Skip to main content

As many of you already know, the House of Representatives had a clandestine meeting late at night to pass the Defense Appropriations Bill for 2006.  Bypassing the usual one-day requirement between releasing and voting on a bill, the Republicans enacted the little-used "marital law" provision that resulted in only 40 minutes of debate over the bill that gives the Defense department it's budget.  See this issue expertly posted here by mcjoan.

What were they trying to hide?  Concerned about the late-night "martial law" house passage of the Defense Appropriations bill, I examined the differences between the 2005 and 2006 bills.  Curious as to why the Republican leadership would want to suppress debate about the bill, I searched for possible red flags.

Disclaimer:  My specialty is not government spending.  I am reluctant to draw conclusions from this data because of my inexperience in the field.  Nonetheless, many of the published figures raise my layman eyebrows, and I'm posting them for everyone's information and opportunity to comment.  

Any Kossacks experienced in these sort of things please help us all understand what the numbers mean.  I have my layman's opinions inserted below.

My three primary observations are:

I.  Republicans have gutted the funds devoted to paying active-duty, reserve, and national guard military personnel by 16-30%, depending on the department.

II.  Republicans have increased a Secretary of Defense discretionary slush fund by 300%, from 5 million to 20 million.

III.  Republicans removed provisions meant to help disadvantaged American citizens.

--I.  Republicans gutted military pay.

The numbers below expose the House slashing 16-30% of the funds devoted to paying our military personnel, depending on military branch.  Funding to pay reserve personnel suffered a greater loss than active-duty personnel, with the Navy Reserve losing 30% compared to last year.

The boilerplate provision granting pay to the various military branches contains the following language:

Military Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active duty, (except members of reserve components provided for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $29,507,672,000.

Listed below are the funds devoted to paying our military personnel in 2006 compared to 2005.  

Branch          Year 2005           Year 2006              Change               %Change

Army             $29,507,672,000    $24,357,895,000    (-)$5,149,777,000    (-)17.5%
Navy              $24,416,157,000    $19,417,696,000    (-)$4,998,461,000    (-)20.5%
Marines           $9,591,102,000    $7,839,813,000    (-)$1,751,289,000    (-)18.3%
Air Force           $24,291,411,000    $20,083,037,000    (-)$4,208,374,000    (-)17.3%

Army Reserve    $3,719,990,000    $2,862,103,000    (-)$857,887,000    (-)23.1%
Navy Reserve    $2,108,232,000    $1,486,061,000    (-)$622,171,000    (-)29.5%
Marine Res.    $653,073,000        $472,392,000        (-)$180,681,000    (-)27.7%
Air Force Res.    $1,451,950,000    $1,225,360,000    (-)$226,590,000    (-)15.6%

Army Nat'l     $5,915,229,000    $4,359,704,000    (-)1,555,525,000    (-)26.3%
Guard       
Air Force           $2,536,742,000    $2,028,215,000    (-)508,527,000    (-)20.0%
Nat'l Guard

WHY is the Republican-led House gutting our military personnel's pay?  Do we have less personnel?  Are they paid by some other avenue?  Or, as I fear, is Congress simply slashing pay?

--II. At 20 million dollars, Rumsfeld received a 3-fold increase in discretionary funding.--

A section under Title II of the act there exists an amorphous fund "[f]or expenses directly related to Overseas Contingency Operations by the United States military forces." The entire provision, from the 2005 appropriations bill, reads as follows:

For expenses directly relating to Overseas Contingency Operations by United States military forces, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer these funds only to military personnel accounts; operation and maintenance accounts within this title; the Defense Health Program appropriation; procurement accounts; research, development, test and evaluation accounts; and to working capital funds: Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be merged with and shall be available for the same purposes and for the same time period, as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this Act.

This money is not devoted to pay, maintenance, research, procurement, or any other statute-defined purpose.  Rather, the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, may use it at his discretion. The 2006 provision exactly the same, except that the money devoted to this fund is $20,000,000!  Republicans in congress decided to increase Rumsfeld's military slush fund by 300%.

It's time to start asking questions of our Congress members.  Maybe 15 million is small-time relative to the rest of the bill.  However, we have seen what this administration is capable of. Accountability is not in their vocabulary.  If handing 15 million dollars to Rumsfeld is as dangerous as it seems at face value, almost every dem running for the House next year has a new tool to expose the culture of corruption.

--III. Removal of provisions dedicated to protecting disadvantaged members of society.-

At least two provisions in the appropriations bill from 2005 designed to provide education to disadvantaged minorities in this country were removed.

From Title II section entitled "Operation and Maintenance, Air Force":

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by law; and not to exceed $7,699,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes, $27,994,110,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, that of the funds available under this heading, $750,000 shall only be available to the Secretary of the Air Force for a grant to Florida Memorial College for the purpose of funding minority aviation training.

Additionally, the provision entitled "Operation and Maintainence, Defense-Wide" reads:

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the military departments), as authorized by law, $17,346,411,000, of which not to exceed $25,000,000 may be available for the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund; and of which not to exceed $40,000,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds provided in this Act for Civil Military programs under this heading, $500,000 shall be available for a grant for Outdoor Odyssey, Roaring Run, Pennsylvania, to support the Youth Development and Leadership program and Department of Defense STARBASE program: Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, $3,000,000 shall be available only for a Washington-based internship and immersion program to allow U.S. Asian-American Pacific Islander undergraduate college and university students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds to participate in academic and educational programs in the Department of Defense and related Federal defense agencies: Provided further...

Language in bold is absent from the 2006 appropriations bill.  Provisions obviously designed to give a leg-up who are facing economic or racial barriers have been eliminated by this Republican-led congress.  

The House had little to no substantive debate over this very important bill due to Republican maneuvering.  This is the state of our democracy.

Originally posted to Five of Diamonds on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:29 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There are also (4.00)
    Massive cuts in Renewable Energy research at the same time that they are opening up ANWR to drilling.
  •  You need to e-mail... (none)
    The military pay to Boxer, Reid, Fiengold, Kerry and Kennedy RIGHT NOW.

    "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

    by RichM on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:32:25 PM PST

  •  Good catch. (none)
    Thank you for doing this.

    If your figures/analysis holds up then clearly the Republican congress no longer "supports the troops".  (Not that they ever did!)

    I wonder how many of them will be sporting new 2006 ribbon-shaped bumper magnets that say "I support Donald Rumsfeld's slush fund"...

    (-7.75, -6.05).   Life is like this analogy...

    by shock on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:33:36 PM PST

  •  Could it be? (4.00)
    In answer to your question on #2 that the plan is to reduce the sice of the military (especially the reserves) and instead use armed mercenaries (ahem) military contractors?

    (Thus effecting the appearance of a withdrawal from Iraq without sacrificing any military control.)

    One related datapoint:  My cousin in the Army was just told her (admin) job is changing to a civilian job next year (which she can keep).

    (-7.75, -6.05).   Life is like this analogy...

    by shock on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:48:03 PM PST

  •  warrants a close look (none)
    II.  Republicans have increased a Secretary of Defense discretionary slush fund by 300%, from 5 million to 20 million.

    This is somewhat intriguing, and also somewhat alarming.  

    If handing 15 million dollars to Rumsfeld is as dangerous as it seems at face value...

    Bet on that.

    If you vote Republican, you vote for corruption.

    by MN camera on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:22:58 PM PST

    •  wasn't there something (none)
      that McConnell of kentucky was giving about 20 million for welcome home ceremonies for the troops this year?   Might that be associated with this?
      I don't remember where I saw that but it was yesterday I think.

      "We ought never to do wrong when people are looking." Twain

      by dougymi on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:04:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site