SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
With Billions for Back-Door Slush Fund, Military Dodges Austerity in House Budget
'Will we see defense spending with no real limits in sight while we have limits on domestic spending for education and health care and infrastructure?'
May 15, 2015
The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly passed a $612 billion war spending bill, relying on a back-door slush fund to dodge the austerity cuts that are gutting domestic programs from education to health care.
The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed 269 to 151, largely along party lines. The roll call can be viewed here.
The budget circumvents cuts passed in 2011, known as "sequestration," by shifting $89 billion into the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Fund, which was first created in 2001 as an "emergency" fund for the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The OCO was supposed to temporary but has since become a permanent fixture that allows the military to sidestep cuts--and maintain seemingly limitless war spending.
Many Democrats voted against the bill--and President Barack Obama threatened to veto it--because of its reliance on the OCO to circumvent budget sequestration. "We will not let defense out from under the budget caps and keep everything else under it," said Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) on Thursday.
However, historically Democrats have also consistently pressed for historically high levels of military funding, and the total amount of $612 billion is, in fact, in line with what the Obama administration requested for the 2016 budget. Furthermore, Obama's initial proposal had called for nearly $51 billion to be placed in the OCO.
Some Republicans signaled they believe military spending should be limitless. "Whatever our troops need to get the job done, they should get it, and the House has acted to provide just that," said John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Analysts say this year's budget fight brings a critical question to the fore when it comes to Pentagon funding: Is the OCO slush fund here to stay?
Lindsay Koshgarian, research director for National Priorities Project, told Common Dreams, "This seems to be a turning point, where either we will get in a pattern of accepting a defense slush fund as as we go forward with caps or we won't. Will we see defense spending with no real limits in sight while we have limits on domestic spending for education and health care and infrastructure?"
In addition to high levels of military funding, the bill also includes a provision that would make it more difficult for the Obama administration to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo Bay and would present another roadblock to closing the infamous facility.
The Senate version, which passed the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, also relies on the OCO war chest to maintain high levels of funding. The legislation is next headed to the appropriations process, and it will be months until the fate of the NDAA is known.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly passed a $612 billion war spending bill, relying on a back-door slush fund to dodge the austerity cuts that are gutting domestic programs from education to health care.
The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed 269 to 151, largely along party lines. The roll call can be viewed here.
The budget circumvents cuts passed in 2011, known as "sequestration," by shifting $89 billion into the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Fund, which was first created in 2001 as an "emergency" fund for the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The OCO was supposed to temporary but has since become a permanent fixture that allows the military to sidestep cuts--and maintain seemingly limitless war spending.
Many Democrats voted against the bill--and President Barack Obama threatened to veto it--because of its reliance on the OCO to circumvent budget sequestration. "We will not let defense out from under the budget caps and keep everything else under it," said Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) on Thursday.
However, historically Democrats have also consistently pressed for historically high levels of military funding, and the total amount of $612 billion is, in fact, in line with what the Obama administration requested for the 2016 budget. Furthermore, Obama's initial proposal had called for nearly $51 billion to be placed in the OCO.
Some Republicans signaled they believe military spending should be limitless. "Whatever our troops need to get the job done, they should get it, and the House has acted to provide just that," said John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Analysts say this year's budget fight brings a critical question to the fore when it comes to Pentagon funding: Is the OCO slush fund here to stay?
Lindsay Koshgarian, research director for National Priorities Project, told Common Dreams, "This seems to be a turning point, where either we will get in a pattern of accepting a defense slush fund as as we go forward with caps or we won't. Will we see defense spending with no real limits in sight while we have limits on domestic spending for education and health care and infrastructure?"
In addition to high levels of military funding, the bill also includes a provision that would make it more difficult for the Obama administration to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo Bay and would present another roadblock to closing the infamous facility.
The Senate version, which passed the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, also relies on the OCO war chest to maintain high levels of funding. The legislation is next headed to the appropriations process, and it will be months until the fate of the NDAA is known.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly passed a $612 billion war spending bill, relying on a back-door slush fund to dodge the austerity cuts that are gutting domestic programs from education to health care.
The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed 269 to 151, largely along party lines. The roll call can be viewed here.
The budget circumvents cuts passed in 2011, known as "sequestration," by shifting $89 billion into the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Fund, which was first created in 2001 as an "emergency" fund for the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The OCO was supposed to temporary but has since become a permanent fixture that allows the military to sidestep cuts--and maintain seemingly limitless war spending.
Many Democrats voted against the bill--and President Barack Obama threatened to veto it--because of its reliance on the OCO to circumvent budget sequestration. "We will not let defense out from under the budget caps and keep everything else under it," said Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) on Thursday.
However, historically Democrats have also consistently pressed for historically high levels of military funding, and the total amount of $612 billion is, in fact, in line with what the Obama administration requested for the 2016 budget. Furthermore, Obama's initial proposal had called for nearly $51 billion to be placed in the OCO.
Some Republicans signaled they believe military spending should be limitless. "Whatever our troops need to get the job done, they should get it, and the House has acted to provide just that," said John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Analysts say this year's budget fight brings a critical question to the fore when it comes to Pentagon funding: Is the OCO slush fund here to stay?
Lindsay Koshgarian, research director for National Priorities Project, told Common Dreams, "This seems to be a turning point, where either we will get in a pattern of accepting a defense slush fund as as we go forward with caps or we won't. Will we see defense spending with no real limits in sight while we have limits on domestic spending for education and health care and infrastructure?"
In addition to high levels of military funding, the bill also includes a provision that would make it more difficult for the Obama administration to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo Bay and would present another roadblock to closing the infamous facility.
The Senate version, which passed the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, also relies on the OCO war chest to maintain high levels of funding. The legislation is next headed to the appropriations process, and it will be months until the fate of the NDAA is known.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.