Here's The Article in Question..
It answers a lot of speculation that will probably be made without reading what the report actually is....
It was posted above that an alternative for the money would be to improve the quality of life.. How About Maintaining the Quality of Life we Have First.. We ARE at War you realize..
A few more bandages for a civilian aren't going to stop a Box of anthrax from being dropped into one's cereal during breakfast.
Again, In reading it.. I don't know why people are still out there saying Bush is only getting hardon's with just getting his agenda through.. The majority of People just aren't believing it.. It's a tried tactic, but It just doesn't carry weight with this president.. He has character. He cares for America.... He cares for you...
ANyways.. on to the article
L.Unplugged
________________________
Bush Proposes More Defense Spending
By Sonya Ross
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, January 23, 2002; 6:20 PM
WASHINGTON ?? President Bush on Wednesday proposed the biggest increase in military spending in 20 years, nearly $50 billion more next year, and said America "will not cut corners" in the war against terrorism.
He pledged he would not seek political advantage from that war.
The president outlined the military part of his fiscal 2003 budget proposal in a luncheon speech before the Reserve Officers Association. He said his highest budget priority is twofold ? the military abroad and safety at home ? even though that will create financial strain for the federal government.
"I have a responsibility to prepare the nation for all that lies ahead," Bush said. "There will be no room for misunderstanding. The most basic commitment of our government will be the security of our country."
Bush spoke a few hours after a closed-door session with House and Senate leaders at the White House, in which he gave an update on the anti-terrorism effort and told the lawmakers, "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue. There is no daylight between the executive and the legislative branches."
According to congressional and White House sources who related the scene to The Associated Press, Bush's pledge drew no response. Among those present was Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, who incensed Democrats last week when he told a GOP conference that the Republican Party is better suited for carrying out the war on terrorism.
A senior White House official said Wednesday that Rove was reflecting on the viewpoint of partisan and independent pollsters ? that Republicans are considered stronger on national security than Democrats. The Democrats turned the speech into a political issue by accusing him of politicizing the war, the official said.
If approved by the House and Senate, the $48 billion would be the largest increase in military spending since President Reagan held office two decades ago. Bush said the extra money would go toward missile defense, pay increases for service personnel and acquisition of precision weaponry, unmanned vehicles and high-tech equipment.
On Capitol Hill, some Democrats greeted Bush's plan with skepticism. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, defense chairman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, said lawmamber of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, said he believes Congress ultimately will support Bush. "Clearly the people of the United States understand the terrorist threat poised at this nation, and will accept and indeed applaud the president's initiative," Warner said.
Bush said the $2 trillion budget he will submit to Congress next month will devote $380 billion to the Pentagon, an increase of $48 billion. That includes a $10 billion "war reserve" for active military operations overseas, said White House budget chief Mitchell Daniels.
Bush's budget will project deficits of $106 billion for this year and $80 billion for the 2003 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, Daniels said. He said Bush anticipates a return to surpluses in 2005, with $61 billion in black ink.
Bush said that acquiring more modern weaponry may strain the budget, but "we will not cut corners when it comes to the defense of our great land."
"The tools of modern warfare are effective, they are expensive. But in order to win this war against terror, they are essential," Bush said.
Retired Air Force Col. P.J. Crowley, national security spokesman under President Clinton, agreed that it is necessary to increase defense spending, given the operations in Afghanistan. But he said that Bush may run into problems sustaining high funding levels over time.
"Defense spending works most effectively when there are steady increases that allow the military to plan," Crowley said. "Given that we have seen surpluses change to deficits, if this defense program ends up going in fits and starts ... we'll spend a lot of money but not translate that into increased military capability."
For the budget year beginning on Oct. 1, Bush also is expected to substantially increase the amount allotted for homeland security, currently at $13 billion. He said Wednesday that he wants to put forth a "sustained strategy" that calls for hiring 30,000 airport security workers and 300 extra FBI agents, buying new equipment to improve mail safety, expanding bioterrorism research and upgrading public health labs nationwide.
"We'll ensure that state and local firemen and police and rescue workers are prepared for terrorism. And we will do more to secure our borders," Bush said. "In order to make sure we're safe in the long run, we must find the terrorists wherever they think they can hide and, as I like to say, get 'em."
[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-23-2002).]
