Posted on Mar 23, 2022
Lawmakers draw battle lines for FY23 defense spending ahead of White House budget release
763
41
7
12
12
0
READ OF THE DAY
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. (left), speaks with committee ranking member Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. (right), during a hearing at the Capitol on March 15. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Republican leaders are pushing for a 5% increase in defense spending in the White House’s upcoming fiscal 2023 budget proposal, but the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee argued Wednesday big boosts for the military won’t necessarily mean improved national security.
“The budget should be driven by strategy, and not strategy driven by the budget,” Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., told reporters during a roundtable. “One of the problems [with the budget] is that too often we just pick a number, rather than say, ‘This is really what we have to do and these are the priorities.’
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel Lt Col Charlie Brown SSG Michael Noll Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Cpl Vic Burk MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. SGT Charlie Lee PO2 Marco Monsalve SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth ] SSG William Jones Sgt (Join to see) 1SG Dan Capri CDR Andrew McMenamin, PhD MAJ Bob Miyagishima SrA John Monette SPC Nancy Greene SGT Mark Anderson LTC (Join to see) SGT James Murphy
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. (left), speaks with committee ranking member Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. (right), during a hearing at the Capitol on March 15. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Republican leaders are pushing for a 5% increase in defense spending in the White House’s upcoming fiscal 2023 budget proposal, but the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee argued Wednesday big boosts for the military won’t necessarily mean improved national security.
“The budget should be driven by strategy, and not strategy driven by the budget,” Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., told reporters during a roundtable. “One of the problems [with the budget] is that too often we just pick a number, rather than say, ‘This is really what we have to do and these are the priorities.’
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel Lt Col Charlie Brown SSG Michael Noll Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Cpl Vic Burk MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. SGT Charlie Lee PO2 Marco Monsalve SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth ] SSG William Jones Sgt (Join to see) 1SG Dan Capri CDR Andrew McMenamin, PhD MAJ Bob Miyagishima SrA John Monette SPC Nancy Greene SGT Mark Anderson LTC (Join to see) SGT James Murphy
Lawmakers draw battle lines for FY23 defense spending ahead of White House budget release
Posted from armytimes.com
White House
Budget
United States Senate
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
10
10
0
Strange that Republicans believe that throwing money at the military will improve national security while denying throwing money at the infrastructure isn't hurting the nation and national security (remember that interstates were built in the name of national security).
(10)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Kinda funny that the only things they *want* to throw money are things they think will help them preserve power structures…god forbid the peasants have any quality of life, they might get ideas
SFC Casey O'Mally
And the opposite is true, as well, sir.
Both sides view throwing money at problems as solutions. They campaign on how much money they are going to spend on problems, not on how many problems they will solve.
"We spent 2 trillion on infrastructure! Go us!" Great, but what did you actually *do?*
"We spent 2 trillion on the military! Go us!" Great, but what did you actually *do?*
And the opioid epidemic, and homelessness, and VA, and on and on. Dollars spent equals problems solved to politicians near and far, from both parties.
Both sides view throwing money at problems as solutions. They campaign on how much money they are going to spend on problems, not on how many problems they will solve.
"We spent 2 trillion on infrastructure! Go us!" Great, but what did you actually *do?*
"We spent 2 trillion on the military! Go us!" Great, but what did you actually *do?*
And the opioid epidemic, and homelessness, and VA, and on and on. Dollars spent equals problems solved to politicians near and far, from both parties.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
SFC Casey O'Mally I agree but look at history, people get elected on the money they bring back home, not necessarily problems they solve.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
0
0
0
I don't doubt the sincerity of either. I do agree that strategy should drive the budget. Going from the other end is not budgeting but goal setting which guarantees money is spent, needed or not
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google