congress, then there are automatic cuts and 50% of that falls across defense, homeland security, the intelligence, agency he is of the government. and it would be pretty devastating and the biggest reason is that this year, the current year we re in, 2012, as we call at the federal level. right. we already are making the department of defense take $465 billion worth of cuts. so, to put another 600 billion starting in 2013 on the department of defense, i think would be devastating. do we have a little to give the super committee? maybe. i ve been one of those people trying to give them some idea, trying to figure out with secretary panetta what it looks like, this 465 billion we are cutting this year, but we don t have a lot more after that, honestly. congresswoman, what we are hearing in the national journal today that members are embracing this idea and it was out a
little bit earlier, this discussion, taking the savings from both of the wars and counting that toward the require respect that the super committee has. is that a gimmick? well, first of all, we will be out of iraq by december 31st of this year. but, again, we have to find $465 billion in this fiscal year. having started october 1st going through this next september 30th. a lot of that is already accounted for. and also remember, we have these troops returning. they are going to have a lot of mental issues. they are going to have health problems. some of that money has to go in that direction. and we have to regroup our troops and try to figure out what does the new troop look like? how is he equipped and educated for the new wars that we will face? so, you can t just say, well, we are gonna save this much because we are pulling out of that war and just going to put it toward the super committee. a lot is spoken for this year. something you said last month, u.s. news reporting that y
can cut $1 million. if they can t do that, half a million from defense over the next 10 years. that s something my next guest doesn t want to see happen. he s chairman of the armed services committee. mr. chairman, it s looking like increasingly the automatic triggers would go into effect as things stand now, right? i sure hope not. you know, as we went through the budget process earlier this year, we voted for this debt reduction plan, and people were saying everything had to be on the table. so defense stepped up and they have cut $465 billion out of defense over the next 10 years off of last year s request for defense. i just want people to understand that that is a very, very substantial cut. and we re working knew translate that into what it will mean as far as how many troops we ll have to take out, what we ll
billion in defense, right? actually, even higher than that. we ve already cut 465 billion. if the sequestration kicks in it will be over another 500 billion. you know, we understand that defense has to be on the table just as everything else is. out of a budget as large as the defense industry has there has to be some way to save some money but we have saved a lot. to try to break the back of the recession on the backs of the military means who will have our back the next time we re attacked? martha: there is lot of discussion obviously about the pension and benefits packages received by the military. obviously this is hugely sensitive area, nobody, everybody wants these people who put their life on the line to be well-taken care of after that. it is interesting, if you are not in 20 years, you re not getting any of this package. a lot of these packages are in the neighborhood of $26,000 a year in pensions.
epidemic. an estimated $366 million worldwide now living with diabetes. that equals the entire u.s. population and then some. and it s not just deadly, it s also expensive. the federal reports chris spend $465 billion a year fighting the disease. that includes type 1, which typically hits children and young adults, whose bodies cannot producening lin to break down sugar. there is the more common, type 2 diabetes, where you don t produce enough insulin. it often hits the obese. why are the numbers going up so rapidly, dan? it s the type 2 diabetes that s going up the fastest. researchers call it staggering. the overall number of people in the world with diabetes has double in the last 30 years. part of the problem is the population growth and