Military Wish Lists May Return with 2015 Budget

Military Wish Lists May Return with 2015 Budget

The U.S. military may resume the practice of submitting to Congress wish lists for additional weapons and equipment, now that the White House plans to include additional spending in the 2015 budget.

The requests, known in military parlance as unfunded priority lists, were used to pad the defense budget with hardware civilian leaders didn’t ask for and were standard practice until former Defense Secretary Robert Gates began intercepting them from the top brass before they went to lawmakers, according to an article by Mark Thompson of Time magazine.

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, recently asked the service chiefs, heads of the combatant commands and leaders of the National Guard Bureau for their lists after learning that President Barack Obama’s soon-to-be-released budget request for fiscal 2015 will include some $56 billion in new spending, half for domestic programs and half for defense.


“Even the President acknowledges that the national security budget is insufficient to meet the threats we face; that is why he is sending us a list of requirements he needs but cannot fund,” McKeon said in a recent statement.

“While I welcome his list, I am more interested in hearing directly from our service chiefs and commanders on their unfunded requirements rather than receiving an edited White House list tailored to scoring political points,” he added.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is expected to outline the Pentagon’s budget request for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 sometime next week, possibly Monday, before the spending plan’s official March 4 release.

The Defense Department’s base budget, which excludes war funding, is expected to be about $500 billion under congressional spending caps — some $40 billion less than what the department previously budgeted for the year. Congress recently provided partial relief to automatic budget cuts known as sequestration over the next two years, but agencies still face spending reductions.

Tags: , ,

Join the Conversation

If this is just for Pentagon generals that mean’s:anyways means more waste on crap we don’t need.

I think the whole “requirements” approach is BS. Uh, we “require” a breakthrough in materials science in 2018 and we require significant civil unrest and the subsequent use of biological weapons in 2017 in a country we actually give a damn about which leads to a requirement for hermetically sealed land vehicles by 2018 and we will most certainly require a Catholic Church sanctioned miracle by the first quarter of 2019… I mean, hell, remember when people used to innovate for fun and profit all over this great nation? And sometimes they’d come up with really great shtuff that the military could use, but today it isn’t on anyone’s “requirements” list so now you could come up with a f’ing matter/antimatter bomb in your basement but there’s no requirement for that so you’d probably be treated as a domestic terrorist and given the bum’s rush straight to jail. How stupid does something need to be before we can actually acknowledge it as stupid these days? Hey, Igor, I have a requirement for a new monster by 2015. How’s that going down there?

Sequestration impacts, plus Congress forcing procurement of items not prioritized by the services & combatant commanders. Sounds like a recipe for lopsided force structure and inadequate life cycle support. Less efficiency and combat power — and more costs.

Will the US not slow down a bit???? What threat?? The threat that US have at this point in time is imaginary than real. Uber spending will crash the US economy. Remember Rome??? Besides, why will you spend 500 Billion when you can slow down a bit and use the excess amount in repairing US economy/..

Upgrades to the VIP jets.

Lenoj you’re so simple minded. The libertarians have you right where they want you.

(1) The problem with such unfunded lists is that they basically favor buying stuff rather than operations and maintenance (supporting what you’ve got).

(2) The lists will immediately have proponents from the defense contractor side, once the Pentagon has blessed the contractor’s pimping.

(3) The Congress is too dumb to look at a budget and figure out what is needed? They need a special list? (Most R&D and procurement budgets project outyear funding; a good place to justify accelearting procurements.) Really? Then they shouldn’t be in Congress!

(4) But even after people like former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen stated that the state of our national debt is a major threat to our national survival, the Pentagon still wants what it wants without regard to the fact it’ll bust the bank! This is a variation of Regan’s “starve the beast” strategy, except that it’ll bounce back and result in a sharp drop in the Pentagon once it becomes painfully clear the country can’t afford its own military. Cutting 20% now is better than cutting 50% later. But, then again, the Pentagon is still in denial.

The only way to repair the US ecomony is to first of all stop taxing and spending by our Government. The next thing that needs to happen is raise interest rates, Kill Obamacare, ect.… As for the Military I say it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Kind of like my concealed hand gun, I pray to God I never have to shoot anyone reguardless of the situation, however that does not mean that I won’t to protect my life or someone elses. One of the things that keeps some organizations and countries from killing our people, US citizens, is our strong military. Don’t mess with our Military plain and simple.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.