Defending America’s Troops

President Bush’s new budget contains a 7.2 percent cut for the Environmental Protection Agency, a 10 percent reduction for the Small Business Administration and asks for the elimination of Education Department programs that prevent alcohol abuse and high school dropouts. Seven cabinet-level departments and 63 government programs will see slashed appropriations and 65 more will be totally scrapped

under the Bush plan. The bill also proposes a military spending increase of $26.5 billion. Which one doesn’t belong?

We regret to see yet another spending hike for the Pentagon in Bush’s latest budget. With this 7 percent rise, which doesn’t include any supplemental money for Iraq or Afghanistan, military spending in 2005 will surpass the largest defense budgets of the Cold War. And, regrettably, it will almost certainly pass because of a Republican chokehold on the House of Representatives and Senate Democrats’ insecurities about seeming weak on defense. If it has to pass, let’s use the new money wisely—by siphoning it into higher salaries and renovated facilities for American soldiers, not buying more spy planes.

This may seem like a given, considering Bush’s campaign promise to improve soldiers’ quality of life. But despite repeated defense budget increases, the Bush administration has shown little regard for the average soldier. Last November, the Army Times ran a story detailing proposed cuts to key military benefits, including family health care and on-base schools. These cuts would have sacrificed the living conditions of American troops while keeping funding constant for fighter and unmanned spy plane development and missile defense. Those plans were scrapped after a “shock-and-awe” display of military criticism, but Congress should still be wary of throwing new money into the Pentagon without making it clear that such misplaced priorities won’t do.

Higher salaries and better benefits would not be just a fulfillment of a campaign promise, though. They would also mitigate a threatening problem: As soldiers return from long tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prospect of a huge drop in enlisted personnel is looming large. In the interest of regaining the trust of the military rank-and-file, retaining those currently in uniform and enlisting enough new recruits to replace those fed up with service abroad, it is essential that much of this new money be spent on benefits and enticements for new and returning soldiers, such as advertising, better pay and better living conditions.

In a time when our military is being asked to take on complex peacekeeping and nation-building missions, the Bush administration cannot afford to shortchange American servicepeople. And lawmakers shouldn’t give Bush the chance. House and Senate Republicans should show some uncharacteristic backbone and prevent the Bush administration from wasting this spending increase on Pentagon pet projects and hi-tech fighter programs that are for the most part useless in the fight against terror. Earmarking the money for salaries instead of fattening an already bloated weapons budget would make a bad budget a little bit better.