As President Bush prepares his fiscal year 2003 budget proposal, due to Congress on February 4, 2002, the Pentagon is pushing for a large increase -- around $20 billion or 6 percent -- over the current $329 billion. (The current pentagon budget is actually $343 billion with DOE nuclear weapons funding included) This increase would come in spite of budget deficits and cuts to other federal agencies. This increase will also not address the real threats facing our country or fund the current military action in Afghanistan.
RECENT US Pentagon BUDGET NUMBERS
- FY 2000 = $289 billion
- FY 2001 = $310 billion
- FY 2002 = $343 billion
US MILITARY SPENDING - GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
Source: Center for Defense Information, "U.S. military spending vs. the world"
- At $343 billion, the U.S. military budget request for FY'02 is more than six times larger than that of Russia, the second largest spender.
- 343 billion is more than twenty-three times as large as the combined spending of the seven countries
traditionally identified by the Pentagon as our most likely adversaries (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria).
PART II - Articles and Questions for Discussion
Pentagon Seeking a Large Increase in Its Next Budget
Questions for Discussion
Article by Lawrence J. Korb
(Contact WAND for a fax of this article.)
President Bush will present his budget proposal on February 4th. In anticipation of this event,
write the President, your members of Congress, and letters to the editor of your local newspaper
calling for federal budget priorities that reflect the real national security needs of our nation.
It is time to cut funding for unnecessary, Cold War weapons and redirect those funds toward the war on
terrorism, health care, education and other real security needs.
Pentagon Seeking a Large Increase in Its Next Budget
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 — The Pentagon is pushing for a substantial increase, in the range of $20 billion or more, for its 2003 budget, confident that the war on terrorism has strengthened Congressional and public support for rebuilding the armed services, senior military officials say.
Even as Congress is projecting a budget deficit next year, the Pentagon is arguing that it will need significantly more money to cover rising health care costs, stockpile precision-guided munitions and accelerate an array of big-ticket programs, including fighter jets and warships.
"There is a real necessity to do something we didn't really address in the last budget, which is ramp up procurement," said Under Secretary of Defense Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller. "It's got to go up."
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has also vowed to use the budget for the 2003 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, to advance programs he has said will "transform" the military, including missile defense, unpiloted aircraft and high-tech battlefield communications equipment.
Mr. Rumsfeld is expected to argue, for instance, that the armed services must stockpile laser- and satellite- guided weapons for future conflicts. Those munitions, which cost from $20,000 to $1 million each, exceeded expectations in Afghanistan, where they were used so extensively that the Navy arsenal came close to running dry, officials say.
The secretary will also call for developing munitions that can penetrate caves and hardened, deeply buried bunkers — one area where military officials say American bombs were not always effective in Afghanistan. North Korea and Iraq are thought to have built many such bunkers for command centers and storage sites for biological and chemical weapons.
Officials say Mr. Rumsfeld will also push for accelerating a program to convert Trident submarines, which are now armed with nuclear- tipped missiles, so they can instead carry precision-guided cruise missiles with conventional warheads.
Dr. Zakheim said the Pentagon budget was still being negotiated with the White House and declined to provide figures. But senior military and Congressional officials have said the increase will be about $20 billion over the current $329 billion Pentagon budget, or about 6 percent, after adjusting for inflation.
A $20 billion increase in the Pentagon budget would be less than the $33 billion increase approved by Congress last year, the largest since the Reagan era. But the new request comes in an economic downturn, when other federal agencies are being told to trim spending to balance declining tax revenues.
The proposed increase for the 2003 Pentagon budget will not cover the costs of fighting the war in Afghanistan or tightening defenses against terrorism in the United States, which include fighter jet patrols over some American cities. Those costs will continue to be financed by emergency budget supplements.
Congress has already allocated $17.5 billion in emergency money for the Pentagon since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But Dr. Zakheim said the Pentagon would need another major infusion of emergency money by late winter.
That is because the cost of the war, estimated at nearly $2 billion a month, is not expected to decline soon and may rise, Dr. Zakheim said. Though the bombing in Afghanistan has almost ceased, scores of American warplanes continue to fly missions there daily, thousands of troops are being moved in for long- term missions, and American bases around the world remain on heightened alert against terrorism.
"I don't see much tailing off yet," Dr. Zakheim said.
Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the White House budget director, ordered the Pentagon to trim an earlier, much larger budget request, Congressional officials said. Still, Mr. Daniels has said the White House will endorse a substantial Pentagon budget increase for 2003.
"The reconstruction of our defenses, which started in the '02 budget, will continue with perhaps more urgency," Mr. Daniels said recently.
Even as they criticize President Bush for the impending budget crunch, Democrats in Congress are widely expected to support a major expansion in military spending because of broad public support for the war on terrorism, Congressional officials say.
"All of us understand that our first obligation is to defend the nation, and we're going to make certain that the resources are available to do that," said Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.
"At the same time, every part of the federal government understands we can't be giving blank checks," Mr. Conrad added. "Unfortunately according to the administration, we're turning to deficit spending, in a major way."
Before Sept. 11, some Congressional and military officials had predicted that Mr. Rumsfeld would seek to reduce forces or cut big-ticket weapons systems to buy high-tech weaponry. But it appears that he would now like to maintain and even strengthen conventional forces to counter threats from nations like Iraq and North Korea, while also investing in new weapons to fight unconventional wars of the future.
"You can't ignore the wherewithal for fighting the kinds of wars that we've fought in the past, as long as the people who initiated those wars are still around," Dr. Zakheim said.
That means, he said, the military will still need to build tanks, warships and tactical fighter jets like the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter. He said there would be no cuts to the force structure of the services, as had been contemplated before Sept. 11. If anything, Dr. Zakheim said, the services might grow to reduce the need to use National Guard and Reserve troops — although that issue will probably not be addressed until the 2004 budget.
In its budget submission to the White House, the Pentagon will argue that pay increases and expanded health care benefits — programs initiated in the Clinton administration and continued by President Bush — have risen sharply and are eating into procurement budgets.
Last year, Congress enacted legislation requiring the Pentagon to supplement the Medicare coverage of military retirees over age 65, including costly pharmacy benefits. That move will increase Pentagon health care costs by $5 billion in 2003, military officials said, though some Congressional analysts have called that estimate high. On top of that, officials forecast that health care costs will grow at double-digit rates, draining billions more from the Pentagon's personnel accounts.
At the same time, the armed services are clamoring to accelerate major weapons programs that have been delayed by budget squeezes in the past. Early last year, there was much speculation that some of those programs — including a new generation aircraft carrier, the Army's Crusader mobile artillery unit and the Marine Corps's V-22 Osprey — might be canceled or reduced.
Now military officials are predicting that all those programs will be financed in 2003, and that some will be expanded. Senior uniformed officers have also complained privately that a $20 billion increase will not be enough, officials say, raising the likelihood that they will lobby Congress for more money.
"We're in an atmosphere where not many hard choices are being made," said Gordon Adams, a budget official in the Clinton administration who is now director of the Security Policy Studies Program at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. "And as long as we're not making hard choices, there will be an attempt to have it all."
by James Dao
New York Times, 1/7/02
The Baltimore Sun, December 12, 2001
PART III - ACTION
The New York Times 1/7/02
www.nytimes.com/2002/01/07/national/07PENT.html
NOTE: FAIR USE NOTICE: This site
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use',
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
