Dem
47
GOP
53
In the past 4 years, Congress has
appropriated
over $100 billion for weapons systems that the Pentagon did not ask for, does not need, and does not want. And no one
knows why. How did this happen? No one really knows, but the most likely explanation is that fairly regularly,
recalcitrant congresscritters tell the House leadership that they will not vote for some bill the leadership wants
unless the bill provides for a large contract for some defense war contractor in the members' districts (or
campaign donors). Then the provisions magically appeared in the middle of bills in the dark of night, possibly
engineered by the MS Word fairy. If there were a textbook definition of government waste, it should be spending billions
to give the Pentagon weapons it doesn't want and can't use. Odd that the DOGEys missed this $100 billion boondoggle, and
yet the $5 billion for USAID stuck out like a sore thumb.
This year is no different. There are $52 billion for weapons "program increases" over the Pentagon's requests. Some of the proposed increases could be jettisoned when the sausage is actually made, because an increase that greatly benefits one House member (and marginally benefits two senators) may not make the cut. Gabe Murphy of Taxpayers for Common Sense said: "Some of these increases may be worthy investments, but without justification requirements, how are we to know? When lawmakers are allowed to anonymously direct funds to companies that contribute to their campaigns or that they hold stock in, abuse is inevitable." In reality, 75% of the 2026 proposals were not requested by the Pentagon at all. Actually, only about 3% of the increases are on the Pentagon's list of "unfunded priorities." So it seems that what members want and what the brass want are almost disjoint sets. The members want to make constituents and donors happy; the generals want weapons that work and they can use. These are different requirements.
The majority of programs that get increases are never debated in open committee hearings or on the floor. They just get inserted into tables in the appropriations bills. This is not only waste, but actually hurts readiness because once Congress decides on how much the military will get total, spending some of the money on members' pet projects means less money for whatever tanks, ships, or planes the Pentagon actually wants.
Members of both chambers even brag about the bacon they bring home, despite the Pentagon's lack of interest in it. For example, in a July press release, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) proudly announced the $283 million for Pratt & Whitney F135 jet engines made in North Berwick, ME. What she failed to note are: (1) the company contributed to her campaign and (2) the Pentagon has no need for the engines. Pratt & Whitney is not alone. Boeing will get $360 million for a dozen Apache helicopters the Army has said it doesn't want. These are anything but isolated examples. (V)