[Mb-civic] major report: U.S. Budget Focus Should Be Security, Not Weapons

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0511-04.htm

Published on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 by OneWorld.net
U.S. Budget Focus Should Be Security, Not Weapons - 
Report
by Abid Aslam
 

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon should cut billions of dollars from 
major weapons programs and plow the money into homeland security 
initiatives, said a new report with far-reaching implications not only for 
the federal budget but also for dozens of private defense contractors.

Washington-based think tanks the Center for Defense Information and 
the Foreign Policy in Focus project recommended major investments 
to protect public transit and prepare health systems to cope with 
potential biological or chemical attacks on U.S. soil.

''Despite promises of a comprehensive approach to fighting terrorism, 
the Bush administration has concentrated its resources 
overwhelmingly on its military forces, at the expense of other security 
tools,'' said the report, released Tuesday.

''The Bush military budget is being spent on a force structure that does 
not match today's security challenges, because it is designed for Cold 
War-style large-scale conventional challenges that we no longer face,'' 
it added.

The report recommended major cuts for high-profile Pentagon 
programs including the Army's Future Combat Systems modernization 
program, the DD(X) naval destroyer, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and 
the F/A-22 Raptor.

If implemented, the report's recommendations would have a major 
impact on business for leading defense contractors including Boeing 
Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., General Dynamics Corp., and Northrop 
Grumman Corp.

Increased homeland security spending also would affect the same 
firms but also dozens of other large and small companies specializing 
in intelligence, counter-terrorism, and emergency-response goods and 
services.

In all, the report recommended cutting $53.1 billion from military 
spending and spending $40.5 billion more on international affairs and 
homeland security operations. It called for a four-to-one ratio of 
spending on military programs to all other security spending, down 
from the seven-to-one proposed in President George W. Bush's 
budget for fiscal year 2006, which begins Oct. 1, 2005.

The report, which was funded by private philanthropies and endorsed 
by a task force made up of retired military officers and veteran defense 
analysts, also called for an additional $10 billion for foreign aid and 
recommended specific changes in U.S. development policy.

Report co-author Miriam Pemberton of the Washington-based Institute 
for Policy Studies, said she expected the report to resonate with 
business leaders as well as policymakers.

''Policymakers, experts, and business leaders from across the political 
spectrum have called for a more balanced approach to terrorism and 
global security,'' Pemberton said in a statement. ''The Unified Security 
Budget provides the road map and budget specifics on how we make 
that happen.''

The report said ballooning budget deficits ''have finally begun to make 
security budget priorities a permissible topic of conversation among 
lawmakers'' nearly four years after debate was stifled by the Sept. 11, 
2001 terrorist attacks.

The recommendations also evoked a recent poll in which members of 
the U.S. public said that, given the chance, they would significantly 
change next year's federal budget, reversing key Bush administration 
proposals.

Provided with details of the major areas of Bush's discretionary budget 
for fiscal 2006, around two-thirds of those surveyed said they would cut 
spending on large-scale Cold War-style capabilities and use the 
money to reduce the budget deficit, said the poll released in March by 
the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes.

Republicans and Democrats alike would take the budget axe to 
spending on defense and on Iraq and Afghanistan, channeling the 
money into domestic priorities including education, job training, 
veterans, and reducing U.S. reliance on oil, the poll said.

Respondents also would increase spending on the means by which the 
United States projects ''soft power'' overseas. These include foreign 
aid, U.N. peacekeeping, and diplomacy.

Defense would sustain the deepest cuts. Of nearly 1,200 U.S. adults 
surveyed, 65 percent said they would reduce spending by an average 
of 31 percent or the equivalent of around 134 billion dollars.

Homeland security, however, would receive a robust average boost of 
10.5 billion dollars or 38 percent, although only 41 percent of 
respondents favored increases.

As respondents had proposed large defense cuts, they were asked 
what areas they would want to axe. Majorities said they would trim the 
U.S. capability for large-scale nuclear wars, the number of nuclear 
weapons, and spending on developing new nuclear weapons.

Fifty-eight percent of respondents also proposed reducing U.S. 
capabilities to fight large-scale naval and land wars and said they 
would cut spending on new types of naval destroyers, submarines, and 
bombers.

Respondents preserved spending for troops including on salaries, 
maintaining the overall number of military personnel, and developing 
new equipment for infantry and Marines.

Tuesdays' report also urged action to plug gaps in protective 
equipment issued to U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Copyright © 2005 OneWorld.net

###
-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - 
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you 
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to 
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
   ---   George Orwell


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050511/e81920a7/attachment.htm