“Far too much waste, inefficiency, and special interest programming plague the defense budget and drive up costs for the taxpayer. Our country faces serious fiscal and budgetary challenges that must be addressed. If spending more for defense than the next 10 country combined, many of them our allies, is not enough to keep America safe, then something is terribly wrong. Clear opportunities exist to take the politics out of national security spending and ensure that strategic decision makers have a clearer voice in defining priorities.”
Eliminate Slush Funds & Wish Lists
“Fundamentally, this slush fund and wish list are an attempt to exceed the Murray-Ryan budget caps and funnel more money into the Pentagon,” noted Executive Director John Isaacs, a 35-year veteran of Capitol Hill politics and budget fights.
Misplaced Priorities: Nuclear Weapons Funded on the Back of Key Non-Proliferation Programs
“Threat reduction should not be the bill payer for weapons modernization. This request craters non-proliferation programs that keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “We should prioritize such programs that actively enhance national security instead of over budget, unrealistic and behind schedule nuclear weapons programs.”
Defense Legislation Moves Closer to Senate Vote
“Congressional leaders are coming to realize that Pentagon spending is coming down as the wars are coming to an end. Smart strategy has to be employed to make sure we reduce spending in the right way,” said Laicie Heeley, director of defense policy at the Center. “In future years, appropriators have to begin to reshape spending to address 21st century threats and not those of the past.”
Strategy, Not Cold War Ideology, Should Guide Conferees on Defense Bill
“The Republican leadership seems stuck in the Cold War, authorizing hundreds of million on nuclear weapons and missile defense programs that military leaders did not request,” said Reif. “Pentagon spending should be driven by strategic need and affordability.”