A trio of key lawmakers slammed as insufficient President Donald Trump’s plan to submit a $603 billion defense budget for fiscal year 2018.
House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said Monday in a statement that the Trump administration will have to make clear which problems facing the Pentagon it is choosing not to fix. Thornberry said the United States cannot make repairing and rebuilding the military conditional on fixing its budget problems or by cutting other spending.
For his part, Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Monday that Trump’s proposed budget of $603 billion would represent an increase of $18.5 billion above former President Barack Obama’s budget, a net gain of 3 percent. In his statement, McCain said he and Thornberry believe a budget of $640 billion is required in FY ’18.
Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said Trump’s budget outline is not a blueprint for success. Leahy said in a statement building the wall on the Mexican border and increasing defense spending so quickly and dramatically will be done at the expense of other important priorities like roads, bridges and public transit systems. Leahy also cited other drastic cuts including ones to international assistance programs.
During a Monday morning address to the National Governors Association in Washington, Trump said this defense spending increase would be offset and paid for by finding greater savings and efficiencies across the federal government. He did not provide specifics. The White House did not return a request for comment Monday. Neither did officials from the Office of Management and Budget.
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) budget guru Todd Harrison said Monday on Twitter that Obama proposed $584 billion for FY ’18 while the defense budget cap is $549 billion. Harrison said in order for Trump to achieve a $603 billion budget, Congress will have to vote to eliminate budget caps, which would take 60 votes in the Senate. This is a dicey proposition considering the split between GOP defense hawks who want higher defense spending and budget hawks, who want reduced government spending overall.