Aug. 29, 2007 – 11:54 a.m.
The House’s most outspoken critics of what they say is unnecessary military spending would secure nearly half a billion dollars in the defense appropriations bill for programs in their districts the Pentagon does not want.
Sixty-seven Democrats who voted in March for a Progressive Caucus amendment to the budget resolution (
Those Democrats who won earmarks include
Indeed, nine of the 12 Democrats who voted against the $459.6 billion defense spending bill nonetheless successfully lobbied to get their earmarks into the measure. The nine are Kucinich, Lee,
Republicans, like Democrats, would stand to net hundreds of millions of dollars in defense earmarks in the pending bill. But unlike so many of their Democratic colleagues, the GOP members did not do so while condemning the Pentagon budget as inflated.
The Democrats at issue say it is not inconsistent to push to rein in unnecessary military spending in general while advocating what the Pentagon considers unnecessary spending in their particular districts.
“We should be well-equipped and prepared if we need to defend ourselves,” Waters said. “It’s not a contradiction.”
But critics say the liberals are exacerbating the spending excesses that they excoriate.
“If you really believe the Pentagon’s wasting money, you should be part of the solution, not part of the problem,” said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator with Taxpayers for Common Sense. “If you believe the military wastes too much money, you shouldn’t be begging for parochial pork.”
Earmarks neither add to the total amount set aside for defense in the federal budget nor subtract from domestic priorities, because the defense allocation is already established by the time the spending committees write their bills.
But they add to the pressure on the defense budget. To keep the total amount for defense from rising when earmarks are added, Congress cuts funding for programs the Pentagon has requested.
For example, the House’s fiscal 2008 defense spending measure would provide $5.7 billion less than the White House sought for military operations and maintenance accounts, which include ammunition, fuel, food and training. The cuts, which were necessary in part to pay for earmarks, could “undermine the readiness of U.S. forces as they prepare for deployment and combat,” the White House said in a statement earlier this month.
While many congressionally mandated projects are worthwhile, some lawmakers and outside experts agree that others are mere jobs programs with little to no benefit for national security.
Those earmarks, the administration said, “will significantly limit the department’s ability to apply the best military, scientific, technical, and managerial expertise to the solution of national security challenges.”
Kucinich has frequently decried spending for projects that are not militarily useful. During an Aug. 19 presidential debate, for example, he advocated shifting $75 billion from what he called “that bloated, wasteful Pentagon budget” toward education programs.
And since 2005, Kucinich has pushed legislation (
Kucinich voted against the Defense appropriations bill, but not before convincing the committee to include in it $1 million for a “highpower, lightweight zinc-air battery” made by Energizer Battery Manufacturing Inc., in Westlake, Ohio, which is in his district.
Kucinich did not return calls requesting comment.
Waters, too, is a consistent critic of high Pentagon spending. In June, she traveled to Waterloo, Iowa, to address a rally titled, “Move Our Money: Making the Case for a Withdrawal from Iraq and New Budget Priorities.”
Waters told the audience it was time to shift funding from the Pentagon to domestic programs.
“We need affordable homes and opportunities for American citizens,” she said, according to the Des Moines Register account of the rally.
But Waters was able to secure $1 million in the new defense bill for launchers for air-to-air Sidewinder missiles not sought by the military. The launchers are built by Marvin Engineering in Inglewood, Calif., which is in her district.
Lee is another opponent of the current levels of defense spending. At the same Iowa rally in June, she said it was “inexcusable that Congress continues to fund unnecessary weapons systems.”
Still, Lee too convinced her colleagues to insert in the defense bill projects that the Pentagon did not consider necessary. These included $2 million for a “lithium ion metal battery” made by Polyplus Battery Co., in Berkeley, Calif., and another $1 million for the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, Calif., which includes a park, planetarium, observatory and exhibits.
“This funding represents a significant investment in education and technology that will serve both military and civilian needs,” Lee said in a statement.
After securing the funding, Lee voted against the bill.
The biggest Democratic recipient of earmarks was the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee chairman,
The same cannot be said of others such as
Kaptur did not return calls requesting comment.
McDermott, who voted against the defense spending measure, was able to garner $11.5 million in the bill for his district. One earmark would require the Army to spend $1 million on gloves — described in the bill as an “Extended Cold Weather Hand Protection System”— from Outdoor Research in Seattle. Another $1 million program would require the U.S. Marine Corps to purchase self-inflating mattresses, made by Seattle’s Cascade Designs.
McDermott’s “strong belief is we’re spending too much in the wrong way on defense,” said his spokesman, Mike DeCesare. “But at the same time, he recognizes and supports the need for not only a strong defense but materials and equipment that protect our soldiers.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee intends to write its own version of the defense spending bill in September. Typically, the amount of earmarks in the defense bill only grows as it wends it way through both chambers.
Jonathan Allen contributed to this story.