5
5
0
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee says it’s not President Donald Trump’s fault his defense budget proposal is billions below what the military needs.
The commander in chief just doesn’t know better, in large part because he still hasn’t staffed up the Pentagon.
“I believe the president is very committed to rebuilding the military and repairing the damage,” Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, told reporters on Thursday. “I think our budget does a lot more of that than the one (the White House) sent over.”
On Friday, the House Armed Services Committee will formally unveil plans for a $640 billion base defense budget authorization for fiscal 2018, a figure that’s $37 billion above the military budget that Trump has repeatedly touted as the largest in American history and a dramatic rebuilding of the armed services.
The plan still faces numerous hurdles before becoming law, not the least of which are congressional spending caps that limit defense spending to $91 billion less than what House lawmakers are proposing.
But the House fund boost still represents a significant disconnect between what Trump’s Pentagon believes is needed to “make the military great again” and the much larger figure that members of Congress see as a realistic starting point.
Lawmakers are pushing for a higher military pay raise than Trump requested (2.4 percent vs. 2.1 percent), a larger Army than Trump proposed (10,000 active duty and 7,000 guardsmen and reservists), and more munitions and missile defense funding than Trump has planned.
When asked to reconcile the two plans, Thornberry blamed Trump’s inexperience, administration gridlock, and former President Barack Obama.
Military Times
Lawmakers want more troops, new criminal penalties in defense budget proposal
“What came up here … was really the Obama budget plus 3 percent, a lot of which was eaten up by our (end strength) increases last year,” he said. “But there wasn’t anyone at the Pentagon to make a real Trump budget request.”
Thornberry in recent months has lamented the slow pace of appointments to key military posts, a problem that Trump blames on “obstructionist Democrats” but many lawmakers attribute to the administration’s own inexperience and mistakes with the nomination process.
When the full Trump budget proposal reached Capitol Hill, only one of the three service secretaries had been confirmed, and Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson was on the job less than three weeks.
The armed services chairman described the White House budget proposal as largely an extension of Obama-era defense plans, which he strongly opposed as too small.
Military Times
House panel pushes for a bigger military pay raise than Trump
“You don’t have anybody in place, so what are you going to do? You’re going to send what you already had planned,” Thornberry said. “(Defense Secretary James) Mattis has said his intent is to do a security review and a variety of other things, but my point is that we can’t wait to fix things.”
When asked about Trump’s claims of a massive military budget, Thornberry said he has “no doubt” that Trump wants to properly fund the defense budget.
Thornberry’s committee is scheduled to mark up the authorization bill next Wednesday. He said the base budget number still could change before then, pending negotiations with other House leaders. House appropriators have discussed the possibility of a mid-point between the two figures, but have not yet offered a solution to how a $620 billion funding plan would get around the spending caps.
But he also made it clear that he believes the military budget number should not be much below his $640 billion target.
The commander in chief just doesn’t know better, in large part because he still hasn’t staffed up the Pentagon.
“I believe the president is very committed to rebuilding the military and repairing the damage,” Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, told reporters on Thursday. “I think our budget does a lot more of that than the one (the White House) sent over.”
On Friday, the House Armed Services Committee will formally unveil plans for a $640 billion base defense budget authorization for fiscal 2018, a figure that’s $37 billion above the military budget that Trump has repeatedly touted as the largest in American history and a dramatic rebuilding of the armed services.
The plan still faces numerous hurdles before becoming law, not the least of which are congressional spending caps that limit defense spending to $91 billion less than what House lawmakers are proposing.
But the House fund boost still represents a significant disconnect between what Trump’s Pentagon believes is needed to “make the military great again” and the much larger figure that members of Congress see as a realistic starting point.
Lawmakers are pushing for a higher military pay raise than Trump requested (2.4 percent vs. 2.1 percent), a larger Army than Trump proposed (10,000 active duty and 7,000 guardsmen and reservists), and more munitions and missile defense funding than Trump has planned.
When asked to reconcile the two plans, Thornberry blamed Trump’s inexperience, administration gridlock, and former President Barack Obama.
Military Times
Lawmakers want more troops, new criminal penalties in defense budget proposal
“What came up here … was really the Obama budget plus 3 percent, a lot of which was eaten up by our (end strength) increases last year,” he said. “But there wasn’t anyone at the Pentagon to make a real Trump budget request.”
Thornberry in recent months has lamented the slow pace of appointments to key military posts, a problem that Trump blames on “obstructionist Democrats” but many lawmakers attribute to the administration’s own inexperience and mistakes with the nomination process.
When the full Trump budget proposal reached Capitol Hill, only one of the three service secretaries had been confirmed, and Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson was on the job less than three weeks.
The armed services chairman described the White House budget proposal as largely an extension of Obama-era defense plans, which he strongly opposed as too small.
Military Times
House panel pushes for a bigger military pay raise than Trump
“You don’t have anybody in place, so what are you going to do? You’re going to send what you already had planned,” Thornberry said. “(Defense Secretary James) Mattis has said his intent is to do a security review and a variety of other things, but my point is that we can’t wait to fix things.”
When asked about Trump’s claims of a massive military budget, Thornberry said he has “no doubt” that Trump wants to properly fund the defense budget.
Thornberry’s committee is scheduled to mark up the authorization bill next Wednesday. He said the base budget number still could change before then, pending negotiations with other House leaders. House appropriators have discussed the possibility of a mid-point between the two figures, but have not yet offered a solution to how a $620 billion funding plan would get around the spending caps.
But he also made it clear that he believes the military budget number should not be much below his $640 billion target.
thornberry-trump-budget-disparity-too-small
Posted from militarytimes.com
United States Senate
Law
Congress
Office of the President (POTUS)
DoD
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 7
4
4
0
While I agree with many of Thornberry's comments, Where are the cuts in areas that have nothing to do with the lethality of our military? Many of the Obama era social experiments are costing millions/billions, we are constantly giving grants from the DOD and it's services, schools here in the CONUS, etc.,,,, The DOD needs to clean up it's act and listen to what Mattis said was the goal. Not the least of which, was a promise to reduce flag ranks by 25%. I am all for modernizing existing platforms and adding new technologies where needed, along with providing for our military, but good gosh, we are protecting the globe militarily and providing a lot of humanitarian aid that should be borne by the UN or other group that we pay about 25% of their funding.
(4)
(0)
SSgt Robert Marx
I agree with you, and the cost to the United States to serve as the world's policeman is too high. The waste in the budget must be atrocious but we only hear of weapons systems that are underfunded. I believe that the US can keep on doing its thing of being a leader for the other nations but we should tilt the Defense Dept. to defending American shores first and allies second. There should be more consensus building in international affairs rather than ratcheting up the navy to go pound on such and such.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
We the People should demand that the DoD gets audited and until so they will receive operational funds only. RP could set up a Fraud Waste and Abuse area where we could all point out millions of wasted dollars. The government solution of just throwing more dollars at a problem never fixes the problem. We need demand lawmakers to make DoD efficient rather than an fiscal addict waiting on its next push of a monetary injection.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MCPO Roger Collins - Imagine if the Federal Government already had an accounting service that could do this for DoD? Do we not audit other government agencies? 14 million in revenue with 10 million in output is comparable to a maneuver battalion in the Army. That does not could for their maintenance. A Battalion S4 or logistics officer is already responsible for the budget and this goes to a Brigade Logistics Officer up to the Division G4. It is doable. They just need to be told that a GO now has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer and that the audit is viewable to the People and will be a basis of promotion. We had a General in 1st CAV put astro grass in his headquarters because he played college football. While not a large expenditure it illustrates the wastefulness in the military. I am sure there are several other examples.
(2)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
While AD, we always went for the old spend it or lose it. We stocked up on supplies at the end of each fiscal year. Bet not much has changed.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MCPO Roger Collins - Not much has changed at all and there are no incentives to manage your funds. As a BN CDR I received a call on day in the 4th QTR of the year that I needed to spend 4 million dollars and I had 20 minutes. That was very easy for us to do being a logistics unit. We purchased testing equipment for tanks and Bradley's with additional circuit cards. But, that was a routine occurrence throughout my career. E-mail or phone call and look up your UFR or unfunded requirements list and it was purchased with no issues. A peer of mine purchased Stiver military prints for the HQ. Again, no issues.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
My management of my budget constituted about 20% of my incentive award, if I was not within 10%, up or down it cost me.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Trump talks a big game......but comes in small where the rubber actually meets the road.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Robert Marx
Thanks for your thought. The POTUS has done an outstanding job in my book. He actually has kept his promises at a high rate.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google