By John Isaacs*
July 9, 2001
WASHINGTON -- More than a decade after the end of the Cold War, President Bush is proposing to spend $343.5 billion on the military, an amount equal to the average Cold-War spending level.
The United States no longer faces the Soviet Union war machine; yet this country is spending as if the world has not changed. This outrageous request to increase last year1s already bloated budget by an additional $33 billion comes at a time when the recently enacted tax cut is already draining vital resources from education, health care, prescription drug benefits and repairs to the nation's roads and bridges.
The military clearly needs better housing for its soldiers, improved readiness and more spare parts. But the problem is not a lack of money. The problems are endemic to the Pentagon: an accounting system that leaves the military in the dark on how it is spending its money; politicians who decorate the appropriations bills with billions of dollars of pork; duplicate requests among the four services; and the pursuit of Cold-War weapons that are no longer needed.
Because of its shoddy bookkeeping, the Pentagon has no idea of what it1s buying, what assets it holds and what it needs for the future. In fiscal year 2000, for example, the Pentagon's Inspector General Office found $1.1 trillion worth of bookkeeping entries that could not be documented. Further, the General Accounting Office found $32 billion worth of equipment and parts no longer needed. To remedy the spare parts shortages, Congress appropriated more than $1 billion two years ago; now Pentagon auditors have no idea if the money was spent for its original purpose or siphoned away for other uses.
This scandal has reached such proportions that senior members of Congress have taken note. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-WV, rightly pointed out that "If the Department of Defense does not know what it has in terms of assets and liabilities, how on earth can it know what it needs?"
Republicans are concerned too. Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson's Governmental Affairs Committee recently concluded: "Wasteful spending and mismanagement sap the readiness of the armed forces and weaken national security."
Not that Members of Congress are innocent. Hundreds of bases have been kept open and weapons purchased more to help reelect senators and representatives than to maintain a strong defense. Senate Republican leader Trent Lott. R-MS, has steered almost a billion dollars for an amphibious assault ship the Pentagon never requested. The Georgia delegation insists on chopping away at money for priority Pentagon programs to pay for low-priority C-130 transports made -- where else? -- in Marietta, Ga. Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, has labeled the raids "fiscally irresponsible in the extreme."
In all, Citizens Against Government Waste, a taxpayers watchdog group, found $9.6 billion in pork projects in the fiscal 2001 defense budget.
Then there is the problem of duplication of programs. Not surprisingly, the Air Force maintains a huge compliment of aircraft. So too does the Navy, the Army and the Marines. There are four separate health units ,chaplain's services, training complexes and much more.
Former President Dwight Eisenhower complained bitterly about the inter-service rivalries that cost him time and the country precious resources. Forty years later, the situation has only gotten worse.
Lastly, pressured by both defense contractors and politicians, the Pentagon continues to spend huge sums on weapons originally designed to cope with the Soviet menace. While Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has announced a cutback of the Reagan administration's expensive B-1 bomber program, he continues to pour money into the Air Force's F-22 advanced tactical fighter that was designed to combat those military aircraft that Moscow was expected to be churning out annually.
Now Russia can't even afford to maintain its existing weapons, and produces few new aircraft. Yet the $63-billion F-22 program marches blindly along, at a cost of $180 million per plane. That1s more than triple the cost of the plane it would replace, which is still the most advanced fighter in the world.
Similarly, the Navy plans to spend $65 billion on new submarines originally designed to chase Soviet subs. At more than $2 billion per sub, it is hardly needed to chase after mothballed Russian subs or the antiquated submarine fleet maintained by North Korea, Iran and other potentially hostile countries.
That money could certainly be used for higher priorities. Conservatives are fond of accusing liberals of throwing money at outdated domestic programs. Yet the same charge can be tossed back at the pro-Pentagon forces. President Bush's $33 billion proposed increase is wasteful symbolism at its worst. Retired Air Force chief General Merrill McPeak told the February 8th Washington Post: "If we can't defend this country for $300 billion a year, we ought to get some new generals."
And perhaps some new political leaders as well.
In the meantime, the defense budget should be cut, not increased, until the Pentagon can cope with its problems.
John Isaacs is president of Council for a Livable World, a pro-arms control organization based in Washington, D.C. (Copyright 2001, Global Beat Syndicate, 418 Lafayette Street, Suite 554, New York, NY 10003 http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate).