Tag: buck mckeon

The Pentagon as a Jobs Program, Part 3

A couple of months ago, I cited the example of upgraded Abrams tanks being shoved down the Pentagon’s throat by certain members of Congress because tank production = jobs back in the district. I followed that up with some historical background on congressional Pentagon pork-barreling that is discussed in former Reagan budget director David Stockman’s new book. Yesterday, a Wall Street Journal article on congressional resistance to reprioritizing military spending provided a new example:  

The battle over the Global Hawk is emblematic of the difficulty the Pentagon faces in trying to reduce its inventory while shifting its focus from the ground war in Afghanistan to emerging threats elsewhere.  

The Defense Department has sought to ground the fleet of 18 Global Hawk Block 30 drones, which has been used to conduct surveillance from Afghanistan to Libya. The Air Force says its piloted U-2 planes have better surveillance equipment for the job—and that ending the Global Hawk program can save $2.5 billion over the next four years.  

Lawmakers have not only rejected the Pentagon plans, but set aside $443 million to compel the Air Force to buy three more Global Hawks. On Tuesday, the Air Force said it is moving ahead with buying the drones even though it doesn’t want them. 

Northrop can rely on bipartisan support. The planes are built in the district represented by Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.), who heads the Armed Services Committee, which will consider a plan to keep Global Hawk running through 2016.  

McKeon – who has issues with numbers when it comes to military spending – recently made news when it was discovered by Politico that a lobbying firm run by his brother and nephews is taking on military-related companies as clients. In a statement to Politico, McKeon said that “We are knowledgeable about the [ethics] rules involved and will be devout in our adherence to both the letter and the spirit of those rules.” Well, that’s good to hear. It’s worth noting, however, that when it comes to congressional ethics rules, the fox is guarding the henhouse

 

To (Ironically) Avoid Sequestration, Congress Could Declare War

The Senate is back in session this week as the battle over military spending, and the prospect of sequestration, continues to sizzle. Last Friday the Office of Management and Budget concluded  that war funding—also known as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)—would not be exempted from sequestration, contradicting the Pentagon’s earlier claims. Predictably, this has angered the GOP and provided fodder for those who oppose military spending cuts on any grounds.

But war funding—$88.5 billion for FY 2013—should never have been considered separate from military spending. This is a practice, gradually accepted in the past 10-15 years, that distorts the size of the defense budget, making it appear smaller. It provides the illusion that Congress and the current administration are fiscally responsible.

The irony of current flap over OMB’s ruling is that Congress could undo sequestration if it simply declared war. In today’s Cato podcast, Benjamin Friedman, research fellow for defense and homeland security studies, explains that the federal code, going back to the 1980s, holds that a declaration of war will reverse sequestration. But Congress doesn’t declare war anymore; members routinely ignore their constitutionally mandated obligation. Those who are the most vocal opponents of sequestration—Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and others—have a tool at their disposal that they will never consider.

Listen to the podcast below to hear Friedman provide a primer on the battle over war funding (OCO), sequestration, and the defense budget bills.

Domestic Military Detention Isn’t Necessary

I make the case that domestic military detention for all terrorism suspects isn’t necessary in this piece over at the Huffington Post. Legislative proposals by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would mandate military detention instead of criminal prosecution for all those suspected of international terrorism. I oppose this policy change for reasons both principled and practical:

If the civil rule of law handles terrorist threats adequately, then invoking military jurisdiction is a counterproductive overreaction.

That was the case with one of the handful of domestically detained enemy combatants, Ali al-Marri. Al-Marri was an honest-to-goodness Al Qaeda sleeper agent masquerading as an exchange student. The FBI indicted him on charges that could have carried a 115-year maximum sentence. The government requested that the judge dismiss its charges with prejudice, meaning that they could not be levied again, and moved him to a naval brig.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed to hear al-Marri’s case, but the government mooted the case when it removed al-Marri from military custody and charged him with material support of terrorism. Al-Marri pleaded guilty and received a sentence of eight years and four months.

Al-Marri’s case was a missed opportunity. The government should have put him away for life.

This isn’t the first time McKeon and McCain have proposed treating all terrorism suspects like al-Marri and Jose Padilla. I criticized a similar proposal a year ago, as did Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution. Wittes’ criticisms of this year’s bad ideas are here and here. Given the excellent track record of federal courts in prosecuting terrorism cases and the recent death of bin Laden, now is not the time to roll back the civil rule of law.