Rep. Peter DeFazio
While the political appointees running the Pentagon shower billions of dollars on military contractors for elaborate Cold War weapons systems our troops are dying for lack of basic equipment.
Anxious to score political points, Mr. Feldkamp makes a claim that voting for multibillion dollar cost-plus contracts to build failed weapons systems like the Crusader artillery piece (cancelled after more than $2 billion) the Comanche helicopter (cancelled after $7 billion) or the fantastical Star Wars missile defense system (which still doesn’t work after $100 billion) equates to support for our troops, it doesn’t.
Plain and simple, I support the troops, I fight for what they need and I support our veterans, but voting for programs that waste billions of dollars on weapons systems that we don’t need and don’t work not only jeopardizes our troops it jeopardizes our national security and our economic security.
Pentagon spending accounts for $1 of every $2 in federal discretionary spending yet the Pentagon is the only agency of the federal government to fail every independent audit. Over the last decade more than $2.3 trillion of spending can not be properly accounted for. Even President Bush’s own budget experts call the Pentagon accounting problems, “pervasive, complex, long-standing and deeply rooted in all business operations throughout the department.” Polite words, but a devastating critique.
Even former President George H.W. Bush and then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney agreed that spending had to be reined in, and they reduced the Pentagon budget by 30 percent.
The Pentagon – like all federal agencies – should be held accountable for spending tax dollars wisely. If it was any other agency of the federal government, Members of Congress and the administration would be tripping over themselves to mount investigations and demand that those responsible be fired.
In February, the Pentagon finally pulled the plug on the Comanche helicopter, a program which 20 years after its inception, and a $7 billion investment still failed to produce a single deployable helicopter. For the better part of a decade I questioned the need for the weapon and its miserable production record. Finally, after wasting $7 billion, it’s history-that’s enough money to equip every soldier with body armor, every patrol in Iraq with armored humvees, all National Guard troops with quality training, equipment, housing and medical care and there would still be a few billion dollars left over to cut the deficit, fund edcation and essential infrastructure.
This Pentagon wants to design and build three advanced fighter jets to counter the threat of the next generation of Soviet fighters. Despite the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists, no one is even attempting to build a fighter to match, let alone beat ours. If these fighters go to production in 2010 they will cost $600 billion- the most expensive weapons procurement system ever and equivalent to the entire annual Pentagon budget.
The Bush administration has rushed to deploy a $100 billion Star Wars anti-missile system that doesn’t work. Even if it did , it would do nothing to protect us against the most likely threat of nuclear attacks-in a shipping container or semi, crossing our porous borders. This year alone, the Bush administration will spend more than two times as much on the dubious Star Wars system as they will on protecting all our ports, coast line and borders from very real threats.
The reality is that U.S. defense spending tops $400 billion a year, far outpacing even the combined budgets of potential threats lie China ($42 billion), Saudi Arabia ($27 billion), Iran ($9.1 billion), Pakistan ($2.6 billion), North Korea ($1.3 billion) and Syria ($800 million). The Pentagon budget should be based on what it costs o defend against likely threats, not on what helps boost the bottom line of wealthy defense contractors.
It’s past time for a hard-headed look at fiscal management and misplaced spending priorities at the Pentagon. The lives of our troops and the economic security of our nation are being put at risk unnecessarily.
Sincerely,
Peter DeFazio