Using defense budget as jobs program
robs public
USA TODAY (US) - MONDAY May 20, 1996
Edition: FINAL Section: NEWS Page: 12A
THE EDITORIAL PAGE; Today's debate: DEFENSE SPENDING; OUR VIEW: When the Senate votes this week, will lawmakers' self-interest and the defense contractors prevail?
Congress' worst-kept secret is out: Members are acknowledging, however grudgingly, that defense spending is driven in part by its value as a local jobs program, not necessarily by the nation's priority needs.
``I'm not saying this is a jobs bill,'' Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., tried lamely to argue last week. In the next breath he gave the game away, reminding colleagues where their parochial self-interest lay: ``But you've got hundreds of people out there who've lost their jobs . . . from defense cuts. . . And every district has felt that.''
Weldon's district, for one, was a big-time beneficiary of the Cold War arms buildup. As chairman of a key subcommittee, he now has his hands on the weapons-spending tap at a time when the need is less.
But Weldon is not alone as a hometown arms-hugger. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., describes ``an overwhelming constituency for a stronger defense. . . . I see the shortfall in weapons procurement where I live.''
Where she lives is a district derisively described by defense-spending watchdogs as so jammed with military contractors that there's scarcely any room for people.
The Senate takes up this week the defense authorization for next year, already sweetened by the House with $12.4 billion more than the administration requested.
And even parts of the Pentagon's own high-tech wish list are open to challenge. A new report by Congress' General Accounting Office, scarcely known as soft on defense, questions a long-range $213 billion program to add whistles and bells of little or unknown battlefield value.
Most contentious is the congressional stampede to rush new spending on a missile defense program when the CIA says the threat remains highly remote.
Aerospace interests, not eager to wait and see whether the threat ever arrives, have spread $706,000 over the past two years among members of the House Missile Defense Caucus to help keep taxpayer dollars flowing. More has gone to foundations that peddle their interests.
Meanwhile, the six-year budget adopted by the House Thursday envisions $700 million in savings through curbs on Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, tax credits for low-income families and most other domestic programs. At a time of such constraints, the defense budget deserves similarly close scrutiny.
Meeting core defense needs in a changed world should not be burdened with hometown jobs programs in disguise.
TEXT OF INFO BOX BEGINS HERE
Disputed programs
Some of the programs being challenged:
Missile defense. Current research and development programs envision spending $2.8 billion next year; congressional proposals would boost that by 25%-30% next year and billions more in future years. CIA says missile risk is very remote.
F-18 fighters, B-1 bombers. More planes and other weapons to repel air and ground attacks. Pentagon would spend $213 billion; General Accounting Office says program is rife with redundancy and not cost effective.
F-22 fighter. $74 billion program conceived in the '80s to counter future Soviet aircraft that now will never be built.
Attack submarine. $72 billion new technology program; no other country threatens to come even close to existing U.S. submarine capabilities.
Source: USA TODAY research
Copyright 1996 Gannett Co., Inc.
(c) 1996 USA Today. All rts. reserv.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
