Maybe I should call it: our faith-based budget process.
In today's Washington Post there is a story about the proposed Pentagon budget. The proposal is a $55 billion cut in new weapons systems for the next six years. I guess the Bush administration is having a little trouble balancing the various realities.
An internal defense budget document for fiscal 2006 shows a vivid shift of emphasis from procuring the weapons of the future to fighting the wars of the present, numerous defense analysts said yesterday. The Air Force and the Navy -- once favored by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- would have to sacrifice some of their high-tech weapons development for the humble needs of the Army, such as tank treads and armor.
"The Air Force and the Navy are paying the bills to fix the Army's shortfall in resources," said Loren B. Thompson, defense industry analyst with the Lexington Institute.
The internal budget document, approved by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and leaked to reporters over the weekend, shows deep cuts to weapons programs once seen as the future of the military, including an Air Force advanced fighter plane, a stealthy Navy destroyer, a fleet of modernized transport aircraft and the next generation of nuclear submarines. Even President Bush's prized missile defense program would be trimmed by $5 billion. In all, cuts over six years would total $55 billion, mostly from the Navy and the Air Force.
In contrast, Army ground forces, which Rumsfeld had once hoped to reduce and de-emphasize, would receive an additional $25 billion through 2011.
Now, for the comedy.
"No one had anticipated that the cost of Iraq would continue to grow like [this]," said Dov S. Zakheim, an original member of Rumsfeld's team who retired as Pentagon comptroller last year. Now, he said, "clearly they are concerned about the deficit on one hand and Iraq on the other."
No one? I guess he doesn't remember this then...
Mr. Bush will shortly ask Congress for another emergency budget supplemental for Iraq of around $80 billion. That will take the total spending so far on the war and fighting the insurgency to well over $200 billion.
That was a figure that Larry Lindsey, Mr. Bush's former economic aide, predicted that the war would cost, although he was forced to backtrack and was fired shortly afterwards.
These Pentagon cuts are a part of Bush's "deficit reduction" plan. (AKA fuzzy math)
But let's get back to reality: the Bush administration really doesn't have a plan to cut the deficit in half. It has budget projections that show that if the U.S. has no new tax cuts, no major spending increases, no national emergencies, and strong economic growth, then maybe the deficit will fall to $250 billion by 2009. That is the plan.
Bush's plan doesn't include the following big ticket items: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, making the tax cuts permanent, Medicare, and Social Security privatization. Of course, during the campaign Kerry was the one who wasn't telling the truth about how much his programs cost.
I don't see any advantage for Democrats to vote for this budget. Remember how Kerry "voted against every weapon system?" When Sen. Frist is running for president we can ask him why he hates our troops, does he expect them to use spitballs?
