[Peace-discussion] Democrats back massive hike in military spending

Fri, 9 Feb 2007 20:37:43 -0800

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C74C8A.283FB4D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Democrats back massive hike in military spending

By Tom Carter in Washington DC
9 February 2007

 <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/dems-f09_prn.shtml> Use this
version to print | Send this link by
<http://www.wsws.org/cgi-bin/birdcast.cgi>  email | Email
<https://secure.wsws.org/phpform/use/comments/form1.html>  the author

The Bush administration's fiscal year 2008 budget continues the
administration's policy of tax cuts for the rich and attacks on social
programs for working and poor people, but its centerpiece is a massive
increase in the military budget-not only for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but also to fund a permanent increase in the size of the Army,
Marines and Special Operations forces, and a host of major military
procurement programs.

The budget includes $481.4 billion for the Department of Defense. This would
be a 62 percent increase over 2001. When combined with a separate "Global
War on Terror" supplemental request for $93.4 billion for fiscal year 2007
and $141.7 billion for 2008, the total military spending proposal soars to
$716.5 billion, the highest military outlay in real terms since World War
II.

The scale of military spending and the structural changes proposed clearly
portend military actions for decades to come far beyond the current wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. They reflect a foreign policy based on the use of
military violence for the purpose of achieving US global hegemony.

A February 7 hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, at which
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Peter Pace testified in support of the military spending plan, made
abundantly clear that a large majority of Democrats support the
administration's military budget and will vote to pass it.

The tone for the hearing was set in the opening remarks of the committee
chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton, a Democrat from Missouri. "Now it is time for
Congress to play our constitutional role," he said. "As authorizers it is
our solemn duty to ensure that this budget is sufficient."

This formulation is an inversion of the committee's actual constitutional
responsibility-to act as a check on the executive and the military-and
instead turns it into a rubber stamp.

Skelton called for an expansion of the war in Afghanistan and chided the
administration for creating a quagmire that weakened the ability of the US
military to conduct operations against other enemies around the world.

He declared, "Every day we continue that fight [in Iraq] is another day we
increase the strategic risk to the United States, that we may not have the
right resources when our military is next called upon to deter or respond to
a conflict."

"In general," Skelton continued, "there is much to commend the budget." He
praised the plan to build eight new ships and other programs that "ensure
that our forces dominate the domains of air and space." Skelton was
"gratified to see the president finally agrees with my ten-year quest to
bolster the size of our ground forces."

In their testimony, both Gates and Pace implied that the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan were just the beginning of military campaigns around the globe.
Gates referred to the "threats... faced by our nation in the future," while
Pace stressed that the "current heavy demand for ground, sea, and air
capabilities is not likely to dissipate in the immediate future."

Gates acknowledged that there might be some "sticker shock" from the
enormous budget request, but as it transpired, neither side of the political
aisle gave him cause for concern. "This is really not that much money that
you're asking for," said Democrat Hank Johnson of Georgia.

Pace highlighted the establishment of a unified Africa Command and the
proposed increase in the size of Special Operations forces. These are
specially trained troops that engage in lethal covert actions. Pace noted
that, in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq, these units "deploy to
approximately forty other countries around the world."

Pace rattled off a list of "threats and challenges" around the world,
including Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia,
Venezuela, Cuba, and all of Latin America and Africa-regions that together
are home to roughly a third of the world's population.

In the course of the hearing itself, virtually every Democrat who asked a
question of Pace or Gates prefaced it with praise of the military and
assurances of his or her "support for the troops."

"Let me begin by saying, I truly love the military," gushed Carol
Shea-Porter, a Democrat from New Hampshire.

What passed for Democratic criticism of the military budget was not only
meek, but abject. Kristen Gillibrand of New York argued, along the lines of
the Iraq Study Group report, that military force alone could not solve the
crisis in Iraq and that military operations had to be supplemented with
political and economic efforts. "At the outset of the war we were told that
Iraqi oil revenues would pay for reconstruction," she said, and suggested
that Iraqi money, instead of US money, be used to pay for reconstruction
efforts.

Another theme of Democrats who expressed concerns about the budget was its
failure to prepare adequately for a potential confrontation with China. "I
am concerned with the nuclear navy that China is building," said
Shea-Porter. Democrat Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania criticized the military's
overall lack of "readiness" to respond to China and North Korea. Kathy
Castor, a Democrat from Florida, expressed concerns that the budget could
"eat into our readiness to meet other global threats."

The general attitude of the Democrats to the budget was summed up in an
exchange between Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz of Texas and General Pace. After
expressing concerns that the budget did not provide sufficient funds for the
replacement of equipment for units on the front lines, Ortiz asked, "Does
this budget give you everything you need?" Pace replied in the affirmative.

At one point, after praising the new Africa Command as an "enormously
important step," Democrat Mark Udall of Colorado alluded to the massive
anti-war sentiment expressed in the November midterm elections. "In a
democracy," he said, "there is a conflict between immediate passions and
long-term strategic aims."

Translated into plain English, this means the will of the people ("immediate
passions") will have absolutely no bearing on the pursuit of the "long-term
strategic aims" of the American corporate-financial oligarchy.

Expressed at the hearing was not simply the general militarist and
imperialist consensus that dominates both parties, but also the specific
interests on behalf of which committee members were speaking. One could go
through the list of congressmen and, with remarkable precision, identify
Congressman X as the man from Grumman Corporation, Congressman Y as Mr.
General Dynamics, and so on.

Committee members from both parties, in making their comments on military
strategy, pressing budget needs, etc., were promoting the agendas of the
military-industrial contractors who paid their campaign bills. They were
hustling for specific weapons systems and potential government contracts
that could earn their corporate sponsors millions if not billions in
profits.

"This budget proposal for shipbuilding is pathetic," declared Gene Taylor, a
Democrat from Mississippi. "The legacy of the Bush administration will be a
140-ship fleet," he said. "The fleet is 60 ships smaller than when Bush took
office."

Taylor over the course of his political career has received more than
$220,000 in defense industry campaign contributions. Some $45,250 of that
came from Northrop Grumman, which operates a major military shipbuilding
facility in Pascagoula, Mississippi-in Taylor's congressional district. This
facility is responsible for Tarawa, Spruance and Kidd class destroyers, and
is the lead shipbuilder for the new Aegis guided missile cruiser program.
Litton Industries, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics also donated tens of
thousands of dollars each to Taylor's campaigns.

Joe Courtney, a Democrat from Connecticut, criticized a "disturbing decline
in the Navy" and cited the increasing size of China's submarine fleet
compared with that of the US. Connecticut, home of the New London Submarine
Base, is the world leader in submarine production and the site of production
facilities for the US nuclear submarine fleet. The sub builder is the
Electric Boat division of General Dynamics.

Democrat Vic Snyder of Arkansas criticized the budget for proposed cuts in
defense research. Snyder's top contributor is the University of Arkansas,
which has donated $56,900 to his campaigns. Since Snyder has been in office,
the University of Arkansas has received millions of dollars in defense
contracts. In the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense appropriations bill
alone, $5 million was allocated for defense research at the university. On
the whole, Arkansas companies received more than $140 million for defense
projects in that bill.

And what about House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton himself?
Skelton has received a staggering $873,000 in defense industry
contributions.

A list of his top campaign donors reads like a roster of the most powerful
American defense companies. Northrop Grumman has donated $95,950 to the
chairman's campaigns, Boeing-$91,000, Engineered Support Systems-$77,634,
Lockheed Martin-$68,350, General Dynamics-$55,750, Raytheon-$44,250, BAE
Systems-$41,428, and General Electric-$35,500.

------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C74C8A.283FB4D0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"City"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"State"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
h2
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:18.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	font-weight:bold;}
h5
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:navy;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<h2><b><font size=3D5 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:18.0pt'>Democrats
back massive hike in military spending<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></h2>

<h5><b><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>By
Tom Carter in <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:City =
w:st=3D"on">Washington</st1:City> <st1:State
 w:st=3D"on">DC</st1:State></st1:place><br>
9 February 2007<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></h5>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><a
href=3D"http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/dems-f09_prn.shtml"><b>=
<font
size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:
bold'>Use this version to =
print</span></font></b></a></span></font><b><font
size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:
bold'> | <a href=3D"http://www.wsws.org/cgi-bin/birdcast.cgi">Send this =
link by
email</a> | <a =
href=3D"https://secure.wsws.org/phpform/use/comments/form1.html">Email
the author</a></span></font></b><o:p></o:p></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The Bush
administration&#8217;s fiscal year 2008 budget continues the
administration&#8217;s policy of tax cuts for the rich and attacks on =
social
programs for working and poor people, but its centerpiece is a massive =
increase
in the military budget&#8212;not only for the wars in Iraq and =
Afghanistan, but
also to fund a permanent increase in the size of the Army, Marines and =
Special
Operations forces, and a host of major military procurement =
programs.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

The
budget includes $481.4 billion for the Department of Defense. This would =
be a
62 percent increase over 2001. When combined with a separate =
&#8220;Global War
on Terror&#8221; supplemental request for $93.4 billion for fiscal year =
2007
and $141.7 billion for 2008, the total military spending proposal soars =
to
$716.5 billion, the highest military outlay in real terms since World =
War II.<o:p></o:p>

The scale
of military spending and the structural changes proposed clearly portend
military actions for decades to come far beyond the current wars in =
<st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">Afghanistan</st1:country-region> and <st1:place =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region
 w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1:place>. They reflect a =
foreign policy
based on the use of military violence for the purpose of achieving US =
global
hegemony.<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>A
February 7 hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, at which =
Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter =
Pace
testified in support of the military spending plan, made abundantly =
clear that
a large majority of Democrats support the administration&#8217;s =
military
budget and will vote to pass it.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

The tone
for the hearing was set in the opening remarks of the committee =
chairman, Rep.
Ike Skelton, a Democrat from <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Missouri</st1:State></st1:place>.
&#8220;Now it is time for Congress to play our constitutional =
role,&#8221; he
said. &#8220;As authorizers it is our solemn duty to ensure that this =
budget is
sufficient.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>This
formulation is an inversion of the committee&#8217;s actual =
constitutional
responsibility&#8212;to act as a check on the executive and the
military&#8212;and instead turns it into a rubber =
stamp.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Skelton
called for an expansion of the war in <st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">Afghanistan</st1:country-region>
and chided the administration for creating a quagmire that weakened the =
ability
of the <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place>
military to conduct operations against other enemies around the =
world.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>He
declared, &#8220;Every day we continue that fight [in Iraq] is another =
day we
increase the strategic risk to the United States, that we may not have =
the right
resources when our military is next called upon to deter or respond to a
conflict.&#8221;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&#8220;In
general,&#8221; Skelton continued, &#8220;there is much to commend the
budget.&#8221; He praised the plan to build eight new ships and other =
programs
that &#8220;ensure that our forces dominate the domains of air and
space.&#8221; Skelton was &#8220;gratified to see the president finally =
agrees
with my ten-year quest to bolster the size of our ground =
forces.&#8221;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

In their
testimony, both Gates and Pace implied that the wars in =
<st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:country-region> and <st1:place =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region
 w:st=3D"on">Afghanistan</st1:country-region></st1:place> were just the =
beginning
of military campaigns around the globe. Gates referred to the =
&#8220;threats...
faced by our nation in the future,&#8221; while Pace stressed that the
&#8220;current heavy demand for ground, sea, and air capabilities is not =
likely
to dissipate in the immediate =
future.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

Gates
acknowledged that there might be some &#8220;sticker shock&#8221; from =
the
enormous budget request, but as it transpired, neither side of the =
political
aisle gave him cause for concern. &#8220;This is really not that much =
money
that you&#8217;re asking for,&#8221; said Democrat Hank Johnson of =
Georgia.<o:p></o:p>

Pace
highlighted the establishment of a unified Africa Command and the =
proposed
increase in the size of Special Operations forces. These are specially =
trained
troops that engage in lethal covert actions. Pace noted that, in =
addition to <st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">Afghanistan</st1:country-region> and <st1:place =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region
 w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1:place>, these units =
&#8220;deploy to
approximately forty other countries around the =
world.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Pace
rattled off a list of &#8220;threats and challenges&#8221; around the =
world,
including Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan, the Philippines, =
Indonesia,
Venezuela, Cuba, and all of Latin America and Africa&#8212;regions that
together are home to roughly a third of the world&#8217;s =
population.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>In the
course of the hearing itself, virtually every Democrat who asked a =
question of
Pace or Gates prefaced it with praise of the military and assurances of =
his or
her &#8220;support for the troops.&#8221;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&#8220;Let
me begin by saying, I truly love the military,&#8221; gushed Carol =
Shea-Porter,
a Democrat from <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:State w:st=3D"on">New =
Hampshire</st1:State></st1:place>.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

What
passed for Democratic criticism of the military budget was not only =
meek, but
abject. Kristen Gillibrand of <st1:State w:st=3D"on">New =
York</st1:State> argued,
along the lines of the Iraq Study Group report, that military force =
alone could
not solve the crisis in <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1:place>
and that military operations had to be supplemented with political and =
economic
efforts. &#8220;At the outset of the war we were told that Iraqi oil =
revenues
would pay for reconstruction,&#8221; she said, and suggested that Iraqi =
money,
instead of <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place>
money, be used to pay for reconstruction =
efforts.<o:p></o:p>

Another
theme of Democrats who expressed concerns about the budget was its =
failure to
prepare adequately for a potential confrontation with <st1:place =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region
 w:st=3D"on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>. &#8220;I am =
concerned with
the nuclear navy that <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">China</st1:country-region></st1:place>
is building,&#8221; said Shea-Porter. Democrat Joe Sestak of <st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Pennsylvania</st1:State>
criticized the military&#8217;s overall lack of &#8220;readiness&#8221; =
to
respond to <st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">China</st1:country-region> =
and <st1:place
w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">North =
Korea</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
Kathy Castor, a Democrat from <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Florida</st1:State></st1:place>,
expressed concerns that the budget could &#8220;eat into our readiness =
to meet
other global threats.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

The
general attitude of the Democrats to the budget was summed up in an =
exchange
between Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz of <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Texas</st1:State></st1:place>
and General Pace. After expressing concerns that the budget did not =
provide
sufficient funds for the replacement of equipment for units on the front =
lines,
Ortiz asked, &#8220;Does this budget give you everything you =
need?&#8221; Pace
replied in the affirmative.<o:p></o:p>

At one
point, after praising the new Africa Command as an &#8220;enormously =
important
step,&#8221; Democrat Mark Udall of <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Colorado</st1:State></st1:place>
alluded to the massive anti-war sentiment expressed in the November =
midterm
elections. &#8220;In a democracy,&#8221; he said, &#8220;there is a =
conflict
between immediate passions and long-term strategic =
aims.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Translated
into plain English, this means the will of the people (&#8220;immediate
passions&#8221;) will have absolutely no bearing on the pursuit of the
&#8220;long-term strategic aims&#8221; of the American =
corporate-financial
oligarchy.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

Expressed
at the hearing was not simply the general militarist and imperialist =
consensus
that dominates both parties, but also the specific interests on behalf =
of which
committee members were speaking. One could go through the list of =
congressmen
and, with remarkable precision, identify Congressman X as the man from =
Grumman
Corporation, Congressman Y as Mr. General Dynamics, and so =
on.<o:p></o:p>

Committee
members from both parties, in making their comments on military =
strategy,
pressing budget needs, etc., were promoting the agendas of the
military-industrial contractors who paid their campaign bills. They were
hustling for specific weapons systems and potential government contracts =
that
could earn their corporate sponsors millions if not billions in =
profits.<o:p></o:p>

&#8220;This
budget proposal for shipbuilding is pathetic,&#8221; declared Gene =
Taylor, a
Democrat from <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Mississippi</st1:State></st1:place>.
&#8220;The legacy of the Bush administration will be a 140-ship =
fleet,&#8221;
he said. &#8220;The fleet is 60 ships smaller than when Bush took
office.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

<st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:City w:st=3D"on">Taylor</st1:City></st1:place> =
over the
course of his political career has received more than $220,000 in =
defense
industry campaign contributions. Some $45,250 of that came from Northrop
Grumman, which operates a major military shipbuilding facility in =
<st1:City
w:st=3D"on">Pascagoula</st1:City>, <st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Mississippi</st1:State>&#8212;in
<st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:City =
w:st=3D"on">Taylor</st1:City></st1:place>&#8217;s
congressional district. This facility is responsible for <st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Tarawa</st1:place>,
Spruance and Kidd class destroyers, and is the lead shipbuilder for the =
new
Aegis guided missile cruiser program. Litton Industries, Lockheed Martin =
and General
Dynamics also donated tens of thousands of dollars each to <st1:place =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:City
 w:st=3D"on">Taylor</st1:City></st1:place>&#8217;s =
campaigns.<o:p></o:p>

Joe
Courtney, a Democrat from <st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Connecticut</st1:State>,
criticized a &#8220;disturbing decline in the Navy&#8221; and cited the
increasing size of <st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">China</st1:country-region>&#8217;s
submarine fleet compared with that of the <st1:place =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region
 w:st=3D"on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place>. <st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Connecticut</st1:State>,
home of the New London Submarine Base, is the world leader in submarine
production and the site of production facilities for the <st1:place =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:country-region
 w:st=3D"on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place> nuclear submarine =
fleet. The sub
builder is the Electric Boat division of General =
Dynamics.<o:p></o:p>

Democrat
Vic Snyder of <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Arkansas</st1:State></st1:place>
criticized the budget for proposed cuts in defense research. =
Snyder&#8217;s top
contributor is the <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType =
w:st=3D"on">University</st1:PlaceType>
 of <st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Arkansas</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>, =
which has
donated $56,900 to his campaigns. Since Snyder has been in office, the =
<st1:place
w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">University</st1:PlaceType> of =
<st1:PlaceName
 w:st=3D"on">Arkansas</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> has received millions =
of
dollars in defense contracts. In the fiscal year 2005 Department of =
Defense
appropriations bill alone, $5 million was allocated for defense research =
at the
university. On the whole, <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Arkansas</st1:State></st1:place>
companies received more than $140 million for defense projects in that =
bill.<o:p></o:p>

And what
about House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton himself? =
Skelton has
received a staggering $873,000 in defense industry =
contributions.<o:p></o:p>

A list of
his top campaign donors reads like a roster of the most powerful =
American
defense companies. Northrop Grumman has donated $95,950 to the =
chairman&#8217;s
campaigns, Boeing&#8212;$91,000, Engineered Support =
Systems&#8212;$77,634,
Lockheed Martin&#8212;$68,350, General Dynamics&#8212;$55,750,
Raytheon&#8212;$44,250, BAE Systems&#8212;$41,428, and General
Electric&#8212;$35,500.<o:p></o:p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C74C8A.283FB4D0--