Hunter and Skelton - 2007 Budget inadequate (note particularly paragraphs 4, 5 & 6)

Since 03-07-06

From: Waspscpo@aol.com [mailto:Waspscpo@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:58 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Hunter, Skelton: Budget inadequate (note particularly paragraphs 4, 5 & 6)

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1579703.php

Hunter, Skelton: Budget inadequate
(note particularly paragraphs 4, 5 & 6)

By Rick Maze
NavyTimes staff writer
March 6, 2005

The Republican chairman and Democrat ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee say the 2007 defense budget proposed by the Bush administration is inadequate.

“Given the environment our nation is in today, we have serious concerns that the base budget for fiscal year 2007 is inadequate to support non-deployed programs not directly involved in the day-to-day operations in the global war on terror,” said a March 3 budget letter signed by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the committee chairman, and Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the senior Democrat.

In declaring that the proposed $491.2 billion defense budget falls short, Hunter and Skelton do not ask the House Budget Committee for a specific increase. But they do lay out billions of dollars of problems that need attention, and conclude by suggesting they are willing to work out a compromise budget.

Their letter lists $45.7 billion of “challenges,” led by $25 billion in unbudgeted costs for repairing and replacing equipment heavily used in deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion of shortages in training and maintenance, $5 billion to avoid delays in weapons procurement and $4.6 in personnel costs, mostly in health care and payroll expenses.

The budget committee was supposed to start work Wednesday writing an overall federal spending plan that would set funding limits for various government functions. Difficulty, however, in deciding priorities is delaying work.

In a major announcement for military retirees, Hunter and Skelton say in their letter that they oppose a Bush administration plan to increase co-pays and enrollment fees for military retirees under the age of 65 and their families, something Pentagon officials have said is needed so that personnel costs don’t squeeze weapons programs out of the budget.

However, rejecting the proposed enrollment fee and pharmacy co-pays leaves a $735 million hole in the 2007 budget.

“The committee believes that these proposals depend too exclusively on increasing cost shares and believes that no action should be taken in fiscal year 2007 until a full review of additional cost control options is completed,” the letter says. The Defense Department has told Tricare contractors to prepare to begin collecting the larger fees effective Oct. 1, but the letter says that is not acceptable without congressional approval.

“Circumventing congressional oversight by quickly implementing fundamental changes to a highly viable medical benefit is not keeping the promise to the sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines that serve our country,” it states.

The 2007 budget requested by the Bush administration is 7 percent higher than the 2006 budget, but Hunter and Skelton say increased costs eat up the money. Inflation and pay increases account for $11.4 billion of the increase, fuel prices eat up $3 billion and initiatives related to base closing and realignment account for $4.1 billion, the letter says.

While Hunter and Skelton seek more money on behalf of the armed services committee, a separate move is underway by the 62-member Congressional Progressive Caucus to cut the defense budget by $60 billion to provide more money for domestic programs. On Wednesday, the progressive caucus is expected to unveil what it is called the “Common Sense Budget Act” that would take money from the Defense Department and spend it on homeland security, education, health care, energy development and humanitarian assistance programs.

__________________________________________________________________