Pentagon suddenly wants to keep its future spending plans secret — but it needs more oversight, not less
By Danielle Ryan
The submission of an unclassified version of the ‘Future Years Defense Program’ (FYDP), which estimates defense spending for five to seven years, has been a legal requirement since 1989 — in other words, roughly since the end of the Cold War.
The details of the request to scrap that long-standing obligation (which has curiously flown under the radar for weeks) were published by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) on Monday. The March 6 proposal would “remove the statutory requirement” to submit spending projections to congress and would also “remove the requirement to certify the accuracy of the input” to the FYDP.
The unclassified submission has become an “integral part of the defense budget process,” wrote Steven Aftergood, who heads the FAS Project on Government Secrecy. Removing it, particularly at a time when US national security spending is already “poorly aligned with actual threats to the nation” would make it “even harder” for both Congress and the public to refocus and reconstruct the defense budget, he added.
The DOD has justified the move by claiming to be “concerned” that continued publication of the spending projections might “expose vulnerabilities” and “inadvertently reveal sensitive information” to enemies about the department’s “weapons development, force structure, and strategic plans.”
This is most certainly a bogus reason, given that the Pentagon has been disclosing this exact information for the past 31 years, seemingly without it being any kind of threat to national security. Of course, this spin should hardly come as a surprise. Hyping non-existent or hypothetical threats to ferret away as much cash as possible is standard practice for the Pentagon generals.
Rather than an effort to shield so-described “sensitive” information from prying foreign eyes, the DOD’s request looks more like an attempt to curtail the ability of the public and the media to scrutinize its spending plans.
It was described as a “serious step backwards in transparency” by Seamus Daniels, a defense budget analyst at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS).
DoD’s proposal to eliminate the unclassified FYDP severely limits the public’s ability to track how strategy aligns with budgets and how program plans change over time. Serious step backwards in transparency from the department https://t.co/IbNvmlZsO4
— Seamus Daniels (@SeamusDaniels) March 30, 2020
The request also appears to be part of a broader assault by the DoD on public oversight. Two years ago, Aftergood notes, the department also stopped publishing its legislative proposals to Congress on DoD General Counsel’s website and now makes them much more difficult to obtain.
One need not look very far to find countless reasons why the Pentagon needs more stringent public oversight, not less. Take for instance the fact that it could not seem to account for how it spent $21 trillion (that’s trillion, not billion) between 1998 and 2015. The $326,000 spent by the US Air Force on coffee cups ($1,200 apiece) that kept breaking seems like small-change now, doesn’t it? Ditto for the $10,000 apiece toilet seat covers.
The US defense budget currently stands at around $750 billion — more than the military budgets of the next seven big-spending countries combined, including Russia, China and the UK. The way the Pentagon spends (and hides) that money has been described as “astonishing fraud” by David Lindorff, investigative journalist and columnist for The Nation.
In 2018, Lindorff told RT that his Pentagon sources admitted that the DOD submits false financial statements to congress every year, stashes money away to be unaccounted for — and then asks for more.
“And so, Congress obligingly gives them more,” he said.
All the while, unspent billions are shielded from public oversight altogether and pooled into a slush fund to be used for whatever takes its fancy.
$1 trillion and climbing, Esper is a career defense lobbyist, working in the most corrupt administration.
The stink of grift hangs all over pic.twitter.com/LgSCzVhN4d
— Don Mothra (@donmothra) March 31, 2020
With that in mind, does it sound like the Pentagon has earned the trust of American taxpayers enough to justify making its (probably already fake) future-year spending projections a total secret?
As usual, the US government is attempting to use a national crisis and public fear to row back on oversight and accountability while citizens and the media are distracted by something shinier. Indeed, there has been little media coverage of the DOD’s attempt to remove the most paltry of oversight requirements from law.
Yet, with state and federal budgets set to come under increasing constraints due to the Covid-19 crisis, now would be the perfect time to deliver the message that the Pentagon’s spending must be subject to more public and media scrutiny, not less.
More from RT
Pentagon hands out contracts for PORTABLE nuclear reactors… yet another gold vein for cash-savvy military?
Contractor behind troubled Afghan propaganda program billed Pentagon $425 MILLION for unaired ads — lawsuit
(TLB) published this article from RT-USA News with our appreciation for the coverage that American MS Media refuses to give.
Some emphasis added by (TLB)
About the author: Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer based in Dublin. Her work has appeared in Salon, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, teleSUR, RBTH, The Calvert Journal and others.
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.