The Bush White House: Opportunities and Challenges By Kimberly Robson It’s that time again. WAND’s top priorities are more important than ever, with a new administration and new Congress: Preventing increases and supporting reductions or a freeze in excessive pentagon spending. Supporting efforts to end U.S. plans for a National Missile Defense system. Supporting nuclear non-proliferation, reduction of nuclear arsenals and de-alerting of nuclear weapons. On pentagon spending there are mixed signals. President Bush has announced plans to increase the Department of Defense budget in FY 2002 only by the amount proposed by President Clinton, surprising many of us who were expecting larger increases under a Bush administration. But this $14 billion increase is still excessive. (see box) This budget does not include the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons programs, and recent figures from the Office of Management and Budget show approximately $1.4 billion more added to the Nuclear Weapons Program for new designs, development and testing of nuclear weapons. Experts, including Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan, assert that we could cut $62 billion from the pentagon budget without risk to national security. Yet the military Joint Chiefs and some members of Congress are pushing for significant increases in future budgets, while also trying to squeeze out extra money now from a supplemental appropriation to the FY 2001 budget for the “short-term needs of the military.” For the moment, President Bush and WAND appear to be aligned against this increase. Bush has said, “I have sent the message and I think it’s very important for us not to have an early supplemental…it’s important for us to do a top-to-bottom review to review all missions, spending priorities.” This top-to-bottom review of all military spending to determine what we really need (see page 2) allows for some optimism, but all indications are that the president’s hard-line, hawkish appointments and pro-military spending ideology will preclude rejection of exotic costly weapons, and the flow of dollars to the pentagon will continue unabated. Bush’s stated intent is to promote competition among the services, to encourage funding to flow to “the services that prove most effective.” Other presidents have tried and failed to restructure the military (in 1991, 1993 and 1997), and WAND is concerned that the results of Bush’s review will only be to move dollars around within the pentagon, not to make them available to meet the nation’s real needs. MIT research scientist Cindy Williams wrote in the New York Times (“Redeploy the Dollars,” 2/6/01) that “the nation deserves a fundamental break from military spending practices that for decades have allocated money across the services only for the sake of peace inside the pentagon.” WAND is working for a broader peace. Reductions in nuclear weapons would be a major step toward this peace. Candidate Bush made promising comments during the campaign about nuclear disarmament and taking weapons off of high alert (de-alerting). WAND is working to hold him to these promises by crafting legislation to cut unnecessary military spending (with Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities). Activists, keep alert. Much may happen, and fast. Just How Much Is $14 Billion? It’s more than the defense budgets of all the Pentagon-identified “states of concern” combined ($12.8 billion). It’s greater than total federal spending on law enforcement activities including the FBI, DEA and the INS ($13.6 billion). It’s more than the federal government spends on higher education ($13.8 billion). It’s almost as much as the non-military international affairs budget ($15 billion). And remember, that’s not the whole defense budget. That’s just the increase. Bush's Top to Bottom Military Review: WAND's Summary Issue: Defense Strategy Will look at: America’s likely enemies, new weapons to purchase, and how many wars we should be prepared to fight simultaneously The Good News: Leader of the study Andrew Marshall is known for asking tough questions, and has said that “no weapon is sacrosanct, in-cluding nuclear aircraft carriers, battle tanks, or costly new projects like the F-22.” The Bad News: Pieces of every exotic weapons system are made in every congressional district in the country, so no weapons program can be cancelled without a fight from Congress. Issue: Military Quality of Life Will look at: Pay, housing and morale The Good News: WAND agrees that men and women serving our country deserve fair pay, and access to good housing, health care and education. The Bad News: Like the federal budget as a whole, the military budget seems to place more value on expensive weapons than hu-man needs. Issue: Nuclear Weapons Will look at: Cuts in the nuclear arsenal, tak-ing weapons off hair-trigger alert The Good News: The Bush administration is considering this at all! The Bad News: The Bush administration is planning to start a new arms race by deploying a national missile defense system, a “shield” against enemy missiles which is costly, does not work, and is so aggressive that it will actually threaten our security. WAND-Supported Legislation in the 107th Congress To Date: WAND's Summary Legislation introduced in the 106th Congress, but not signed into law, must be re-introduced. H.R.126 Bill to limit production of Trident II (D-5) missile, Rep. Bill Luther (D-MN). H.Res.17 Nuclear Abolition Resolution, introduced by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). S.113 Bill to terminate production of D5, Sen. Feingold (D-WI). S.272 Bill to cut funds for the V-22 Osprey, Sen Feingold (D-WI). Return to index