Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIt's Time To Scrutinize The Pentagon Budget
There is nothing about the absolute size of a half-trillion dollar Pentagon budget that should concern Americans if that expenditure is necessary for the defense of the nation and if, as a nation, we are rich enough to foot the bill. But in the shadow of 9/11 and subsequent wars, that budget has been exempted from the type of scrutiny it received during the 1990s. Still it constitutes so much of our discretionary spending and has contributed so much to our deficit spending that we can no longer afford to look the other way.
The last ten years have seen the Pentagon's "baseline budget" grow by 45% - from $358 billion in 1997 to $518 billion today, not including much of the funding for current wars and for Homeland Security.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the baseline budget will grow another $30 billion in coming years. And it has been reported that the Bush Administration will pass on to the Obama Administration a revised five year defense plan which will push the budget up another $80 billion.
Surely our national security needs are real and enduring. But there also is an immediate need to shore-up our economy and to speed relief to Americans facing hard times Americans of all ages also want reform of the healthcare system in order to improve access to quality care and to make it more affordable. We need diverse educational investments and major investments to reduce energy dependence and to curb global warming.
Meanwhile America is slipping further into recession, likely the worst since the 1930s. The next several years are expected to add several trillions of dollars to our already outstanding national debt of $10 trillion. As debt rises relative to revenue and new demands on the budget loom, we simply must use our resources judiciously. With millions of American households facing their own budget crises, the next congress will be expected to exercise more vigilant oversight of the government budget, the Pentagon's included.
Since 1998 we have spent about $5 trillion on defense (in 2008 dollars), $1.4 trillion more than the 1998 leve;. About $800 billion (57%) of this increase was devoted to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Ending them would dramatically reduce the demands on the Pentagon. The remaining $600 billion (43%) are additions to baseline spending. There is much in that figure that deserves closer scrutiny.
For example we are currently adding nearly 100,000 troops to the Army and Marine Corps. These two services have suffered due to the long occupation of Iraq. But the increase is designed to be permanent. And this part of the plan begs fundamental questions: What have we learned from our Iraq experience? Is long-term, large-scale military occupation of a foreign country a worthwhile or even practical road to greater security?
Apart from our current wars, the United States maintains a very large military presence abroad. Even in peacetime we keep more than 200,000 personnel on foreign soil and 30,000 sailors on more than 100 deployed ships and submarines. No other nation does remotely as much. And we are planning to do more - with the recent addition of a new regional military command covering Africa. Is this the best, most cost-effective way to influence world events? Or might more be done at less cost and more effectively through the State Department and through regional and global institutions?
Finally, the Pentagon hopes to renovate US nuclear capabilities, proceed with national missile defense efforts, and explore the potentials of anti-satellite and space-based weapons. But these efforts are plagued by questions about their effects on international stability and on arms control, and about their feasibility and reliability. In the case of nuclear weapons, perhaps the best course is to retire much of our stockpile in tandem with reductions by other nuclear powers.
Any adjustment in national security planning is bound to be controversial - and it should be. But we can no longer afford to shy away from that controversy. Our current circumstance demands that we enter into a broad and deep discussion about national strategic priorities, including security priorities. And this necessarily entails looking behind the curtain that shields the defense budget from more serious scrutiny.
19 Comments so far
Show AllScrutinize the Pentagon Budget?
The Pentagon Budget CANNOT pass a simple AUDIT!
Aprl, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department's finances may not be able to meet normal accounting standards for several more years, possibly not until after President George W. Bush leaves office, a Pentagon official said on Friday.
(...snip...)
"I would say we're several years away from having a certifiable audit," Sylvester told reporters.
Asked if such a milestone could be expected after Bush leaves office in early 2009, Sylvester replied: "Most likely, most likely.
The Pentagon has already frustrated hopes that it could pass a clean audit by 2007. A clean audit is an independent financial review that finds no material problems.
Bush administration officials have long pledged to tackle the Pentagon's infamous finances, which some critics say have allowed hundreds of billions of dollars to go unaccounted.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld first promised Congress he would try to balance the books in early 2001.
(...snip...)
Before achieving a clean audit, Sylvester said the Pentagon would need to meet several more challenges such as revising contract language, creating systems to match expenditures with assets and establishing a registry system to identify each piece of equipment.
"We don't have those capabilities now, although we're working on them," he said.
Full story:
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2006/04/440_billion_budget.php
*** This is how you're able to funnel ungodly sums of money in secret "black" programs.
"Bush administration officials have long pledged to tackle the Pentagon's infamous finances, which some critics say have allowed hundreds of billions of dollars to go unaccounted."
On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced that the pentagon could not account for $2,300,000,000,000.00, two point three trillion dollars. Then, of course the next day we were attacked by 19 terrorists, 16 of whom were Saudi Arabians, so of course we went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. What should have been an international police manhunt for Osama bin Laden became two wars of choice that today cost something like $12 billion dollars a month, much of it unaccounted for.
http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/national/pentagon_missing_trillions
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Nanoo
Start by stating the Truth. We don't have two wars going on.
Just so we're clear, and no one gets their hopes up, or becomes totally deluded in fantasy.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5009
Obama has said we will probably need to "bump up" the military budget in a new administration, and both he and Hillary Clinton have committed themselves to increasing the size of the armed forces by tens of thousands of troops.
http://www.progressive.org/mp_ford011508
“I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines,” Obama told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last April.
Given the military commitments (and two wars) that Obama is inheriting, is it really such a bad idea? If we don't maintain the world's largest military, then some other country (Russia, China, the EU) will...
And where the hell will Obama get more money to do that? Either the taxpayers right away or borrow more money from China which the future taxpayers will foot the bill for. The reckless war spending has proven to be a monumental failure for the last 8 years. So much for "hope and change" !
Its amazing that we allow the government to borrow without limit in order to pursue foreign wars and occupations of foreign countries. We not only occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Japan, Germany, Italy, England, Greece, and on and on. Most of these are not "shooting" occupations but occupations nonetheless.
But for ongoing "war" occupations such as Iraq and Afghanistan which are wars of choice we should be required to pay as we go. At $12 billion a month for Iraq and Afghanistan, and with about 130 million taxpayers at present, that amounts to something like $1100 per year per taxpayer.
We need to be paying a "war surcharge" at every yearly filing. This would accomplish two things. It would make people aware of how much we are spending on these wars of choice and a rather large hue and cry might result. Secondly, it would remove the burden on our subsequent generations of paying for our wars of choice ongoing today. Think this is a bad idea? Would you rather pay $1100 today or double that amount over thirty years? (JW, this rhetorical question is not directed at you, but at all readers.)
-- EKATON --
Scrutinizing the Pentagon budget should have started a long time ago back when Raygun was able to increase the military budget to bloated size. The next time a self-righteous conservative complains about wasteful spending, always hit them back with this response "And don't forget all that wasteful war spending, pal !"
You must remember this: in India, cows are sacred. In the US, the Pentagon is sacred. The differing rationales behind why this is so are very telling.
whoops, posted to wrong thread.
Of what value were all those nuclear weapons and all those troops and tanks and guns and fancy airplanes and all that other stuff on that strange day in 2001?
This is the question to ask your representatives: How does all this machinery of death and destruction protect the nation today?
The dangers the US faces are of its own making; enemies do not arise from nothing. Enemies are created as a result of wrong action. Not enough people want to face that fact. The phony benevolence of the US government war machine still holds sway—for now.
Eliminate the use of the word "war" in terms of domestic policy. Get war out of national consciousness. National security will never be produced through military action.
the author asks: Is this the best, most cost-effective way to influence world events? in reviewing the american world domination strategy
how's this: why don't you fuck off and be happy with killing each other on the streets of your sick and malignant piece of shit country and leave the rest of us alone
cheers, b
It's Time to Scrutinize the Pentagon Budget.
Really? Ya THINK ?
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Step #1 Declare an end to the War on Terror.
Step #2 Close 75% of America’s foreign military bases.
Step #3 Close 50% of America’s domestic military bases
Step #4 Mothball 50% of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marines Military equipment and cancel all MIC boondoggles like the V-22 Osprey.
Step #5 Close the Department of Homeland Security, point out that the odds of being killed by a terrorist in the United States are less than being killed by lightning, bee stings or snake bites. Shift the resources saved to prosecuting white collar crime and tax collection.
Step #6 Use the resources saved by downsizing the military to provide universal health care, improve public education, universal access to a college education, improve care to America’s elderly and disabled, improve America’s infrastructure, develop alternative energy (no nuclear plants) and alternative transportation.
And as long as we’re getting rid of stuff we can no longer afford.
Declare an end to the War on Drugs. Pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Shift the resources currently being wasted on the War on Drugs to white collar crime prosecution, tax collection, and treat drug addiction as a medical problem instead of a legal problem.
Step #7 Use the binding referendum to take the power back from the oligarchy that profits from all of the above: http://ni4d.us/
Step 2. Close ALL of America's foreign military bases.
"Declare an end to the War on Drugs."
Education is the key to preventing drug abuse. For less than one tenth of the current 'war on drugs' budget, that education could be provided, AND rehab services to those currently with drug problems could be provided as well.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Why do we have such a huge military? So that one-twentieth of the world's population can maintain access to--and consume--one-third of the world's resources. Neither political party will make the slightest move to change this, nor should we expect to see a majority of Americans demand such changes. We're too steeped in nationalistic propaganda and a sense of entitlement re: our consumptive lifestyles. The Pentagon budget will crash only when the whole American empire crashes.
"Why do we have such a huge military? So that one-twentieth of the world's population can maintain access to--and consume--one-third of the world's resources."
In a word...
Correct.
The Pentagon Budget is our sacred cow. An M/I/I complex boondogle designed to fleece the American public by making and finding enemies where there are none, bankrupting the country.
The oligarchy has been successfully selling terror to their media led public. And though Wall Street Casino gamblers are losing their shirts, they have an ace up their sleeve. The frightened people and their bought politicians will continue to stake them and they will continue to bet on the war machine.
What a bunch of tripe!!
We don't have a "national security policy," we have an aggressive Imperial policy aimed at ruling the planet that is geared to enrich the very few at the expense of everyone else. Are there any countries capable of launching a successful invasion of the United States? NO!! So, we should only need a 1930s sized War Department with a budget of about 50 Billion, if that.