|
02/17/2005
Pentagon, Part I
FY 2006 Defense Budget Request
I thought we’d spend the next two weeks looking at where our
tax dollars go when it comes to spending on defense. For fiscal
year 2006 the total discretionary budget authority, as requested
by President Bush, is $419.3 billion, an increase of 4.8% over FY
2005. This excludes supplemental appropriations, such as the
$80 billion plus just requested by the White House for the war in
Iraq and Afghanistan. It also doesn’t include about $20 billion
that falls largely under the Energy Department for the nuclear
weapons program.
Breakdown by Component ($ billions)
FY 05 FY 06
Army 100.3 100.0
Navy/Marine Corps .119.2 125.6
Air Force ..117.8 127.5
Defense-wide .62.8 ..66.2
Total .400.1 419.3
Dept. of Defense (DoD) Budget by Title
Military Personnel 104.0 108.9
Operation & ..137.0 147.8
...Maintenance
Procurement ...78.1 ..78.0
RDT&E ..68.8 ..69.4
Military Construction ...6.0 7.8
Family Housing 4.1 4.2
Other .2.1 3.2
Total ..400.1 419.3
Note: RDT&E – Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
The 2006 budget signals the first step toward changing the
structure and improving the capabilities of the U.S. military.
Michelle Flournoy, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, commented “DoD is way over-
invested in capabilities for conventional war fighting,” but under-
equipped to respond to such threats as terrorism, insurgency and
attacks with weapons of mass destruction. [William Matthews /
Defense News]
Among key items, the budget includes $9.5 billion for protection
against weapons of mass destruction and protection of critical
infrastructure, while special operations forces are scheduled to
grow with $362 million spent on training for foreign languages,
to cite but one line item.
But there is already one huge controversy and that is in the plans
to cut one of 12 aircraft carriers, the USS John F. Kennedy, one
of two remaining that is conventionally-powered. The DoD
argues that improvements in maintenance, training and readiness
will enable the Navy to operate as efficiently as it currently does
with 12.
Well, you all know this sets the stage for a terrific congressional
battle as the senators and congressmen protect their home
turfs .as they are wont to do when plans are made to cut any
base or weapons-system, for example. Here is the argument as
spelled out in the February 14 issue of Defense News by reporter
William Matthews.
Republican Senator John Warner (VA), chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, said he was “shocked” by the
administration’s plan to retire the Kennedy. In hearings, Admiral
Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, “said he included money
for 12 aircraft carriers in the Navy’s 2006 budget when he
finished writing it in August, but in December he was ordered by
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to draw up a list of
‘potential offset’ – items that could be cut from the budget.”
[Matthews]
“We put the carrier on the table as one thing to be considered,”
Clark said, warning Rumsfeld that the Navy “would take some
risk if we eliminated a carrier,” but added the risk could be
reduced through efficiencies.
But then Clark gave senators ammunition for keeping the
Kennedy.
“In the post-9/11 environment, overcentralization is not a good
strategy,” the admiral said, saying it would be a mistake to have
all of the East Coast aircraft carriers based at Norfolk, VA.
This was seen as a sop to Democratic Senator Bill Nelson (FL).
“If the Kennedy is retired, the ship’s home port of Mayport, FL,
stands to lose hundreds of jobs and about $200 million that the
ship contributes to the local economy each year,” according to
Matthews. He continues:
“The logical solution might be simply to move one of the five
carriers based in Norfolk to Mayport. But that’s not possible.
Mayport is not equipped to handle a nuclear-powered ship.
“Clark said it would take up to three years to complete required
environmental impact studies, then two years of construction to
upgrade Mayport for nuclear-powered warships.
“That means it would be 2010 or 2011 before Mayport could be
made nuclear-capable, Nelson said. Thus if the Kennedy is
retired, all East Coast carriers would be based in Norfolk,
specifically what Clark warns against.
“Clark’s conclusion that all of the East Coast carriers should not
be concentrated in Norfolk appeared to catch Warner by surprise.
“ ‘This is the first time you have formally presented that to the
Senate,’ he told Clark. Dispersing the carriers would mean
economic losses for Norfolk.
“ ‘It would be six or seven years before a nuclear vessel could
steam into Mayport,’ Warner said.
“But keeping the Kennedy in service would mean one wouldn’t
need to.
“Nelson has written legislation that would require the Navy to
maintain a fleet of 12 aircraft carriers.”
And now you see, boys and girls, just how tough it is to slash
spending of any kind these days, whether it’s in the defense
budget or some congressman’s mohair subsidy. [Savings
generated by cutting the Kennedy are estimated to be $350
million a year.]
Next week I thought I’d pore through the list of over 1,000 items
that make up the $78 billion for procurement, as well as other
defense related topics.
Source, in addition to Defense News: U.S. Department of
Defense.
Hott Spotts returns Feb. 24.
Brian Trumbore
|
