Roanoke Times Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc. DATE: MONDAY, October 16, 1995 TAG: 9510160095 SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A6 EDITION: METRO SOURCE: DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Their fortitude fails them, however, when it comes to the guys at the Pentagon.
Far from cutting military spending at a time when the nation faces no serious threat to its security, President Clinton and the Congress seem to be trying to see who can force-feed the most high-fat diet to an already porcine defense establishment.
First Clinton, fearful of appearing weak on preparedness, proposed a $25 billion increase in military spending last December. Then Congress did him one better, passing a budget resolution in June that provides $7 billion in fiscal year 1996 - and a total of $18 billion over the next seven years - for "add-ons" the military did not even request.
Since when has the Pentagon been too demur to ask for all the money it needs, and more?
The House added $493 million for the first two of 20 B-2 bombers that the Pentagon says it doesn't need. The 20 it already has on order are quite enough, thank you. Oh, but we insist, the House replied.
What's another half a billion, here and there, when hundreds of billions must be cut from the federal budget to make a dent in the deficit?
Consider that the United States already is spending $5 billion every week on the military, according to the Center for Defense Information. That's $700 million a day.
In boosting defense spending, Republicans claim to be acting on a mandate from the public: It was a core provision in the House's "Contract With America." Yet polls show big majorities of Americans believe that the Pentagon should shoulder its share of any budget cuts.
Remember next time: Read the fine print before signing the contract.
by CNB