Why It’s Hard To Cut Military Spending

Virginia Republican Rep. Rob Whittman is warning that the forced spending cuts known as the sequester could put servicemembers' "lives in the balance" because of the drastic cuts to the nation's defense sector.

NEW YORK — Broad spending cuts designed to slam most U.S. government programs with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer were set to begin taking effect on Friday, yet investors have so far barely batted an eyelash. The $85 billion in across-the-board “sequestration” cuts were expected to cause airport delays, disrupt public services and result in lower pay or layoffs for millions of government workers. What they were not likely to do, at least as far as financial markets were concerned, was cause enough damage to derail a U.S. economy that has lately been gaining momentum.

A majority of American voters said in a new poll conducted by The Hill that cutting the nation's debt is more important than continuing to fund domestic and military programs at current levels.

By James Kwak

Here’s the latest from Gallup on which institutions Americans think should have more and which should have less power:

Spencer Ackerman has an item about General David Petraeus’ testimony on the Hill today headlined “Petraeus Endorses Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy, Though ‘Everything Is Hard All the Time.’”

WASHINGTON -- Military services have outlined a series of spending cuts that will reduce planned raises for military personnel, curtail aircraft maintenance, delay new equipment for soldiers and the movements of aircraft carriers around the globe, documents obtained by USA TODAY show.