The $400.5 billion funding request for FY 2004 is about 10 percent higher in real terms than the average Cold War defense budget. And under the Bush Administration’s long term plan, funding for defense would be increased by another 12 percent between FY 2004 and FY 2009. This level of funding would be higher in real terms than the levels sustained even in the 1980s, the decade of the Reagan buildup.

In policy matters, little has changed from last year’s budget. Indeed, for force structure and modernization programs, this budget is remarkably similar to the Clinton Administration’s defense plan. Ballistic missile defense programs are one of the few areas of significant change.

Says Kosiak, “While Bush’s request comes closer to providing the level funding needed to execute the Defense Department’s modernization and other plans, it’s still likely to fall short. The good news is that those plans may be more ambitious and costly than necessary.”

Kosiak notes that, at some point, additional funding will almost certainly have to be provided in FY 2004 to cover the cost of follow-on activities in Iraq as well as other elements of the global war on terrorism. These costs, which could amount to $10 billion or more, will likely be handled through a separate supplemental request next year.

Included in the report are analyses of each of the major categories of military spending, including the Operations and Maintenance, Research and Development, Procurement, and Military Personnel accounts, as well as a range of tables and graphs tracking trends in defense spending.

# # # # # #

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking about defense planning and investment strategies for the 21st century. See our web site at HYPERLINK http://www.csba