More

Budget Deal Would Give Pentagon Extra Funds In Exchange For Social Program Cuts

Pentagon

First Posted: 04/04/11 07:03 PM ET Updated: 06/04/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- While media attention focuses on the cuts to government spending demanded by House Republicans and broadly accepted by Democrats, the Pentagon is poised to reap billions more in federal funds, according to sources close to the discussions. The confines of the budget negotiations established by the two parties results in a system where every extra dollar going to military spending ends up being offset by a dollar reduction in spending on domestic social programs.

Last week, Senate Democrats came to the table with $10 billion in proposed cuts to the military budget but, a House GOP aide said, the offer was immediately rejected. Democratic sources confirmed that the party had proposed defense spending reductions but disputed the amount.

Democrats and Republicans are now moving toward an agreement that would increase defense spending. But Democratic sources close to the talks said the Democrats' spending recommendation remains roughly $2 billion shy of that of their Republican counterparts. A spokesman for the Senate spending panel declined to comment, citing ongoing talks. A spokesman for Senate Democratic leadership did not respond to requests for comment.

During an Appropriations Committee meeting last weekend, the Obama administration and Senate Democrats proposed funding the Pentagon at $513 billion. That spending level is the same as Senate Democrats’ December proposal, but it also offers a $5 billion boost to the Pentagon's current budget.

Still, it's not enough to placate Republicans, who have demanded funding be set at $514 billion, even though, an administration official says, the Department of Defense has "signed off on" the $513 billion level.

Sources say the two sides have also failed to come to an agreement on money designated for military construction. While Democrats are pushing for a $73.1 billion construction budget, Republicans have countered with $73.94 billion, a difference of $840 million.

Combined, the differences between the two parties' plans are trivial in the face of the $14 trillion federal debt. But in the context of discussions over how to keep the federal government funded through the end of September -- and avert a shutdown in the process -- aides say the disagreement is proving critical.

“If you plus up those areas together,” one high-ranking Democratic official said, “what happens is you have to take it from somewhere else. And where are you taking it from? From Labor, Education, the NIH [National Institutes of Health], health care, the social safety net. That’s how they are trying to jam us.”

Republicans say that Democrats knew from the beginning that proposed cuts to defense spending would be rejected. A GOP aide said the military spending negotiations had been complicated by the Pentagon's recent indication that it would need more than it initially requested -- an account that the Obama administration disputes.

Either way, the late-stage negotiations over a budget resolution hit a snag Monday, in part because of domestic spending cuts necessitated by the hike in military spending. According to Politico’s David Rogers, several chief areas of dispute remain. Among them are $3 billion in funding for the establishment of new nonprofit health cooperatives, a component of the president’s health care reform package that is cherished by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). Negotiators are also discussing roughly $10 billion in cuts to the Labor, Education and Health and Human Services departments.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- While media attention focuses on the cuts to government spending demanded by House Republicans and broadly accepted by Democrats, the Pentagon is poised to reap billions more in federal ...
WASHINGTON -- While media attention focuses on the cuts to government spending demanded by House Republicans and broadly accepted by Democrats, the Pentagon is poised to reap billions more in federal ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,442
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (34 total)
  1 of 4  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
HLL 07:06 PM on 04/04/2011
D*mn. D*mn. D*mn. D*mn!!!!

We the people of the United States have given our blood and we don't have anymore to give.

We have given our blood and trillions of dollars to four simultaneous wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya.) We have given our blood and a trillion dollars to bailing out Wall Street and the banksters for gross mismanagement and theft. WE ARE DONE.

The American  Read More...
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
04:43 PM on 04/09/2011
I love how the GOP want to have everything on the table...but not the stuff the like. Why are we paying for an alternative engine that the DoD doesn't even want, but a kid can't get a breakfast at school--doesn't learn because he or she is starving--falls behind--has nor programs to help catch up--ends up just like his or her parent/s. This is the GOP way of making damn sure the haves always will and those who don't have to sell themselves to the machine that will keep them in their place.
photo
Chopin
Multiply the truth. Speak truth through power.
12:44 AM on 04/06/2011
The whole American people, without exceptions, is being or will soon be confronted with a crucial fundamental collective choice --- between empire and republic.

Brother, can you spare a hundred billion? Secretary Gates might concede that paring $100 billion from the Pentagon budget "wouldn't be missed". But that's not really the point. Fudging, tinkering, shuffling, adjusting, tweaking, trimming, or massaging a terminally bloated military imperial budget will not cut it. That won't change the nature and outcome of an empire spiralling downwards. It's the proverbial "rearranging deck-chairs on the Titanic". The crucial question all Americans must confront and settle is: "Do Americans choose to have an empire or a republic?"

So far, over the past 6 decades, the vast majority of Americans have willy-nilly inherited an empire, while sleepwalking --- a global military-economic empire with over 700 military bases worldwide, operating on 3quarter trillion dollar annual budget. Now, in 21st century, 2011-2012, do Americans want to hang on to this empire, or dismantle and jettison it, and return to a republic? A profound and fateful choice is waiting to be made by the people, in the life of this nation, at a very critical juncture in the evolution of this nation since founding in 1776.

Empires have come and gone, throughout history, all inevitably gone. Nations persist, and republics can prosper, through ups and downs, good times and bad times. But empire and republic are mutually exclusive, because empires are oppressive, and displace republics.
01:13 AM on 04/06/2011
That's an interesting observation, I wonder if completely pulling out and "dismantling" 700 bases around the world is the answer. I do believe we are way too overextended in our capacity, but I would also say that I hope we would always be willing to help another people IF they request help, whether humanitarian or military aid because our naval or air resources could get to them quickly and easily. In other words, yes to help in Bosnia; NO to going into Iraq; yes to Afghanistan (but only to hunt Bin Laden and then leave); yes send ships to Japan to help; no to Viet Nam; yes to aid in Haiti, Indonesia, etc. In other words, use our military for humanitarian needs.

Part of the issue is diplomacy is key to building decent relationships between us and the rest of the world. It's something that I think we need to keep emphasizing, though there are those who just can't grasp the idea that it is more valuable than military might.
photo
Chopin
Multiply the truth. Speak truth through power.
02:29 AM on 04/06/2011
Republics can provide humanitarian assistance for natural disasters. Even tiny Switzerland can and has offered specialized humanitarian assistance in natural disasters. It does NOT take a militarized empire to do those humanitarian tasks.

The nature of empires is to conquer territories, dominate other nations and peoples, and subvert their governments and societies, for the benefit of the empire, and in the pursuit of that process, subvert and displace its own republican form of government, oppose and suppress its own people's true interests and civilian needs, as is happening today. Whether some people are imperialists or anti-imperialists, they should all honestly agree on the basic and essential true nature and purpose of empires, without illusions, deceptions or self-delusions.

In this overpopulated, closely integrated global community of 21st century, historical empires are obsolete and counter-productive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
trespanieli
08:13 PM on 04/05/2011
I have also heard Gates talk about cutting the Pentagon budget? So what is he waiting for? Does Congress have to approve it?
photo
KenGirard
"American" is my religion. I have faith in it.
11:45 PM on 04/08/2011
Yes. Just as he, and other generals, have said they don't want or need the F22...Congress does and Congress signs the checks.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AxelDC
07:10 PM on 04/05/2011
Even Sec Gates says the Pentagon could cut $100 billion and not miss it.  Cutting $200 billion would hardly be noticed.
photo
KenGirard
"American" is my religion. I have faith in it.
11:55 PM on 04/08/2011
The Heritage foundation is asking for $2billion per day spent on defense, not counting the wars, which is about 30% more then Obama's proposal asked for...And right now the Heritage foundation is telling the Tea Party what to ask for.

This is why we used a $1billion Navy vessel to take down 5 Somalian pirates in a 20' long boat.
06:19 PM on 04/05/2011
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, referring to U.S. spending on imperial adventures in Southeast Asia, I F Stone's Weekly referred from time to time to the congressional phenomenon of spiralling expenditures on Pentagon projects as "more military toothpaste for social decay."
photo
LeFlaneur
does nuance.
12:50 PM on 04/05/2011
One of the things that destroyed the Soviet Union was its attempt to finance a imperialist military. Near the end, a quarter of its military was engaged in active duty and about a quarter of its gross economic output was going to defense.

And here we are doing the exact same thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drew Sargent
Born-again human here
11:27 AM on 04/05/2011
This is testosterone run amok! Now that priorities are clearly defined, I don't want any whining. Just get out and vote.
10:47 AM on 04/05/2011
NO, NO, NO - enough already for the Pentagon.

Please can we take care of the people here at home first ??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drew Sargent
Born-again human here
11:30 AM on 04/05/2011
May I suggest you rent a Disney film. This is about WAR and has been since the beginning of time and I mean the very beginning.
photo
Chopin
Multiply the truth. Speak truth through power.
12:11 PM on 04/05/2011
Will you please wipe that smug smile off your face, and get serious? and stop repeating about whining. The vast majority of American people are not trained pigeons to vote for Republicans and Democrats, and see no difference in results and outcomes.

The pentagon and pentagon budget are NOT working for the interests of the American people and the American democratic republic.
The pampered goons and the 3quarter trillion dollar military budget are working AGAINST the true interests of the American people, in spreading foreign wars, military occupations in nations where they should not be and are not welcomed and are stubbornly resisted at great costs to lives and treasures, to build and expand a global militaristic empire, to supplant and subvert the Republic that the founders built and bequeathed to succeeding generations.

It's a plain fact known by majority of thinking American people today that a near trillion dollar military budget to sustain and project a militaristic global empire with over 700 military bases are diverting and undermining the real urgent social and economic needs of the American people and the American society and infrastructure at home. If you don't understand that and acknowledge the people's true needs, you will eventually be sidelined, and become irrelevant to the vast majority of angry, frustrated and enraged American people, ... and you can complain about whining all you want, and urge trained pigeons to play your game. They will not comply, and future history will confirm that truth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1southernbelle
agape to eros, love informs us
10:43 AM on 04/05/2011
Listen up Republicans! You can spend all our money on the Defense Department, but that will not prevent the decay of our republic from within.

Not taking care of people is a sure-fire method of growing despair. When despair reaches a tipping point, you better have enough money to leave the country or enough ammunition to slaughter thousands.

When we had reasonable taxes on the wealthy and when we thought of ourselves as Americans working together, we had decent roads, decent schools, and hope in the future. Sure we had some big problems, but we had a way to talk about them. Since 1980 - yes, Reagan - things have been going downhill in this country.

1. Economically - Welfare for big business and Defense
2. Socially - Lies by politicians (okay, not at all new), rise of the religious police (anti-abortion folks)
3. Legally - Iran Contra, Bush torture, Citizens United

You guys are simply wrong about so much. I hope it's because you really don't understand the consequences; I am fairly sure you just don't give a damn and feel you won't be affected (WRONG!)
photo
Chopin
Multiply the truth. Speak truth through power.
12:29 PM on 04/05/2011
If and when the time comes for all American people to choose sides, whether for or against the interests of the majority people, (and by majority I mean 99% of the people that are getting poorer and more insecure), the military and veterans will have to choose sides on where they stand --- whether they will act as a national institution honored and respected by the people, like in Egypt, or act like blackcesspoolwater mercenary goons, against the people and shoot at the people, like in Libya. The time to contemplate that issue and reflect on that important question is now. The time to act will come later, in the foreseeable future, as this society is visibly imploding in stages, ... starting with imploding federal and state budgets, exploding military budgets, out of control foreign military misadventures, exploding national debt, imploding USDollar, ...
06:42 PM on 04/05/2011
Everyone blames the Republicans. The article itself states that both parties are getting ready to agree on a defense increase. Obama's own budget calls for a five % increase, not including the unbudgeted money we spend murdering and terrorizing people of color all over the Middle East.

In the past few elections, I voted for Democrats in both houses as well as the current supply-side, war loving chief executive. I couldn't be more disgusted with their performance.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1southernbelle
agape to eros, love informs us
03:42 PM on 04/06/2011
I hear you; I even understand your feelings. However, in this case it really is the Republicans who are determined to undermine the country in ways that will damage 90% of us.
At least most of the Democrats are willing to spend on infastructure and healthcare and things that create a sense of community.

When I was younger I got so disgusted with the political process that I just tuned out for years. Then I realized that while I was tuned out things got much worse. Now I vote and write my politicians and plan to keep doing so. The Democrats are flawed, but they are much closer to seeing a decent future for the country than Republicans who seem willing to support only the rich and corporations.
nothingchanges
too soon old, too late smart
10:36 AM on 04/05/2011
Ironic isn't it?

The Republicans and the DOD are blowing a blood vessel over the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell"...............

Then the DOD turns around and proposes to spend $600,000 for a ten foot high statue of a "fairy" for their new office complex?

Do we really want to provide unlimited, unaccountable funding to this kind of military intelligence?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drew Sargent
Born-again human here
11:32 AM on 04/05/2011
Please remember that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron and for good reason.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
greysells2
grey cells matter
10:28 AM on 04/05/2011
The War Dept. getting more and the American people getting less. If we could scale back our war-like egos we could do a credible job of cutting the budget by ending the three wars and still be able to afford to grow the economy and fund medical care programmes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drew Sargent
Born-again human here
11:34 AM on 04/05/2011
You're NOT going to get any money for your re-election kitty if you continue to talk like that greysells.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cliffstep
10:20 AM on 04/05/2011
There will be no budgetary light at the end of the tunnel until the following words are removed from our political lexicon: Non-defense discretionary spending.
10:06 AM on 04/05/2011
Cut social programs so the Military can spend billions on weapons it doesn’t need and kill innocent people??? Have you ever been on a military base and went food shopping in one of their commissaries? It’s like a Safeway only on military bases. Anyway, in front of me were these soldiers’ wives that were giving the cashier with food stamps! Pay our soldiers better and stop paying billions of dollars for unnecessary weapons that won't work or never ever be used!!!!!!!!!!!!
photo
drp103
System On
09:44 AM on 04/05/2011
Basically, the military is around to protect the assets of the wealthiest among us. Yet we the middle class have to pay for it? WTF? Didn't the CEO of Microsoft buy a fighter jet?

There's your answer to our military budget: let them pay for it.