By Christopher Hellman
Center for Arms Control and Non-ProliferationDecember 4, 2006
Since the election there have been new calls for changes in U.S. security policy. The departure of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the acknowledgement by President Bush of the need for a re-examination of our Iraq strategy, and the call by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to include Iran and Syria in discussions on a solution to the crisis in Iraq at least hint at the possibility of a shift in thinking on security issues. This shift results directly from the dramatic Democratic take-over of Congress for which the situation in Iraq played a major role.
Yet the Democrats return to power will not erode Congressional support for rising Pentagon spending, let alone result in reductions in the military's $463 billion annual budget (not including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which, if included, could top $600 billion).
In fact, defense spending has been rising dramatically in recent years, with broad bi-partisan support. For example, as part of the fiscal year 2007 budget cycle, the House of Representatives passed the annual defense authorization bill 396 to 31, with only 30 Democrats (15 percent) voting against it. The same bill passed 96 to 0 in the Senate. The annual defense appropriations bill received even stronger support, passing the House 407 to 19, with 17 Democrat (9 percent) voting "nay." The Senate adopted the measure 98 to 0. Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, annual defense spending, not including funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, has grown by $120 billion in real terms, an increase of 35 percent.
In many cases, Congress has been the problem rather than the solution in efforts to control spiraling defense budgets. In December 2004, for instance, the Pentagon released "Program Budget Directive No. 753," (PBD 753), which suggested reductions in a number of high profile weapons programs, and proposed $30 billion savings from projected spending over the next six fiscal years. Yet these meager efforts were "dead on arrival" on Capitol Hill. The bulk of PDB 753's proposed reductions were dropped, including plans to terminate the C-130J aircraft program, and end procurement of the F-22 fighter in 2008.
In February 2005 the Navy announced plans to use a "winner-take-all" strategy to procure the DD(X), its next generation destroyer, a move that would force Northrop Grumman's Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi to compete against General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works in Maine for the lucrative contract. Congress blocked the plan, which the Navy estimated would have saved $300 million per ship.
As part of its work on the FY'07 defense budget, Congress reversed a number of Pentagon decisions. Some examples include:
-
• While the Pentagon requested no F-22A fighters, Congress added $1.4 billion to purchase 20 aircraft
• In addition to fully funding the Pentagon's request for 12 C-17 transport aircraft, Congress included as part of legislation funding military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan $2 billion for 10 additional unrequested aircraft
• Despite the Pentagon's plan to select a single supplier for engines for the Joint Strike Fighter, Congress approved $340 million to continue developing a second source for the JSF engine, and directed the Defense Department to include additional funding in the FY'08 request
In its August 2006 economic analysis, the Congressional Budget Office projected annual deficits of between $275 billion and $325 billion between now and 2010. The new Democratic congress risks adding to the upward spiral in military spending and increasing the deficit, rather than an assessing what our true security needs actually are.
More General Analysis on US Military Expansion and Intervention
More Information on US Military Expansion and Intervention
More Information on US Trade and Budget Deficits, and the Fall of the Dollar
