The Pentagon Spending Spree
Editorial
The New York Times
February 6, 2002
With the nation at war, everyone expected a healthy
but reasonable increase in next year's defense
budget.Instead the Bush administration has
presented a bloated and unbalanced proposal
that would deepen future budget deficits,
distort national priorities and slow
the transformation of America's military
forces to respond to the novel needs of 21st-century warfare. Congress must summon the courage to
reshape and reduce this undisciplined budget.
The administration expects the Pentagon to
keep buying costly new versions of obsolete
cold- war weapons systems. Every dollar wasted
on these arms comes at the expense of alternatives
that would actually make America more secure,
like speeding military modernization and expanding
the range of projects designed to contain the
spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons materials. Spending so much on defense also
squanders money needed for compelling domestic
priorities, like protecting Social Security and
Medicare and expanding health coverage for the
uninsured.
The White House wants to give the Pentagon
$378 billion in the next fiscal year,
a whopping $48 billion more than this year.
That 11.6 percent increase, the largest since
the early Reagan years, is just the beginning.
Administration estimates call for more than
$2 trillion in military spending over the next
five years, with annual budgets rising to
$451 billion in 2007. Even that fails
to satisfy Gen. Richard Myers,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He plans to ask Congress to
increase the budget at an even
faster pace.
Strengthening national security does not mean giving
the military services and defense contractors everything they want. It requires wise leadership from the
White House and the Defense Department in forcing
choices and imposing priorities. There was not nearly enough of that from Mr. Bush and Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld in shaping this budget proposal.
This page supports additional money for
fighting the war against terrorism and
ensuring the security of the nation.
That includes increased spending
on Special Operations forces, building
more unmanned reconnaissance planes and
other advanced weapons and providing
funds for Congressionally mandated pay
raises.
What cannot be justified is tens of billions of
dollars for weapons systems designed years ago
for purposes now out of date. One of the most glaring examples is the administration's plan to build
as many as 3,000 new-model jet fighters over the
next decade or so at a cost of more than $300 billion.
The Air Force and Navy already dominate the skies
with their current fleet of F-14's, F-15's and F-16's.
With the future of aerial warfare moving in the
direction of unpiloted reconnaissance and combat
planes and long-range bombers, the number of new
fighters should be scaled back, with the more cost-effective Joint Strike Fighter favored over the Air Force's F-22.
The House and Senate rarely give expensive weapons
systems the scrutiny they deserve, in part because
defense companies have plants in many Congressional districts.
There are honorable exceptions in
both parties, like Senators Carl Levin and
John McCain and Representatives John Spratt
and Mac Thornberry, who know the difference
between legitimate national security spending
and wasteful military projects. It will be up
to these lawmakers and others like them to come
up with a more sensible — and affordable — defense budget.
nytimes.com |
