ON AIR NOW

LISTEN NOW

Weather

cloudy-day
68°
Mostly Cloudy
H 83° L 64°
  • cloudy-day
    68°
    Current Conditions
    Mostly Cloudy. H 83° L 64°
  • cloudy-day
    82°
    Afternoon
    Mostly Cloudy. H 83° L 64°
  • clear-night
    75°
    Evening
    Mostly Clear. H 83° L 64°
LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest newscast

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest traffic report

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest forecast

00:00 | 00:00

National Govt & Politics
A budget the likes of which the Pentagon has never seen
Close

A budget the likes of which the Pentagon has never seen

A budget the likes of which the Pentagon has never seen
Photo Credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File
FILE - In this June 3, 2011, file photo, the Pentagon is seen from air from Air Force One. It’s the biggest budget the Pentagon has ever seen: $700 billion. That’s far more in defense spending than America’s two nearest competitors, China and Russia, and will mean the military can for the bill for thousands more troops, more training, more ships and a lot else. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

A budget the likes of which the Pentagon has never seen

It's the biggest budget the Pentagon has ever seen: $700 billion. That's far more in defense spending than America's two nearest competitors, China and Russia, and will mean the military can foot the bill for thousands more troops, more training, more ships and a lot else.

And next year it would rise to $716 billion. Together, the two-year deal provides what Defense Secretary Jim Mattis says is needed to pull the military out of a slump in combat readiness at a time of renewed focus on the stalemated conflict in Afghanistan and the threat of war on the Korean peninsula.

The budget bill that President Donald Trump signed Friday includes huge spending increases for the military: The Pentagon will get $94 billion more this budget year than last -- a 15.5 percent jump. It's the biggest year-over-year windfall since the budget soared by 26.6 percent, from $345 billion in 2002 to $437 billion the year after, when the nation was fighting in Afghanistan, invading Iraq and expanding national defense after the 9/11 attacks.

The extra money is not targeted at countering a new enemy or a singular threat like al-Qaida extremists or the former Soviet Union. Instead the infusion is being sold as a fix for a broader set of problems, including a deficit of training, a need for more hi-tech missile defenses, and the start of a complete recapitalization of the nuclear weapons arsenal.

Every secretary of defense since 2011, when the Congress passed a law setting firm limits on military and domestic spending, has complained that spending caps set by the Budget Control Act were squeezing the military so hard that the number of ready-to-fight combat units was dwindling. Aging equipment was stacking up, troops were not getting enough training and the uncertain budget outlook was clouding America's future.

"I cannot overstate the negative impact to our troops and families' morale from all this budget uncertainty," Mattis said just hours before the House and Senate approved the deal.

More money for the Pentagon, however, is not the simple solution some might think. Even with the spending caps of recent years, the defense budget has been robust by historical standards. Todd Harrison, a defense budget specialist at the Center for Security and International Studies, says military funding has been near the inflation-adjusted peak levels of the armed forces buildup during the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan.

The problem, Harrison says, is that the budgets have been stretched by rising personnel costs, more expensive technology investments and other factors, compounded by the cumulative effects of more than a decade of combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. And throughout this period, the military has been required to keep up or even increase its pace of operations at home and abroad -- and there is no letup in sight.

"We are stretched too thin," Harrison said Friday. "We are trying to do too much with the size force that we have all around the world. Money doesn't necessarily fix that."

The U.S. has far fewer troops in Iraq than it did 10 years ago, and the roughly 15,000 in Afghanistan today compare with a peak of 100,000 in 2010-11, but the trend is leaning in the opposite direction under President Donald Trump, including stepped up counterterrorism operations in Somalia and Yemen. Trump has added several thousand troops in Afghanistan. Also, the prospect of war against North Korea looms large as Trump insists on compelling the North to give up its nuclear weapons.

The enormous increases in defense spending agreed to by lawmakers on Friday go beyond what Trump ask for. Of the $700 million in spending for the 2018 budget year that started last Oct. 1, about $629 billion is for core Pentagon operations and nearly $71 billion is for the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Trump had requested a 2018 military budget of $603 billion for basic functions and $65 billion for war missions.

The deal Congress approved early Friday also sets the Pentagon's 2019 budget at $716 billion, giving Mattis the financial stability he's been demanding.

The biggest winners in the military buildup are the country's largest defense contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics, that spend millions of dollars each year lobbying Congress.

The legislation that Trump signed Friday is expected to translate to billions more for one of the Pentagon's highest priorities: missile defense. The appropriations committees still need to finalize exactly what will be in the 2018 defense budget. But they're likely to follow closely the defense policy bill approved by Congress late last year. That included $12.3 billion for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency and ordered a more rapid buildup of the nation's missile defenses as North Korea has refused to back away from developing nuclear missiles capable of striking the United States.

The policy bill included money for as many as 28 additional Ground-Based Interceptors — anti-missile missiles that would be launched from underground silos in Alaska in the event the U.S. decided to try to shoot down a North Korean missile heading toward the United States. The bill also grants U.S. troops a 2.4 percent pay raise, slightly higher than the Pentagon had proposed.

Before the budget deal was reached, Congress frequently resorted to the use of stopgap spending bills. Under these short-term measures, the Pentagon's budget was locked at current year's levels and the military services can be barred from starting new programs or ending old ones. The Pentagon complained that the stopgap approach forced them to shift dollars intended for new weapons and other needed equipment to pay for ongoing operations.

Read More
VIEW COMMENTS

There are no comments yet. Be the first to post your thoughts. or Register.

The Latest Headlines You Need To Know

  • New York University has issued a public apology and fired their director of food service after students complained that  watermelon water and cornbread the school was serving during Black History Month was racially insensitive. Student Nia Harris told CNN she noticed a sign for a Black History Month special menu in the university dining room and was stunned when saw what was actually on the menu. Ribs, collard greens, cornbread, mac and cheese, yams, and two beverages, watermelon-flavored water and red Kool-Aid.  Harris said 'I talked to the cook who told me 'black people put this menu together' and assured me that it was not racially insensitive,'  She emailed the dean of the school and NYU’s President Andrew Hamilton of the insensitive and “stereotypical” meal. She also posted the letter on her facebook page.  President Hamilton issued a statement saying in part, “We were shocked to learn of the drink and food choices that our food service provider - Aramark - offered at the Weinstein dining hall as part of Black History Month. It was inexcusably insensitive.”
  • Florida executed a man for the 1993 rape and murder of a Florida college student Thursday. Authorities say Eric Scott Branch, 47, screamed Murders, murders repeatedly as he was being put to death Thursday.  Branch was pronounced dead at 7:05 p.m. Thursday evening after a lethal injection at Florida State Prison in Starke. He was convicted in the 1993 rape and fatal beating of 21-year-old college student Susan Morris, whose body was found buried in a shallow grave. Morris was a University of  West Florida student at the time of her death.  Branch also was convicted of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in Indiana,  and another sexual assault in Panama City.
  • The school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School has resigned, according to Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel. [View the story 'Stoneman Douglas resource officer resigns after investigation' on Storify] >> Read more trending news  Follow along with our live updates as we learn more
  • Officials with the National Rifle Association on Wednesday voiced opposition to any legislation aimed at raising the minimum age needed to buy certain rifles amid a renewed gun debate following last week’s deadly school shooting in Florida. >> Read more trending news In a statement obtained by The Hill, NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said the focus should be on keeping guns out of the hands of “violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.” “Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20-year-old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self-defense rifle on the market punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals,” she said. The group argued that raising the minimum age would deprive people between the ages of 18 and 20 of “their constitutional right to self-protection.” Authorities said Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old identified by police as the gunman in last week’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, legally bought the AR-15 rifle he used to gun down 14 students and three teachers. He has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder. >> Related: Florida school shooting: How difficult is it to purchase a gun in Florida? The current federal minimum age for buying or possessing handguns is 21, but the limit is 18 for rifles, including assault-type weapons such as the AR-15. Officials with the NRA did not address the possibility of raising the minimum age Thursday while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference. However, President Donald Trump endorsed the idea during a school safety discussion Thursday with state and local leaders from across the nation, The Associated Press reported. >> Related: Who is NRA head Wayne LaPierre and what did he say at the CPAC meeting? 'We're going to work on getting the age up to 21 instead of 18,' Trump said. 'The NRA will back it and so will Congress.” Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, said in a tweet Wednesday that he was working with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, on a bipartisan bill to raise the minimum gun purchase age for most Americans to 21 years old. “A kid too young (to) buy a handgun should be too young to buy an #AR15,” he wrote. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
  • America’s net neutrality rules are set to end in April after the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal them late last year, according to an order filed Thursday with the Federal Register. >> Read more trending news The repeal is set to take effect April 23, according to the order. The Republican-led FCC voted in December to repeal net neutrality rules, which aimed to stop broadband companies from exercising more control over what people watch and see on the internet. >> Related: Net neutrality vote: FCC OKs repeal of Obama-era rules The broadband industry promised that the internet experience wouldn’t change, but critics argued that the Obama-era rules were needed to prevent broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T from having the power to censor content on the internet.  FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who put forth the planned repeal and voted in its favor, dismissed the concerns last year. “The sky is not falling,” he said. “Consumers will remain protected and the internet will continue to thrive. … Quite simply, we are restoring the light-touch framework that has governed the internet for most of its existence.” >> Related: 5 things to know about the FCC’s net neutrality repeal Still, Thursday’s filing was expected to open the door to challengers of the decision, The Hill reported. “Now that the new rules have officially been published, net neutrality supporters are able to mount a legal challenge against them,” according to the news site. “Democratic attorneys general, public interest groups and internet companies have all promised to file lawsuits to preserve the 2015 protections.” The attorneys general of 20 states and tech companies filed suits last month to halt the repeal, according to CNN. >> Related: State attorneys general ask FCC to delay net neutrality vote Denelle Dixon, chief business and legal officer at Mozilla, wrote in a post on the tech company's blog that Mozilla refiled a challenge to the repeal 'immediately after the order was published.' 'We won't waste a minute in our fight to protect net neutrality because it's our mission to ensure the internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all,' she wrote. 'An internet that truly puts people first, where individuals can shape their own experience and are empowered, safe and independent.' Votes fell along party lines in December, with the FCC board’s Republicans favoring the repeal and the two Democrats on the board voting against it. >> Related: New York AG investigating fraudulent net neutrality comments to FCC FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who voted against the repeal, said in a statement released Thursday that the FCC has “failed the American public.” “It turned a blind eye to all kinds of corruption in our public record – from Russian intervention to fake comments to stolen identities in our files,” she said. Before December’s vote, the attorneys general of nearly 20 states asked the FCC to delay its decision based on evidence that impersonators posted hundreds of thousands of fake comments on the commissions’ notice of the proposed rule change. Despite the appeal, the vote went on as scheduled. “As a result of the mess the agency created, broadband providers will now have the power to block websites, throttle services and censor online content,” Rosenworcel said. “This is not right. The FCC is on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the law and it deserves to have its handiwork revisited, reexamined and ultimately reversed.”