Dec 5, 2012 6:55pm

Pentagon Begins Planning for $500B in ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Cuts

The Pentagon has started to plan for the half-trillion dollars in automatic cuts over the next decade that it could face as part of the “fiscal cliff” that would start in the new year.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had provided guidance that the Pentagon should conduct “internal planning” for sequestration cuts, Pentagon spokesman George Little told reporters this morning.

Sequestration is the term used to describe the automatic defense budget cuts totaling about $500 billion over the next 10 years that would be triggered in early January. The sequestration cuts were agreed to as part of last year’s debt ceiling agreement that resulted in the Budget Control Act.  It is one component of the coming “fiscal cliff” of spending cuts and tax increases that would be triggered in 2013 that has dominated the political debate in Washington since the presidential election.

For most of the year, Pentagon officials have said repeatedly that they would not plan for potential sequestration cuts because they hoped it would just be done away with by the Congress. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been vocal about what he has called the “devastating” impact of the automatic cuts if they were triggered. He once referred to it as a “goofy, meat-axe approach” to reducing spending.

Eventually, any resolution of the pending sequestration cuts were delayed until after the presidential election.

Now, with the deadline looming, the Pentagon has been authorized to look at what programs might be cut.

“We don’t want to go off the fiscal cliff, but in consultation with OMB we think that it is prudent at this stage to begin at least some limited internal planning,” said Little.

A a preliminary review began earlier this week to determine what would be impacted by cuts that will trim 9.4 percent from Defense Department programs, Little said. The review will prevent implementing sequestration in “an absurd way” within the Pentagon, he added.

The estimated $500 billion in cuts over the next decade would be in addition to the administration’s already planned cut of $487 billion over the next decade that it said was guided by a strategic review.  $55 billion in defense cuts would be triggered in 2013.

On July 31, the Obama administration issued a memo announcing that military personnel payroll costs would not be affected by sequestration cuts.  At the time, it acknowledged, “it is recognized that this action would increase the sequester in other defense programs,” namely in civilian personnel costs and weapons programs.

Little said he was activating a public affairs task force that would help communicate to the DOD’s 3 million military and civilian employees about the latest updates on any potential cuts.

Though sequestration could begin on Jan. 3, 2013, Little said, its impact would not be felt immediately on the workforce. The Pentagon would have a phased-in approach to the cuts that would likely be implemented in the months after that date should no deal be reached to avoid sequestration.

SHOWS:

User Comments

I just hope the military does not reduce veterans benefits. They deserve all that they need, and the military contractors need to STOP unnecessary wars!

Posted by: LeslieG | December 5, 2012, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm

I just hope the military does not reduce veterans benefits. They deserve all that they need, and the military contractors need to STOP unnecessary wars!

Posted by: LeslieG | December 5, 2012, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm

Depends who’s making the decisions. If its the Republicans, veterans benefits and programs will be cut. If its the President and the Democrats, they won’t.

Posted by: Randy | December 5, 2012, 8:42 pm 8:42 pm

Right Randy. And that’s why Obama wants to TRIPLE military member’s Tricare health insurance premiums over 5 years.
Because Obama looooves the military. Wake up.

Posted by: Logicsgood | December 6, 2012, 8:07 am 8:07 am

The republicans have voted against every veterans program for the past 4 years (I’m speaking as a Vet). Even against a bonus for guys and gals who are fighting in Afghanistan.

What is the difference if the defense cuts come from the sequester or they come from the republicans plan (essentially the Ryan budget)?

Posted by: tmferretti | December 6, 2012, 8:14 am 8:14 am

They need to be planning to stop the coup, by Obama.

Posted by: Rick McDaniel | December 6, 2012, 8:47 am 8:47 am

randy, the democrats don’t believe in a strong military, they want everyone to love each other, hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Posted by: Lizzie | December 6, 2012, 9:18 am 9:18 am

C’mon LIZZIE

Read history. Every time this country was threatened and military force was necessary a democratic President initiated it. From WWI thru Viet Nam and Bosnia The Defense Dept grows under every democratic Secretary of Defense while the republicans cut.

The cuts in the defense budget aren’t supported by democrats, read the sequester and the Ryan budget, they are the same.

Posted by: tmferretti | December 6, 2012, 9:37 am 9:37 am

Cutting our military budget just after abandoning Central Asia and North Africa to Jihadis is the wrong way to run America. Maybe if we keep repeating the President’s slogans, we’ll learn to believe it.

Posted by: Peikoviani | December 6, 2012, 10:43 am 10:43 am

“wrong way to run America”

If the nation thought President Obama’s policies were the “wrong way” we’d have elected the Republican candidate surrounded by Bush era NeoCon advisors. We didn’t.

Posted by: CenterOne | December 6, 2012, 11:00 am 11:00 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.