Consequences of Sequestration: Military Less Time at Home, Fewer Soldiers, OutDated Equipment: Layoffs Hidden by Obama Administration

As DOD readies to layoff thousands 1 MILLION employees under the Obama administration’s failed sequesteration, the Department of Labor has urged defense contractors to break the law, as required by the Warren Act, by not sending out 60-day notices of layoffs. Terribly funny is that the 60 day notice requirements fall 4 days before the November elections. In the video below you hear that swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Virginia, who will be targets of those layoffs, might not be happy with the Obama administration, and just might swing their vote to Romney. See the video below.

The Department of Labor sent out the following message:

To employees of federal contractors, including n the defense industry, is not required 60 days in advance of January 2, 2013, and would be inappropriate, given the lack of certainty about how the budget cuts will be implemented and the possibility that the sequester will be avoided before January. ~ Department of Labor July 30th

Defense contractors say they are being told not to send out the notices – keep it a secret until after election day November 6th,  but their attorney’s are telling them they to follow the law.

If the cuts are not “avoided,” $500B in Military spending will be cut over the next 10 years. Obama is doing nothing about the neutering of our Military, because…he orchestrated it.

In the video, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) says Obama has gone through 4 budget cycles and each one has disarmed America:

If you take the half trillion dollars off – that’s without sequestration – then you add another half trillion dollars to those cuts, and as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says, it’s devastating. We will end up with the lowest ground force we’ve had since 1940, lowest number of ships since 1915, lowest strike vehicles in the air of all times. People need to understand what he has already done and the affect it is going to have if he is successful in the Obama sequestration

Among the most important issues of this debacle, after witnessing the consequences of our troops serving in multiple deployments in dangerous parts of the world, and the stress of repeatedly being away from home and family for years, the defense cuts will mean less time between deployments, referred to as “dwell time.”

Something we are not hearing much about is that we face losing 10,000 jobs from among the intelligence community.

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary asked what will happen with the cuts to the military?

We have a situation when Defense cuts that the President believes are much too deep and that Republicans and Democrats believe are much too deep, as well as non-defense cuts, uh, uh, Republicans would allow those to go into effect rather than ask millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more. That’s unacceptable as far as this president is concerned.


They always want tax increases. That’s what he’s been talking about since he got in there. Keep in mind now, in his own budget – people don’t realize this – the President designs the budget. If you add up all four of them it’s $5.3T he has proposed in his budget.

Now we’re looking at a 10 year period trying to squeeze $1.2T. That didn’t seem like a problem at all. This is HIS sequestration. It’s not as Jay Carney says – it’s not Congress – this is Obama’s sequestration. Think about jobs. Lockheed Martin is talking about the probability of 120,000 jobs they are going to lose as a result of this.

I’m concerned about the jobs, but I’m not as concerned about that as what he is doing about America’s ability to defend ourselves. That is the big issue.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) in the clip below says it means nearly ONE MILLION JOBS at stake in the Defense industrial base. As opposed to Inhofe, Ayotte says members of Congress need a wake-up call. Let me clarify that for the Senator – it’s the Democratically controlled Senate that needs the kick in the butt (or chop to the neck). She is calling on the President to step up and lead. Been there, done that and we have $1T in defense spending cuts.

In another post today, we learned that the General Services Administration broke the law by bypassing Congress when they signed a 20-year-lease for space at One World Trade Center in New York City. Judge Napolitano says through precedent, the Government is not bound by it’s own laws. 

Linked at BadBluethe baaadddest news on the planet – check it out here.

Linked at Political Realities who has more on this story. Thanks LD!

Sequestration and the Consequences of Cuts in Military Spending (video)

  • Pingback: Consequences of Sequestration: Military Less Time at Home, Fewer Soldiers, OutDated Equipment: Layoffs Hidden by Obama Administration « Jackie Wellfonder – Raging Against the Rhetoric()

  • Reality Cheque


    If you really want small govt, remember that the LARGEST EMPLOYER ON PLANET EARTH is the- drum roll please…..
    **U.S. Defense Dept! = 2.6 MILLION Employees**
    all supported by borrowing against future tax payer revenues
    (not current Taxpayer revenues, since we don’t have any -its all spent!).

    The Chinese Dept of Defense has 1 MILLION Employees, in a country with FOUR TIMES THE POPULATION OF THE U.S.A.

    Do you want tax cuts, and small govt, or do you want to be the Global police force? Its either one of its the other. If you are O.K. with paying 90% tax rates during wartime like we did to pay for WW2, then that is what is going to be needed to pay for the largest employer on the planet with tax money.

    All the cries for small govt are fake when in reality the “small-govt” demands are coming from people who want the USA to guarantee foreign nations borders, get bound into entangling alliances, pay to police the globe, have 11 carrier battle groups stationed around planet earth, and intervene in affairs across every continent-
    None of this is possible with a small govt, or low taxes.

    • montanaconserv

      Stop being so ignorant… the DOD budget is but a small percentage of the whole budget.. it will NOT be reduce the size of gov’t. It will only crash the economy even further than it is now. Go here to see a chart … gov’t pensions are close to overtaking the amount…

      Hint… get rid of the gov’t unions, and reduce costs.

      • Real Cost

        You are repeating pablum you heard from Neocon Media (not conservatives) and commissioned by the Heritage Institute, which led us into Iraq and is a hot bed of politicos and staffers invested in contracts.

        The Defense Budget alone without any conflicts overseas, is 3/4 of a TRILLION a year..only for regular approps.(no war/occupations/invasion/bombing included)

        This does not include any of the lifetime VA care, medical expenses, free mortgages for life,
        disability costs (45% of afghanistan-serving ‘troops’ FILE FOR DISABILITY= one out of two, try to go on the taxpayer dole for life now).. After WW2, the avg soldier who asked for a disability pension claimed ONE injury..
        Afghanistans’ 1 out of every 2 soldiers claim on average ELEVEN seperate disabilities each now.. to ensure that if ten get tossed out, one will stick and get them a taxpayer check for life.

        The disabilities in WW2 were men without legs, arms, hands, feet, massive burns..
        Today, most afghanistan claims are for mental compensation with no visible injury at all.

        Being the world police is fine with me if YOU pay for it, but dont tell me false tales massaged by Heritage Institute to cover up the massive costs of being the world police and global response force.

        Also not included in ‘defense costs’ are Justice Dept money, NSA money, GSA purchases (remember their nice convention in hawaii at taxpayer expense?), using fish and wildlife svc personel and cash to keep animals off afghanistan airfields.. STATE DEPT EXPENDITURES (remember building a half trillion fortified embassy/bunker in Iraq?)

        Its very easy to disguise and hide expenditures under all these other ruses and some go one for the next 60 years or more, and this is NOT a small expense. Let the freeloaders get jobs in the private sector, we need patriots not lifetime-benefits seekers or securing everyone elses’ borders.. this is 100% against the washington/jefferson advice of ‘no entangling alliances and trade with all, permanent alliances with none’.

        • Real Cost, there is no pablum here. In 2012 Defense spending is 25% of the non-existant budget. Pensions are 22%, Health Care 23%. Nothing is available to Americans without a strong military. I agree that there are places within DOD/Pentagon that need to be cut and they are being cut, the $1T over 10 years is ridiculous and dangerous.

          “Defense costs” depend on what you are talking about, a percentage of GDP or a percentage of budget. You haven’t made your talking points clear.

          I agree with you about protecting the borders of some other countries. My preference is to let every Muslim nation die by their own hand without us lifting ours.

          • Real Cost

            “In 2012 Defense spending is 25% of the non-existant budget. Pensions are 22%, Health Care 23%. Nothing is available to Americans without a strong military.”

            One out of every four dollars is a large sum.
            Secondly, that ignores a lot of spending incurred by other govt entities that are not ‘defense’ so its a lot more than only 1 out of every 4 dollars.

            “Strong Military” means strong enough to do what?
            Occupy every global sea, occupy for 70 years docile countries, pretend this actually valuable to americans, give lifetime payments to those engaged in this.. This is a global governance.

            We are in zero jeopardy of being invaded of overrun.. we are only in danger when we pass out visas, allow the Mexican border to be penetrated, or get involved in WW1 style nonsense where we (like germany, russia, britain of old.. that the founder warned us about) guarantee other nations that we will ensure their safety no matter what they do, pay their bills and protect their borders..

            that cannot be done with small govt, and its eventually a nation-killer economically to do it at all.
            NO NATION can be economically weak, and military powerful,because the romans found out long ago where that leads as the coinage turned from silver/gold, to brass and then lead.

            A strong border defense, is easily affordable and coupled with a strong and nationalistic economy makes a powerful and safe country. A global empire will always fall, it will always decay, and its will always collapse…which is what is taking place now

    • Reality Cheque, defense spending as a percentage of GDP is under 5% for 2012. Do you see a difference between paying soldiers, sailors, marines and coast guard, as opposed to a stimulus to keep teacher’s on a payroll, and then fire them when the money runs out? montanaconserv is exactly right: go after unions and fraud. Peace through strength.

      • Real Cost

        Maggie, if you look at MontanaConserv’s link right above me, that alone shows the defense budget consuming 25% of Federal Spending, and as I detailed above this leaves out actual war approps, occupation props, and lifetime costs that are brought to the taxpayer.. as well as all GSA, NSA, Justice, and State expenses that are required due to the military actions or used to service those actions..

        ITS A GIGANTIC SUM of the budget.. close to half if you honestly counted everything. The numbers you are fed by Neocon outlets who are not conservatives, they are Internationalists who want to use the USA to accomplish their own goals and personal enrichment, are grossly inaccurate.

        The USA’s does not need giant 2.6 Million man defense depts.. we are our own worst enemy because repub and democrat internationalists are letting in 3rd world migrants and people who want to do us harm, and then when they do, we are urged to get into global wars and expensive occupations that we could have avoided at ZERO cost by denying everyone from the middle east a Visa, and closing the mexican border.
        ‘Peace through Strength’ is a slogan- The reality is, its not our cause or our fight to defend the entire planet of settle everyone elses disputes at our cost.. and there are real limits to what a country of only 300 million can or should get involved in.

        We need to be strong enough to protect OUR borders, and we are very able to do that, but the reality is both Repubs and Dems have refused to do so while passing out Student Visas, Work Visas, H1b, Amnesty’s, like candy.

        If you want to be strong enough to occupy the planet, then you are going to be either a tax slave or in trillions of debt. Small govt is not compatible with this nonsense no matter how you spin it.

        • Most people can’t handle the fact that our demise is being wrapped in the flag. The soldiers aren’t getting the money allocated to defense — its going to contracting corporations. Look up the Iron Triangle.

        • montanaconserv

          Although you believe your values are altruistic, they are misplaced. We tried reducing the cost of the military via the Clinton cuts… it got us Al Queda and 9/11… we DID NOT protect our borders then, and with these next cuts the same thing will happen only in a bigger way. It can be balanced when properly done. The Constitution states we are to pay and cover our military.. it does not say we are to pay for tennis courts, frisbee golf courses, and multi-million dollar parties that our Gov’t departments have every year… (i.e., Stimulus Package)…

          • Real History

            1)”Although you believe your values are altruistic, they are misplaced.

            2)We tried reducing the cost of the military via the Clinton cuts… it got us Al Queda and 9/11…”

            1) I am in NO WAY “ALTRUISTIC” when it comes to govt or its expansion, military or otherwise. ‘Altruism’ if for YOUR MONEY coming out of YOUR pocket,
            or my money coming out of my pocket. I have no right nor does decency allow me to be as you claim “Altruistic” with other peoples money or tax funds- that must be dealt with as a stingy Miser.

            There are too many people who want to be generous with someone elses cash and they have both (R) and (D) after their names.

            2) You are also 100% MASSIVELY ILL INFORMED – or delisional- when you assert preposterously that Al-Queda was the result of the US military/State Dept NOT SPENDING MONEY ON DEFENSE or engaging in intervention abroad at great cost.

            THIS IS LITERALLY A INSANE statement. Al-Queda WAS CREATED AND FUNDED BY AMERICAN SPENDING AND AMERICAN MILITARY INTERVENTION. The stingers and targeting all came from the US Taxpayer. The special forces assistance to the Taliban / Al-Queda against the Russians was all courtesy of the US taxpayer and our military budget.
            Without our military and intel spending billions to equip the Al-Queda with surface to air missiles, they would have been wiped out mercilessly long ago.. LONG before 9/11, by Russian HIND attack choppers hunting them like rats.

            It was YOUR tax money and mine that was taken by the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, and national security council that was used to give Al-Queda a way to knock out those russian HIND choppers that were devastating them wherever Al-Queda raised its head.

            Not only was a LACK of advanced military equipment or military spending NOT the reason that Al-Queda grew and prospered.. WE USED OUR ADVANCED TECH TO ARM, EQUIP AND INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF AL-QUEDA.

            We paid to make sure that Al-Queda was armed with the best tech, and funded/organized what is today the taliban and Al-Queda. Osama was out paid puppet, collecting free harware, weapons and tactical assistance FROM our military and intel that we paid for. We assured their survival and expansion with the massive sums of american tax money that repubs and dems transferred to them.

            I will go out on a limb and suggest that you were probably cheering while singing along to a Lee Greenwood song when the soviets were pushed back from Afghanistan, turning it over via USA Military aid to Al-Queda and the Taliban.. lots of people were,
            and they are the same ‘patriots’ who are self-proclaimed ‘experts’ in intervention at taxpayer expense, nation-building, and all the Neocon scams that have been a complete disaster.

            Even today, these same types have learned nothing from their disasters, and see them as victories in which they re-imagine the past in some fantasy = “Al-Queda was created by a lack of US military spending”


            • montanaconserv

              Stop… all we did was arm the rebels — it’s been a war game played since war was created .. What I was talking about was Clinton had no less than THREE chances to take out Bin Laden – especially after the first attempt at the Twin Towers…. it was his cuts to the CIA and other agencies that prevented our intelligence from even having a clue as to what Al Queda was doing.. that I lay at Clinton’s feet. Bush 43 was just cleaning up his mess….

  • Pingback: Obama Administration Tries To Hide Job Losses From Spending Cuts()