|
|
home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events
|
"THE USE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE IS AUTHORIZED" America's secret war plans: "The military purpose is to overthrow the present existing Federal Government of Mexico." Floyd Rudmin uncovers the sick dreams of America's generals. Alito says, Constitution okays Bush to set up prison camps here and torture US citizens. Dems praise his "even demeanor" and shirk the filibuster. Cockburn and St Clair on the Alito hearings and the Democrats' collapse. ... CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! |
|
January 24, 2006 Winslow T.
Wheeler January 23, 2006 Uri Avnery Susan Pynchon William Loren
Katz Christopher Brauchli Chris Floyd Joshua Frank Norman Solomon Jackie Corr Paul Craig
Roberts Website of the Day
January 21/22, 2006 Tim Shorrock Ralph Nader Peter Feng Brian Cloughley Michael Donnelly Tom Kerr Dave Lindorff Daniel Wolff Fred Gardner Jason Leopold Matthew Koehler John Bomar Ron Jacobs Becky Akers Joanne Mariner St. Clair / Walker / Pollack Poets' Basement Website of the Day
Brian J. Foley Richard Gott Joshua Frank Pierre Tristam Bernstein /
Allegretto Elizabeth Schulte Website of
the Day
January 19, 2006 Paul Craig
Roberts Bill Simpich Kevin Alexander
Gray Sam Husseini Sam Smith Monica Benderman Winslow T.
Wheeler Website of the Day
January 18, 2006 Paul Craig
Roberts Norman Solomon Jonathan M.
Feldman Michael Carmichael Paul D'Amato Cynthia McKinney Norman Finkelstein Website of the Day
January 17, 2006 M. Shahid Alam John Ross Tariq Ali Michael Donnelly Amira Hass Doug Giebel Bill Quigley Ron Jacobs Mike Stark Werther
John Walsh Earl Ofari
Hutchinson Roger Burbach Norman Solomon Robert Jensen Sam Husseini Paul Craig
Roberts Website of the Day
January 14 / 15, 2006 Alexander Cockburn JoAnn Wypijewski James Petras Ron Jacobs Brian Cloughley Marianne McDonald Bruce Tyler Wick Fred Gardner Flavia Alaya Gary Leupp Dr. Susan Block Nicole Colson Jeffrey Kolakowski Missy Comley
Beattie Charles Thomson St. Clair /
Walker / Vest Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
January 13, 2006 Ralph Nader Leonard Weinglass Amira Hass Chris Kutalik
/ Jennifer Biddle Lawrence R. Velvel Dave Lindorff Mike Whitney David Price
January 12, 2006 Jennifer Van
Bergen Jeremy Brecher / Brendan Smith Lawrence R.
Velvel Ralph Nader / Robert Weissman Jackie Corr Jared Bernstein Russell D.
Hoffman Aubrey Streit Clancy Sigal Website of the Day
January 11, 2006 Kevin Zeese Ray McGovern Allan Maass
/ Joe Allen Earl Ofari
Hutchinson Annie Murphy Allan Lichtman Ramzy Baroud Joshua Frank Kathleen and
Bill Christison Website of
the Day
January 10, 2006 Uri Avnery Saul Landau Noam Chomsky Brian J. Foley Lenni Brenner Ronan Sheehan Paul Craig
Roberts
January 9, 2006 Behzad Yaghmaian George Bisharat Dave Lindorff Norman Solomon Christopher Brauchli Aharon Shabtai Andrew Cockburn
January 7 / 8, 2006 Lawrence Velvel James Petras J.L. Chestnut Mike Ely Andrew Wilson Lila Rajiva William Cook Ramor Ryan Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff Peter Montague Ron Jacobs Neve Gordon Fred Gardner Josh Mahon Dr. Susan Block Jeffrey St. Clair Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
January 6, 2006 José
Pertierra Joe Allen Winslow T. Wheeler John Bomar Jason Leopold Norman Solomon Robert Pollin
January 5, 2006 Scott Boehm Zoltan Grossman Heather Gray Haninah Levine Pierre Tristam Remi Kanazi Gilad Atzmon Kathleen and
Bill Christison
January 4, 2006 Ron Jacobs Lila Rajiva Huibin Amee
Chew Pat Williams Linda Milazzo Nick Dearden James Petras Website of
the Day
January 3, 2006 James Ridgeway Laith al-Saud Dick J. Reavis Joshua Frank Rochelle Gause Missy Comley
Beattie Paul de Rooij
January 2, 2006 Paul Craig
Roberts Clancy Sigal Cindy Sheehan Alexander Cockburn
Dec. 31 / Jan. 1, 2005/6 Patrick Cockburn Alexander Cockburn Ralph Nader James Petras Peter Montague J.L. Chestnut, Jr. Vijay Prashad P. Sainath James Brooks Eileen E. Schell Christopher
Brauchli Jo Guldi Fred Gardner Ben Tripp St. Clair /
Walker / Pollack Poets Basement Website of
the Weekend
December 30,2005 Evo Morales Earl Ofari
Hutchinson Dave Lindorff Gary Leupp Ron Jacobs Brian Concannon Sandra Lucas T.W. Croft Website of
the Day
December 29, 2005 Norman Solomon Missy Comley
Beattie Dave Zirin Kevin Zeese Derrick O'Keefe Sam Bahour Macdonald Stainsby Bill &
Kathleen Christison Website of the Day
December 28, 2005 Jeffrey St.
Clair Lila Rajiva Amira Hass Joshua Frank David Swanson Richard Thieme Paul Craig
Roberts Website of the Day
December 27, 2005 Evan Jones Uri Avnery Mike Whitney Gideon Levy David Swanson Norman Solomon
December 26, 2005 Lawrence R.
Velvel Lance Olsen Ben Terrall Scott Boehm Charlie Ehlen Tom Kerr
December 24/25, 2005 Aleander Cockburn James Petras Ralph Nader Lila Rajiva Fred Gardner Ron Jacobs Dave Lindorff Gary Leupp Saul Landau John Chuckman Dr. Susan Block St. Clair / Vest / Pollack
/ Donnelly Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
December 23, 2005 John Ross Chris Floyd Lawrence Mishel
/ Ross Eisenbrey Joanne Mariner Eric Johnson-Debaufre Ray McGovern J. L. Chestnut,
Jr. Website of
the Day
December 22, 2005 Ingmar Lee Elisa Salasin Christopher
Brauchli Robin Blackburn Evelyn Pringle Amira Hass Francis A.
Boyle Stew Albert Website of
the Day
December 21, 2005 Paul Craig
Roberts Lila Rajiva Joshua Frank Dave Zirin Ramzy Baroud Sonia Nettnin Ben Saul Jonathan Cronin Patrick Cockburn Website of
the Day
December 20, 2005 Jackie Corr Earl Ofari
Hutchinson Michael Donnelly Gian Paulo
Accardo Pierre Tristam Norman Solomon Sen. Robert Byrd Dave Lindorff Website of the Day
December 19, 2005 Mike Marqusee Gary Leupp Ron Jacobs John Blair Gideon Levy Kevin Zeese Missy Comley Beattie Don Santina Website of the Day
December 17 / 18, 2005 Cockburn /
St. Clair Gabriel Kolko Susan Alcorn Werther Ralph Nader Patrick Cockburn Fred Gardner Dave Lindorff Ned Sublette Lee Sustar Jason Leopold Laura Carlsen Jeff White Ray McGovern Chris Floyd William Loren Katz Rose Miriam
Elizalde Greg Moses Heather Gray Alison Weir St Clair /
Walker / Pollack Poets' Basement Website of
the Day
December 16, 2005 Tom Kerr Mark Engler John Bomar Patrick Cockburn Pierre Tristam William S. Lind Cyril Neville Robert Jensen Saul Landau Website
December 15, 2005 Oren Ben-Dor Stan Cox Joshua Frank Ben Terrall Patrick Cockburn Monica Benderman Walter A. Davis Vijay Prashad Website of
the Day
Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig
Roberts Lawrence R. Velvel Wayne Garcia John Sugg Gary Leupp Ray McGovern Alan Maass April Hurley, MD Kevin Alexander
Gray
December 13, 2005 Stephen T.
Banko, III Patrick Cockburn Laura Carlsen Karl Grossman Niranjan Ramakrishnan Kevin Zeese Norman Solomon Michael G.
Smith Stew Albert Bob Dylan Phil Gasper Website of
the Day
December 12, 2005 Paul Craig
Roberts Lawrence R.
Velvel Jessica Stewart George Bisharat Nate Mezmer Earl Ofari
Hutchinson Alison Weir Seth Sandronsky Patrick Cockburn Website of
the Day
Alexander Cockburn Landau / Hassen Ralph Nader Linn Washington, Jr Bill Christison Mike Ferner Elizabeth Schulte Neve Gordon / Yigal Bronner Linda S. Heard Ingmar Lee Ray McGovern John Chuckman John Ryan Dick J. Reavis Christopher
Brauchli Behzad Yaghmaian Aseem Shrivastava John Ross Ben Tripp St. Clair / Pollack / Vest
/ Despair Poets' Basement Website of the Week
December 9, 2005 Linn Washington,
Jr. Dave Zirin
/ Mike Stark Patrick Cockburn Alexander Cockburn Lila Rajiva Gary Leupp Jason Leopold Bruce K. Gagnon Andrew Cockburn Website of the Day
December 8, 2005 Kathy Kelly James Petras William S.
Lind Laura Carlsen Justin Akers Thomas Graham, Jr Norman Solomon Tariq Ali /
Robin Blackburn Website of
the Day
December 7, 2005 John Ryan Gary Leupp Fran Quigley Jeremy Brecher
/ Brendan Smith Joshua Frank William W.
Morgan Dave Lindorff Patrick Cockburn Harold Pinter Website of
the Day
December 6, 2005 Ron Jacobs Patrick Cockburn Yifat Susskind Mike Whitney Pat Williams Paul Craig
Roberts Website of
the Day
December 5, 2005 John Walsh Brian Cloughley Mokhiber /
Weissman Robert Jensen Norman Solomon Peter Rost, MD Lila Rajiva Website of the Day
Alexander Cockburn Lawrence R.
Velvel Rev. William Alberts Saul Landau Ralph Nader Paul Craig
Roberts Mike Whitney Allan Lichtman Dave Lindorff Brian Concannon,
Jr. Fred Gardner Manuel Garcia,
Jr. Carol Wolman St. Clair /
Vest / Walker / Pollack Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
December 2, 2005 Stan Goff Mike Ferner Christopher Brauchli Niranjan Ramakrishnan Manuel Talens Peter Phillips J.L. Chestnut,
Jr. Website of
the Day
December 1, 2005 John Walsh,
MD Ron Jacobs Jenna Orkin Joshua Frank Tiffany Ten
Eyck Missy Comley Beattie Eli Stephens Elaine Cassel Website of
the Day
Subscribe Online
|
January 24, 2006 How Congress Sacrifices Readiness for PorkSmoke and Mirrors in the Defense BudgetBy WINSLOW T. WHEELER Understanding how Congress allocates
spending in the defense budget requires a comprehension of obscure
terms, opaque practices, and sometimes complex ruses. The explanation
below of the gimmicks in Congress' 2006 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act is based on over 30 years of experience in
congressional appropriations. Some of that experience was in
crafting the very same dodges explained below; there did, however,
come a point during the author's Hill career when the focus shifted
to opposing the same. Appropriations Bill Basics To understand the defense appropriations bill, it is necessary to briefly review its basic contents. These bills are typically divided into eight categories, or "Titles," as follows:
The Lure of "Emergency" Spending In the last few years, these "Titles" have been supplemented by an additional Title IX, often called "Additional Appropriations." This year, it amounted to $50 billion, none of it requested by the president. Its declared purpose is to pay for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This money has a unique characteristic.
It is "emergency" spending, which has had a specific
legislative meaning since a 1991 budget agreement between Congress
and President George H.W. Bush. "Emergency" spending
is appropriations that do not count in the "spending caps"
Congress imposes on itself for appropriations. For example,
the 2006 congressional budget resolution imposed a "cap"
on More to the point, the "emergency" (budget restraint exempt) characteristic of such Title IX's provide Congress, and its budget gamers, an incentive. If Congress can find a pretext to move programs from the regular part of the bill, where the spending counts, to Title IX, where the money does not count, then Congress can advertise itself as saving money. That is precisely what is going on. The Procurement Dollar Shift The stunt is readily apparent in the procurement accounts of both the regular part of the 2006 bill and in Title IX. Peppered throughout the small print of the procurement accounts of both are programs labeled "transfer." For example, in the account for "Aircraft Procurement, Army" on page 249 of the regular part of the 2006 conference report, one can find the notation "Transfer to Title IX" for $11.2 million deducted from the president's regular annual request to purchase "aircraft survivability equipment." The money is added back in on page 477 in Title IX, where the money becomes "emergency" spending. Why not? One might ask. Surely aircraft survivability is a legitimate requirement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly, but the point here is that Congress took spending the president requested for normal peacetime procurement costs and moved it to the "war" account, where by the way, the money was not increased for the additional likely war expenses over and above peacetime requirements to purchase such equipment. The author counted 17 of these transfers from the peacetime procurement account to the "emergency" war spending account for a total of $654 million. There appear to be additional shifts that are not identified as "transfer" in the small print. The author counted four that move an additional $107 million in spending. That makes a total of $762 million that Congress moved from spending accounts where the money is counted to measure "budget restraint" to accounts where it is not counted. However, Congress reduced the president's $76.6 billion procurement request by only $100 million. The $762 million transfer out of the bill is not reflected. What happened? Congress simply added spending, but only enough to preserve a $100 million "savings." The money was spent on many programs, including one F-15E fighter-bomber ($65 million), two "Littoral Combat Ships" ($440 million), and a host of other much smaller purchases, numbering in the hundreds. These are the projects that mean more spending for the states and districts of the senators and representatives adding them.[2] The "congressional add-ons" (pork) are broadly touted in press releases to the folks back home. Some members of Congress send out numerous such press releases to separate regions and cities in the states and districts.[3] It's a pretty clever system. The Congress can assert it is exercising "budget restraint" by imposing a modest $100 million cut on the procurement budget proposed by the president. But few procurement programs are actually cut (many are just moved to the "emergency" account), and the members get to add a several hundred million dollars in spending for their home states and districts. The Mega Gimmicks Typically, members of Congress are far from satisfied with just several hundred million dollars in "pork" for 50 states and 435 congressional districts. In recent years, the pork ad-ons to the peacetime portions of the defense bills have been on the order of magnitude of $8-12 billion. And yet, the peacetime portions of these bills rarely exceed the amount requested by the president, and they often are a few billion lower, such as the $4.4 billion reduction advertised for 2006.[4] How can you add as much as $12 billion while simultaneously reducing the bill by a $4.4 billion? Here are a few of the major gimmicks. "Unobligated Balances." In the Military Personnel and O&M accounts, Congress cuts $872 million and $333 million, respectively, for "unobligated balances." What on Earth are those? "Unobligated balances" are simply funds that have not been spent -- yet. The money coming out of the Military Personnel account could have been intended for payroll costs, but for some reason the expense either will not occur at all or will not occur on the planned schedule. It could be that the expense is no longer required, or it could be that it is still needed, but the payment will be due later than anticipated. It will remain a mystery; nowhere do either of the Appropriations Committees explain why the money is being cut or even where in these huge accounts it should be cut. The Military Personnel and O&M accounts are strange places to cut money during a war, when personnel and operating expenses, such as manning and training, should increase, not slow down. It's entirely possible that the Appropriations Committee staff who crafted this reduction know that and fully intend for the money to shift to wartime costs in Title IX of the bill, the "emergency" fund for war costs. However, there is no evidence that these unobligated balances are restored in Title IX in any notations in the conference report. Indeed, nothing in the conference report sheds light on the matter, other than that the appropriators are extracting that amount of money out of the regular bill because it is deemed to be "unobligated balances." Thus, when $1.2 billion disappears from the peacetime bill, its fate is left unaccounted to the public. "Cost Avoidance." Basically, the same thing is occurring in the portions of the Military Personnel account for the Reserves and the National Guard. There, virtually every component is tapped for unexplained "cost avoidance" for a total of $318 million. Are Reserves and National Guard personnel costs going down in a time of war? That's hard to conceive, and again in Title IX there is no sign whether the money is moved there. Fate unknown. These actions, and their being unexplained as either spending to be eliminated altogether or simply transferred to Title IX, are just the tip of the iceberg. The peacetime O&M account is crammed with other examples. Congress reduced "Peacetime Training" and "Operations Support" by a whopping $1.3 billion. There is no identifiable addition of the money back into Title IX. It is unclear whether this funding for training is to be eliminated altogether or just transferred to the "emergency" account.[5] Depot maintenance (of weapon systems) for various military services is reduced by $631 million. Almost $2 billion is added in Title IX for Depot Maintenance; it appears that Congress is funding both peacetime and wartime depot maintenance costs in Title IX. Funding for converting civilian jobs filled by military personnel back to jobs filled by civilians is being reduced by $282 million. This program was intended to make more military personnel available for war related tasks. There is no apparent add-back-in Title IX. It is not possible to discern if the money is cut altogether or simply transferred. Financial Management is cut by $103 million in the peacetime bill. There is no apparent add-back-in Title IX. It appears to be a genuine reduction. However, for more than 20 years DOD has flunked audits by GAO and the DOD Inspector General. Given the Pentagon's persistent incompetence in this basic peacetime management skill, it is a strange place to cut costs and activity.[6] And so on. Other arbitrary reductions in the all-important O&M budget (the budget that enables our forces at home to be properly trained and deployed with working weapons) amount to $1.6 billion. Added to the O&M reductions noted above, the total (so far) comes to $4.2 billion. The Mayhem in General Provisions Reading legislation is never
fun; at best, it's dry, obtuse, and legalistic. However, if
there is such a thing as entertaining reading in defense appropriations
bills, it occurs in "General Provisions." These titles
are typically a menagerie. In this year's bill, the provisions
go on for 129 different sections in over 35 pages. Strangely,
the "explanatory materials," which one would expect
to be even longer, are only four pages. For good reason. There's
much in the General Provisions that members of Congress would
probably prefer no one to understand. There's funding for military
museums, youth organizations, new roads, the Alaskan natural
gas pipeline, the Civil Air Patrol, Indian lands, the Boy Scouts,
retirement homes, Israeli "anti-missile" missiles,
and the Red Cross, among other things. Another $265 million is extracted
from O&M as "savings" due to "efficiencies
and management improvements." In some cases, the amount "saved" is derived from specious calculations. For example, the "savings" in "rate stabilization" can assume changes in foreign currency fluctuations in favor of the dollar many months in advance, a prediction that any prudent financial adviser would be very reluctant to make. In some past cases, these reductions and across the board cuts are reverse-engineered: in other words, the Appropriations Committee leadership decides how much money it needs to "save" and the staff writes provisions to come to that exact amount. These General Provisions amount to another $950 million cut from O&M. There are more. Congress adds numerous pork projects in the General Provisions title, "earmarked" to the O&M account, but no new money is added to pay for them. Thus, DOD must reduce other O&M programs to pay for them. In this year's bill, these O&M "earmarks" in General Provisions add up to $268 million.[9] The total of Congress' additional cuts to the O&M budget from General Provisions comes to $1.2 billion.[10] In General Provisions, Congress also takes some more whacks at the Procurement and R&D accounts. An annual favorite is "revised economic assumptions." Procurement is reduced by $264 million; R&D by $312 million (and per above, O&M is reduced by $195 million). These cuts are justified by revised estimates of future inflation. (They are not adjustments based on inflation rates that actually occur; they simply replace one prediction into the future with another.) They are a perennial exercise, and for unexplained reasons, when the new predictions foresee higher inflation, or when actual inflation data arrives to compare to past predictions, adjustments are not made. The author counts an additional $874 million in earmarks, transfers, and cuts specified in General Provisions, bringing the grand total of reductions specified in this title to $2.1 billion. Grand Total and Why? All in all, the reductions and/or transfers in all the titles of the peacetime parts of the bill (e.g. the unobligated balance "savings" in Military Personnel and the depot maintenance reductions in O&M) come to a grand total of $8.3 billion. Add to that, the many projects that Congress added to the bill without adding the money to pay for them (thus, forcing DOD to make additional reductions to finance the projects), and add to that any gimmicks and devices this author was unable to uncover, and the total will come to something approximating $16 billion. That's how you add up to $12 billion in pork projects while simultaneously reducing the apparent total of the bill by the $4.4 billion advertised by the Senate Appropriations Committee.[11] Recall, however, that no such amount was "saved." Instead, much of the asserted savings were, in reality, transfers to Title IX, where the money can be added but not "scored." It's a well-cloaked set of dodges allowing Congress to add spending, mostly for pork, while advertising its bill as saving money. Worse, as members tout their patriotism and their heartfelt support for the troops on the battlefield, they simultaneously raid the very accounts that pay for training, weapons maintenance, and other wartime readiness to pay for the pork the same members cram into the bill. And, so far at least, no one is the wiser. Winslow T. Wheeler is the Director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information. He spent 31 years working for US Senators from both parties and the Government Accountability Office. He contributed an essay on the defense budget to CounterPunch's new book: Dime's Worth of Difference. Wheeler's new book, "The Wastrels of Defense: How Congress Sabotages U.S. Security," is published by the Naval Institute Press.
[1] The totals for each title cited here do not include the one percent across the board cut enacted by Division B of the 2006 DOD Appropriations Act. That reduction is discussed in "How Big is the Defense Budget." [2] There will be additional discussion of such "pork" projects in the next "Defense Budget Tutorial." For an extended discussion of the congressional pork process, see the author's book "The Wastrels of Defense," especially the chapters entitled "Confessional of a Pork Processor" and "Pork Lows and Highs." [3] For example, see one of five press releases offered by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., on spending she touted as added for western New York state. [4] See "Conferees Approve FY 2006 Defense Spending Bill," U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Press Release, Dec. 17, 2005, p. 1. [5] When alerted by the author of a $250 million reduction in Army training in the peacetime part of the bill, a conscientious House staffer called the Appropriations Committee to ask why the money was eliminated. He was told that the money was not cut but transferred to Title IX. When asked where the money was moved to, the appropriations committee staffer responded it was in an account labeled "Rapid Fielding Initiative; Force Protection; IBA," all budget activities that have little, if anything, to do with training. The appropriations committee staffer provided no further information; it is impossible to tell whether and how much peacetime training money was moved to this Title IX account, or whether, in truth, the money was reduced, or even eliminated, thereby reducing Army training in a time a war, an action the politically sensitive appropriations committee staff would be hesitant to admit. [6] There are scores of Government Accountability Office and DOD Inspector General reports since the 1970s documenting DOD's horrendous record on financial management. [7] Statement of Administration Policy, Office of Management and Budget, June 16, 2005, H.R. 2863 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, FY 2006, p. 2. [8] Congress does not permit these cuts to impact the unrequested projects it adds to the O&M account for member's states and districts. Those "congressional interest items" can only be cut if specifically requested by DOD and the request is explicitly approved by the Appropriations Committees. [9] There are hundreds more of these "earmarks" added in the O&M title; there also, new money is not added to pay for them, and DOD must "eat" the cost. [10] Added to the other reductions and transfers directed from within the O&M account, and discussed earlier, the grand total reduction to O&M appears to be $5.4 billion. [11] For example, see Senate
Committee on Appropriations press release, op. cit., p. 1. |
from CounterPunch Books! The Case Against Israel By Michael Neumann  Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror by Jeffrey St. Clair                           Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid? CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues, as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org. |
