Pentagon Seeking $450 Billion Increase Over Next Five Years

Pentagon officials have prepared a new estimate for defense spending that is $450 billion more over the next five years than previously announced figures.

The new estimate, which the Pentagon plans to release shortly before President Bush leaves office, would serve as a marker for the new president and is meant to place pressure on him to either drastically increase the size of the defense budget or defend any reluctance to do so, according to several former senior budget officials who are close to the discussions.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[pawest]

Please help us to illuminate the hand that record defense spending plays in our current economic crisis. We are asking Bob Schieffer to press the candidates to respond to the question below:

"The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, at a cost of $5,000 per second, fuel our growing debt and feed the economic crisis. Even subtracting war funding, Pentagon spending is breaking records. Will rebuilding the economy require a tough look at military spending? What would you change?"

http://www.capwiz.com/peaceactionwest/issues/alert/?alertid=12001871

[Hirnlego]

What is needed is a long period of 'minding our own business' to fix the economy. Can't keep occupying nation after nation with this economy and huge debt.

[Whinger]

Most everybody is having to economise, the Pentagon should be no different.

[dhertzfe]

I think the Pentagon should look to Iraqi government for their funding. Don't they have $87 billion lying around somewhere? Besides, when we pull out of Iraq, there is no need for the spending spree they have enjoyed for the last 6 years.

[tbone99]

With the economy in smithereens and milions unemployed many more people will have to join the armed services just to survive.

Guess there's more than one way to boost recruitment.

[nomoreofthesame]

ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED without the pentagon and its greed for your money. F the neocons, skip the pentagon for 1 or 2 years and we could fix most of our budget problems.

[karela]

The United States already spends more on it's military then all the other countries in the world combined. Are we trying to make war on the entire world? Beyond that, I think that perhaps we've reached a level of spending that is counter productive to running an effective military. There's so much money that sharks circle in the water constantly looking for ways to get their cut of the bounty. We spend endless billions but our soldiers die in their showers, and not just one but many, because the contractors didn't ground the electricity. Mothers of soldiers had to run campaigns to send Silly String to Iraq because it was more effective at finding road bombs before they blew people up than anything the military had to offer. We had a fight in congress over whether or not to spend money making sure that the National Guard deployed to Iraq would have safe body armor----John McCain voted against it. In the meantime, Cheney's Halliburton stock had increased in value by more than 3,000%---and that was a year ago. The military heirarchy has become less able to do it's job in the face of fantastic budgets instead of more able to do it's job. The fight for the money has become more the point than running the military effectively. We need an Eisenhower to rise from the dust and take the military in hand. But more money won't do it.

[Liberal2]

Stupid arguments from stupid people who theink tey're liberals because they want to cut the military budget.

1) we spend a ton of money because we have a volunteer army. 18 year olds aren't join for $3/day (what I got in '68).

2) Modern weapons are expensive, partly due to the obscene profits defense contractors make

3) The Korean War began because the Congress so reduced the size and scope of the US military immediately after WWII that the North Korean leader thought he could simply invade the South. The US SecState actually described an area of interest that the US would defend that did not include South Korea. Why? Because we no longer had the manpower or weapons.

4) Many things we take for granted (the Internet, for one) came out of military research. Even integrated circuits are a product of military spending. IBM didn't see any utility in ICs, but the Air Force needed them for missile control systems

[karela]

I'm fairly sure that we can find others to produce things like the internet for less than several trillion dollars. Your argument is akin to saying that if you put an ice cream cone on top of a mountain that was built by the slave labor of three hundred million people, that it was worth it because we got the ice cream cone.

[drkazmd65]

So,... the Pentagon wants to get into a 'pissing contest' with the next President,... apparently they have forgotten that whomever that person might be (my money is on Obama of course) - that person will be their Commander. They will serve at his 'pleasure'.

He wants to get into a pissing contest with the Pentagon,... he is gonna win.

[tbone99]

Are you kidding - the people with the guns tend to win. Whats Obama gonna do- take them to court?- the courts are worthless with no way to enforce their decisions.

Looks like they are planning some major mayhem , as as we've read recently they have an army unit training for civil action in the states.

[zizyphus]

The bloated military is now threatening the next President. And what, if they don't get the money, they pull a coup?

Let's close half of the foreign bases now. and use the money to take care of all the poor veterans. The military is arrogant and overweening.

[maxfax]

No way.

[paixa3]

B.S.!!!!!

[Stirner]

Pure fascism.

[Blue in NH]

American defense spending is obscene. We spend as much as the entire rest of the world. It's no wonder that foreign companies want to cash in. Today three of the top 10 US defense contractors ARE FOREIGN OWNED. And most of the money that goes to them is borrowed from China. Pretty bizarre, no?

[taceva]

Dam it,I only need.00005 of $450 billion to help my finances.whats the problem?