Here's the whole article--BTW, would you have been in favor of more money for the Military...Somehow, I find that hard to believe...Notice that the current budget was not set in place by the current administration...and also notice what was previously authorized but NOT funded!
Bush Eyes Additional $5.6 Billion For Military
Increase Is Far Less Than Services Expected
washingtonpost.com
By Roberto Suro and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 31, 2001; Page A01
President Bush will ask Congress for extra defense spending of $5.6 billion in the current fiscal year, administration officials said yesterday, which is far less than the armed services expected from a new president who campaigned on a promise to substantially increase the Pentagon budget.
The supplemental budget request, as it nears completion, does not include any new money for ballistic missile defense, which Bush has depicted as a top priority, or for the weapons systems and operating costs that he said the Clinton administration had grossly underfunded. Some senior military officers and defense experts said yesterday the president's request is so small that it will not fully cover the Pentagon's current expenses.
The largest single item in the Bush request is $1.9 billion for improved salaries, health insurance, housing and other personnel benefits that were authorized but not funded in the federal budget for fiscal 2001, which ends Sept. 30. Nearly $1 billion more will provide full funding for previously authorized flying hours by military aviators.
The armed services developed the request under a $5.6 billion limit set by the administration. It was sent to the White House on May 21, and the Office of Management and Budget is still fine-tuning some of the details, administration officials said. The proposed additions to the $310 billion defense budget could be sent to Congress by the end of the week.
"This request is the bare bones, just the items that are absolutely necessary to get by, and no one has any illusions that it is anything more than that," said a senior military officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
In the early days of the new administration, top military officials said they hoped to get much more, at least $8 billion to $10 billion, in a supplemental that would, in effect, be the first installment of a Bush defense buildup. But the White House and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld decided they would take care of only immediate needs in modifying this year's defense budget. The first reflection of their new defense policies will come in amendments to the 2002 budget, which are scheduled to be sent to Congress this summer. The new priorities will not be fully felt until the 2003 budget is unveiled next winter, senior administration officials said.
This budget plan results from a need to spend more time developing national security policies, as well as from a desire to impose fiscal discipline on the armed services, the officials said. Bush can seek no more than $6.5 billion in supplemental money -- not just for the Pentagon, but for the whole government -- without asking Congress to break the spending cap for 2001. While the administration was willing to give the Pentagon the lion's share of that sum, the White House insisted the military stay under the limit, officials said.
Bush also decided to hold off sending the supplemental request to Congress until after it finished work on a tax cut. Since the tax legislation passed Saturday, word of his plans has circulated through the defense establishment.
Although relatively small sums are at play, compared to the size of the defense budget, some senior military officers have complained. "On the campaign trail he said over and over, 'Help is on the way,' " said a flag officer, referring to the refrain Bush used in promising to boost defense spending. "Well, we are going to need help when the fourth quarter of this budget year rolls around, and it is not going to be there."
The military is not alone in this reaction. Congress, which repeatedly boosted the Clinton administration's defense requests, might decide that Bush has been too miserly, according to a key budget-maker.
"That's not going to cover the waterfront," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the ranking minority member of the House Armed Services Committee, arguing that a $5.6 billion supplemental will leave the Pentagon short of funds by the end of the fiscal year.
"It's disappointing," added Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert at the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think tank. "It calls into question the administration's seriousness about rebuilding defense."
In principle, supplemental spending requests are meant to provide relatively small amounts for contingencies that arise after the federal budget is enacted. But the Pentagon, unlike other federal agencies, has regularly used supplementals to fill out funds for basic operations, maintenance and supplies. Rumsfeld has warned that he intends to put an end to this practice, beginning with a crackdown this year.
The 2001 supplemental includes $44 million for repairs to the USS Cole, the destroyer damaged in a terrorist bombing, and $36 million to recover the bodies of nine Japanese civilians who died when a trawler was rammed by a U.S. submarine.
Also, the military is seeking $734 million to meet unexpected increases in the cost of natural gas and electricity.
Only a modest $143 million is earmarked for programs that advance the administration's goal of modernizing the military to counter new threats developing in the post-Cold War era. The largest of these expenditures is $50 million for a classified program to develop information warfare capabilities, such as computer programs that can disrupt a foe's financial system or protect U.S. banks from the same kind of cyber intrusions.
The Pentagon's plan for the supplemental saves $475 million by cutting back production of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, in accordance with the recommendations of a blue-ribbon panel.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company |
