exempt,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta united to insist that neither of their departments could bear any serious budget cuts, as either would “undermine national security.”

Indeed, not only were the two opposed to further budget cuts, they were railing against the trivial moves already approved to slow the growth of their enormous budgets. Panetta declared that going through with the cuts would “break faith with troops and their family.”

The Defense Department is committed to make “$350 billion” in cuts over the next decade, but those cuts are largely backloaded into the final two years and even then are largely cuts in the rate of growth of the budget, which is currently the largest in the history of mankind and is only assumed to grow larger every year.

Faced with massive deficits, however, a number of politicians in both parties are growing more and more willing to consider the military as a place to cut. Though Panetta was originally brought in with hopes he would be open to cost-cutting, it is clear this is not the case.

Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz

Author: Jason Ditz

Jason Ditz is news editor of

  • JDonald

    Just what are the militay promised when they enlist if reducing government spending of the military would be "breaking faith" with them? The military is around to enforce government policy not the other way around. And if we would get out of Iraq and Afghanastan (we should never gone their in the first place), billions of military dollars could be freed up for pressing "in country" needs. Now for those with investments in the military-industrial complex, they should move their money to "greener" pastures.

  • skulz fontaine

    Oh nooooo! Not "potential spending cuts!" Why the Madam SecState Schoolmarn and SecDef Piñata will literally implode. Which by the by, would be worlds of fascinating to witness.

  • Robert Shule

    Madam Secretary of State Clinton and Mister Secretary of Defense Panetta need to realize they are not the solution, but rather they are the problem.

  • Jamal

    Look people.., US is a militarism regime.., without wars and cutting its wars spending means no wars and a demand by the people for a functioning democracy down the road.., that is not what the democratic party is willing to cut or deliver a functioning democracy.., in present time and present leadership the democratic party simply is unable to deliver any of the peoples demand which is to stop the wars to start with.., so they are doing whatever and with whoever to get what they want.., therefore any suggestions in regard to cutting war machineries’ spending needs to be tackled by either of these two figure heads. Behind the scene Barack Hussein Obama is supporting the idea.., you been fooled by his mimicking ideas once.., don’t be fooled twice.

  • ghouri

    As I have already written money is sweet and once you get will not loose i.e. there will be no change.
    If pressed then they can make another 9/11 then the nation will be befooled and killings will increase.
    There is one one possibility i.e. no war call back your soldiers and let the wolrd live in peace and this decision is not so easy as all the institutions are envoled in money making.
    Only one possibility i can see that america is finished by itself economically and is most probable.
    If you lie then have to lie time and again.

  • Oh no, not 350 billion OVER THE NEXT DECADE!

  • curmudgeonvt

    “…break faith with troops and their family.” Let's see: would that be the promise to take the youth of this country and kill and maim them, in large numbers btw, for the good of the MICC – the ideologues, the oil companies and other multinationals? The only thing these wars are doing in terms of "national security" is to create problems not protect us from them.

    I'm sure there would be an overwhelming number of military families who would welcome, not decry, the ending of all these wars. I'm pretty sure they would prefer to have their fathers, wives, sons and daughters home with their families every night.

    Maybe we should move the SECDEF and SECSTATE offices to Kabul or Kandahar for a year…let them see how their play toys live for a year.

  • John Denton

    Panetta's screw-up with the bin Laden raid is still costing plenty to cover it up with distractions.

  • jconsley

    Turn over every embassy to the Department of Commerce — trade and selling should be the only commitments made by the United States. Stop interfering with foreign governments — stop all aid to any and all foreign governments. There should be no foreign aid to any country that offers its citizens free education through professional degrees, free health care, and has a lower unemployment rate than the U.S. Sorry Cantor, this includes Israel!

  • Bob D

    a backloaded $350 billion in 10 years out of 14 trillion is, what, 2%? I hope these cuts are defeated and these vampire warmongers show their true colors. Why let them fool ourselves?

  • Harry

    Broad Spectrum Incompetence– or "BSI," as we like to call it at the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom, is very, very expensive.

    Remember: "We make mistakes so you won't have to."

    Love Ya,

    Hillary & Leon

  • pendulum

    fearing future pay cuts

  • RickR30

    Aww, it's so heartwarming to hear these bastards suddenly care so much about troops and their families. How loving. How about these two idiots stop killing troops that were sent to fight frivolous wars for israel and the Death, Deficit, and Destruction Mafia, LLC.?

  • Jamie N

    Breaking faith with troops and their famillys thats why Ron Paul get more money from military familys than enyone else including the President.We all know what DR Paul stand for.The consitution the government is much more criminal than the mafia they are just great liers.The american people are loosing their freedoms well there childern and parents die in illegal wars.Also you talk about Lybia you are destroying there country well killing people covilians children included in a cival war withch is illegal.Clitons a scum bag and so is Obama POeneta and many others in the to of the government.

  • Valerianus

    While Panetta's whimpering is most likely predicated on the belief that Boobus Americanus can be swindled into applauding the throwing of money into a bottomless pit, there is also a rather insidious undertone hinting at something along the lines of "You'd better not make the troops angry. You wouldn't like it when they're angry." Would the "boys" carry out orders to attack "domestic enemies"? The short answer is, yes, they would, because they already believe that there are legions of traitors in the "homeland." The generals are sufficiently politically minded that they would resort to a coup d'etat if they felt it expedient or necessary. Cutting the defense budget might very well be the trigger for an American Caesar to launch his legions at a treasonous "Senate" (i.e., Congress).

    • persnipoles

      I'm stuck on this appeal-to-"the-troops" theme as more of a guilt trip -but you might be right about it's impact up there. I thought it was worth developing a list of effects the tactic might have.

      1. It speaks as if there's some inherent desire for war in 'troops' and that this is somehow sacrosanct. Hence, 'liberals' have been shouted down as if not getting Troops shot at would be disappointing to Troops.
      2. It is consistent with- and can evoke- -bogus images of people who reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally hate Troops. cf Jerry Lembcke's Spitting Image -Jerry spotted this connection in at least by '03. There is apparently fraudulent reporting of Troops-Abuse to this end.
      3. It Dishonestly packages 'troops' as ends rather than means -the way children can be let down and are ends-unto-themselves. Arguements of morality, necessity, economy, etc. cover the war issue –Troops have nothing to do with it. I knew that even when I was Troops; and I doubt I was just The Bright One. …4. …

  • Jamie N

    No its better to fight illegal wars against countrys that are no threat to America and destroy your already bankrupt country more than you and others including Bill already have.Keep killing poopr people around the world.I white and am ashamed that Eroupeans witch my family would have come to Canada from and Americans came from are the people killing the poor.But there is really no longer black and white its rich and poor.The sooner the police and militarys learn this the better.What class in the near future do they thin k they will fall in.Wake up.