You're watching...
Former Defense Secretary William Cohen on potential defense spending cuts if the fiscal cliff is reached.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- -- held no deal DC still do get out enable automatic cuts kick it January 1 because they haven't figured something out forgot the economy.
Our military could be -- one really getting slammed defense spending making up for over 50% of those.
Total budget cuts that would automatically be sequestered in.
All other government programs -- the -- so defense half of them eighty some -- other government programs accounting.
For the other half former Defense Secretary William -- On why this could be a scary -- secretary good to have you what would be the impact the immediate impact on on the military do you think.
Well the immediate impact would be on no operations and maintenance basically.
Cuts in training.
Programs will be deferred it would have an impact in terms of our war on note terror in terms of being able to to fund these properly.
But what have you talk about budget cuts usually used auto with a premise so what are the threats that face us.
What are their what's the strategy we have to combat those threats and what does the revenue necessary to fund the execution of the strategy.
And now we have a situation -- just -- across the board and and day and deal with -- I I think it's going to be very dangerous for us it's not that the defense budget can't because we've already mandated 500 billion -- cuts over ten years.
This is another 500 billion which means roughly -- share.
-- starting in January another 58 billion in twenties -- through cable come out.
And that means self.
We're going to have a major impact on our readiness and that's always consider to be the third -- you touch readiness you touch her ability to fight.
You touch our morale of our troops there weapons of systems there ammunition.
And their capability of carrying out their emissions so it's not that defense can't be cut as I mentioned it's not how much you spend.
But is how you spend it and you start talking -- taking across the board cuts then you're really decimating the whole logic behind having a strategy and then funding the strategy.
I know you.
Were -- your career.
Senator -- to be bipartisan about this surge and as a Republican and democratic administration but.
Many say it was Republican signed under this head and then you know as part of this this gold backed up to a backbone.
This was -- -- be ahead and and and that they agreed to it and now they're whining about it when he their wallets so they signed up because they felt that the congress would be.
So concerned about the national security of the country they've never let this happen.
And so now or a situation where it's happening because later in -- in -- though I mean absolutely the social I don't know.
How do you think this is ultimately settled.
It's only gonna be settled when the reality sets in on all members of congress saying is this what you want for military of these in the young men and women that you are sending out to fight the battle to protect the United States America.
Our first obligation is to defend this country.
And that means having to defend it abroad and now you're asking these young men and women who are out there on the front lines of say well a sorry we couldn't reach an agreement and therefore you'll have to take these reductions even though they don't make any sense in terms of what your requirements are so I think there's a heavy responsibility on Republicans and Democrats.
And that the commander in chief the president states he has an obligation to bring those parties in -- look.
Do you really want to have this is a policy of the United States at a time we're trying to put.
Maybe that is a teenager it was maybe that's happening behind the scenes secretary but I wonder.
I guess what I'm also wondering about you talk about the military threat wouldn't there be an international security threat to us.
It's let's say they have no deal or they come together with a deal that's a bad deal our ratings are still cut our markets still tank isn't that.
Potentially the greater -- -- the greater threat well obviously if the markets tank that would not going to be in a position to raise the funds necessary other -- going to.
The attitude to borrow the money from the Chinese again at a rates that much higher.
That we're currently paying so this is fundamental to our national security we have to have an agreement we have to make sure that we don't allow the cuts -- go into effect.
There can be targeted cuts and I think is pretty easy to identify where those cuts can come.
But when you say you have to do it across the board you've really decimate the logic I wouldn't try.
We view that the deal whatever we're hearing certain looks like he could -- One of the again the wanted to about -- -- disproportionate added tax hikes vs cuts almost three to one.
I think there's no question that have to be tax hikes and -- there will be a deal without it.
But -- have to be the entitlement cuts as well or the restraint in the growth of entitlement but if we don't think he doubted we don't see that the latter -- talking about then then the market's gonna do -- force right the marketplace to respond and duo will see our economy go into recession we'll see the unemployment go to 11%.
We'll see our impact to be reduced in terms -- a military capability other nations will take a look at what we're doing.
The Chinese will say well you talk about a pivot to the Asia Pacific region show me the money.
You won't have the money to put the 60% of our naval forces so basically in the Pacific as opposed to where they are today.
So everything I guess tied into these budget numbers in terms of the impact.
Not only on our military capability but how other countries -- -- -- how other countries see us then we'll also have an impact on national security ultimately.
Will -- secretary thank you.
-- you -- with the -- talent one.
