Landrieu Reverses Position on Defense Spending
Washington,
D.C. - Senator Mary Landrieu's call for a $100 billion increase
in defense spending is in direct conflict with previous
positions the Senator has taken on defense spending, according
to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a national budget watchdog
organization.
"The
Bush Administration is showing some real fiscal restraint
on defense spending, but it seems like Senator Landrieu
can't wait to open the money spigot for defense spending,"
charged Alise Frye, Director of the National Security Project
at Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS). "This is in direct
conflict with her previous, sensible position."
In
a Senate Armed Services Committee statement made September
27, 2000, Senator Landrieu argued against increasing defense
spending saying, "We need to spend the money we have
better and do a better job of spending our money, because
I think that's what the American taxpayers, both Democrats
and Republicans, want us to do."
But
last week, the Senator reversed her position by introducing
a measure to create a $100 billion reserve fund over the
next ten years and legislation to provide an additional
$7 billion this year in supplemental spending.
Touted
as emergency spending for military pay, housing and healthcare,
the supplemental measure would provide funds for expenses
that should be accounted for during the annual Congressional
spending process.
"The
reserve fund the Senator is proposing is basically a new
Pentagon slush fund for defense contractors," continued
Frye. "The proposal will decrease Congressional oversight
over available defense dollars."
Such
a fund would compound existing weaknesses in Pentagon bookkeeping,
according to the group. Last year, the Department of Defense
was unable to account for over $2.3 trillion in financial
transactions.
"The
Senator's initial position that we need to be smarter with
our military funds is sound," continued Frye. "We
urge the senator to delay her request while the administration
completes it's review of the nation's military threats and
capabilities before making any major changes to defense
spending."
