Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHow Many Democrats Will Stand Up to Obama's Bloated Military Budget and $75 Billion More in War Spending?
Obama wants billions more for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars on top of a US military budget that already surpasses Bush-era spending by $21 billion. Where is the resistance?
Much of the media attention this week on President Obama's new military budget has put forward a false narrative wherein Obama is somehow taking his socialist/pacifist sledgehammer to the Pentagon's war machine and blasting it to smithereens. Republicans have charged that Obama is endangering the country's security, while the Democratic leadership has hailed it as the dawn of a new era in responsible spending priorities. Part of this narrative portrays Defense Secretary Robert Gates as standing up to the war industry, particularly military contractors.
The reality is that all of this is false.
Here is an undeniable fact: Obama is substantially increasing US military spending, by at least $21 billion from Bush-era levels, including a significant ratcheting up of Afghanistan war spending, as well as more money for unmanned attack drones, which are increasingly being used in attacks on Pakistan. (David Swanson over at AfterDowningStreet.org does a great job of breaking down some of the media coverage of this issue across the political spectrum).
Obama's budget of $534 billion to the Department of Defense "represents roughly a 4-percent increase over the $513 billion allocated to the Pentagon in FY2009 under the Bush administration, and $6.7 billion more than the outgoing administration's projections for FY 2010," bragged Lawrence Korb, author of the Center for American Progress' report supporting Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan, in an article called, " Obama's Defense Budget Is on Target."
Obama and his neoliberal think tankers clearly didn't think much of Rep. Barney Frank's call earlier this year to cut military spending by 25% to pay for urgently needed social programs and economic aid to struggling Americans. "To accomplish his goals of expanding health care and other important quality of life services without ballooning the deficit," Frank said, Obama needed to reduce military spending. "If we do not get military spending under control, we will not be able to respond to important domestic needs." Well, not only is overall military spending on the rise, but Obama is about to ask for billions more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a "supplemental" spending bill, the type which were staples in Bush's campaign to mask of the full military budget and total cost of the wars. Obama could seek the funding as early as Thursday.
Now, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that we may actually see some spine coming from Congress in standing up to Obama's request for this additional $75.5 billion in war funds. The WSJ characterized the situation as one of "raising tensions" between Obama and some lawmakers opposed to the wars. It should be noted off-the-bat that the Congresspeople speaking out are, predictably, members of the usual suspects club and the Democratic leadership is probably at this moment sharing cocktails in the backroom with McCain and McConnell, but, nonetheless, it is worth examining what is being said:
"I can't imagine any way I'd vote for it," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House.Ms. Woolsey fears the president's plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. "I don't think we should be going there," she said.
Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. "I just have this sinking feeling that we're getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end," he said.
Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama's plans as "embarrassingly naive," and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. "He's the smartest man in American politics today," Rep. Conyers said. "But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances."
Obama has vowed to break with the Bush-era tradition of seeking such supplementals to fund the war, saying that beginning in 2010 he will fund the wars as part of his overall budget. The anti-war caucus of Democrats is unlikely to have enough votes to block it given the increasingly overt pro-war nature of the Democratic leadership. And, as the WSJ notes, the funding bills are likely to pass "since many Republicans will support them."
An interesting point nestled half-way through the WSJ piece illustrates a point some antiwar activists have been making since Obama's election-he is likely to win increased support from Democratic lawmakers for wars they may not have supported when Bush was in power:
The president argues that Afghanistan has been neglected, allowing al Qaeda to regroup and exposing the U.S. to new dangers.Rep. John Larson (D., Conn.) suggests Democrats may be less inclined to joust with the current White House on the issue than they were with former President George W. Bush. "We have somebody that Democrats feel will level with them," said Mr. Larson, the House's fourth-ranking Democrat.
This truly is one of the most important trends to watch with the Obama presidency, particularly as it relates to war policy. Obama is in a position to greatly advance the interests of empire, precisely because he is able to build much wider support for policies that are essentially a continuation of those implemented by Bush.
69 Comments so far
Show AllWhat we need in Congress is a few plumbers, electricians, cattle ranchers, accountants ( who understand basic accounting priciples), and other common sense people. Who won't sell out for the opportunity to line their pockets. Will this come about? I doubt it. We pillory anyone who tries to run against these incumbents. We listen to the media slanted version of everything taking it for gospel. If you truly want a representative government; try electing someone who you would trust with your children, without having to think about it. Plus, term limits are important and should be mandatory; Two terms in the Seante and Six in the House. Period.
I voted for Obama. That or World War Three.
Here on CommonDreams Obama is eviscerated night and day for a year now. Mostly by people who say 3rd party allegience keeps their souls intact, flourishing.
Question? I hear of ZERO organizing for the '10 or '12 elections by a 3rd party. So is this the plan-do nothing except complain, than after the elections complain some more?
Because that is what I've seen for years now here. Bitching with no alternative plan. In fact, CD has become little more than a place to bitch, whine & moan. Yeah AfPak sucks, so did 'Nam-
ANY OF YOU OUT IN THE STREETS DEMONSTRATING? Organizing?
If it's a Republican or Obama in '12, I guess you all can vote for the GOP darling Ralph Nader and feel good when the GOP wins, huh? And they will.
Risk Free Living, CRITICS with no workable plan always hold the Righteous Ground, Like a Jesus Freak that is always Holier Than Thou........
Got a PLAN?
Besides Complain? Please, share it. I'll gladly help work for a viable 3rd party right now, but I've heard of none in my county. Ever.
US Blues.
My goodness, such certitude. Why do you believe that anyone here would share their daily political activities with such as you, especially given your history , tone and tenor of posts? Why do you think that ,because this place is limited to opinions and comments on articles, noone is doing anything in their own lives and in their own neighborhoods?
You are far too positive about things unknown to you.
Red Rick? Such Civility...Ya know Rick, I've been reading your posts. You are a smart guy. We can spar, I don't care. Sometimes that seems right.
As you noted yesterday, I'm seeing that Obama who I voted for is, rather than living up to the potential of his moment, devolving into a corplutocrat.
Having acquiesced to sad BO truths, I seek hope, advice. I am humble, but possessed of certitude like yourself.
I do assume Common Dreamers do work in their neighborhoods. I work w/ the homeless, and know many of us do like things. But I don't know how to change American Foreign Policy.
I think Chris Hedges has the only answer though, "Resist or become serfs."
If any of us is so Wise, how did we get into this mess?
For change, something must be done differently.
Thanks for a non-assaultive, by your standards, post, Peace to you, Joseph.
And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Bring America Back !!!!..........Democrats Do Not stand up to anything,==that
would take a spine, a backbone, or some exercise of moral authority !!
**Big Banks, Big Military, Big Pharma, Big Meds.they hold out their hands
for their bailouts, appropriations, golden parachutes and the Demmys lick
and kiss their hands........ Demmys have not stood up to anything since
Watergate.
**They allowed the Neocons to raid our Treasury, our National Guard troops,
and our Constitution. Democrats Never Stand UP Anymore, to anything. !!!
How many Democrats can stand on the head of a pin?
What can Obama want all that money for? To kill more civilians?
"The US military has admitted that its troops killed five civilians in Afghanistan, including a newborn baby, not fighters as was earlier reported.
The US has also offered an apology for the deaths on Wednesday night and indicated that the family will receive support.
Brigadier-General Michael Ryan said in a statement late on Thursday: "We deeply regret the tragic loss of life in this precious family."
The father of a seven-day-old boy said his son died in the raid in the southeastern Khost province. The child's mother was wounded.
A female school teacher and her two children also died in the attack."
Signs of Things to Come:
'Will you open fire on UK citizens' Army personnel being asked By IanPJ 02 Mar 2009 In a stunning conversation with a friend, who is a serving member of the Armed Forces, over the weekend, it was revealed that transfers to regiments and other units in the UK on home duties are being undertaken by the MOD based upon whether an individual was prepared to 'open fire' on UK citizens during civil disturbances... The fact that service personnel are actually being asked in special briefing sessions whether they would fire on their own nationals indicates that the rumours about the Army being put on standby are indeed very true.
http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2009/3/2/4109792.html
Where's that Posse, Comitatus?
Scahill asks, "How many Democrats will stand up to Obama's bloated military budget?"
The answer: 31 million!
To get to this somewhat satisfying number (one tenth of the U.S. population), you have to make some assumptions.
ASSUMPTIONS
1. Congress really represents the people, and the House of Representatives is closest to how people vote.
2. Votes by Democrats for Obama during the Presidential election represented antiwar votes.
3. The exact proportion of House members who voted against Bush's Iraq war resolution will similarly oppose Obama and his war escalation plans in Afghanistan-Pakistan.
All of the above are big suppositions, but here's how it's figured (data from Wikipedia).
CALCULATIONS
1. House votes against Bush's Iraq war resolution = 45 percent.
2. Number of Democrats voting for Obama = 69,456,897.
3. Forty-five percent of 69,456,897 = 31 million Democrats opposing the war!
So, you see, there's really nothing to worry about. It's true that the last antiwar demonstration I attended in the time of the Obama regime just turned out a few thousand people - and this in a "red"-voting state (California). Millions just didn't get the flyer, I guess.
Wow, where are those 31 million Democrats opposing the war? Maybe I made some false assumptions, or my math is bad.
All I know is that Democratic loyalists keep exhorting progressives to do something in well reasoned editorials. However, we're hopelessly outnumbered by Democrats who support Obama. And what are they doing to stop the war escalations?
-TIA
.
Is Jeremy trying to be funny with this title?
Many people involved in US anti-war movement(s) have this naive belief that Democrats are not imperialists, that US imperialist policies, such as those pursued by the Bush administration, are just a recent deviation or limited to Republican administrations. In fact, the Democratic Party has a long and bloody history of imperialism. Democrats are imperialists and mass murderers. Nor is this limited to the more conservative democrats; left-liberals have done the same. Liberal governments have slaughtered millions.
The death toll of the democrats is quite large:
Greek Civil War: 160,000 (Truman)
Korean War: 3 million (Truman)
Assault on Indochina: 5 million (started under Truman, accelerated under Kennedy & LBJ)
Coup in Indonesia: 1 million (LBJ)
East Timor: 100,000 (Carter)
Kwangju Massacre: 2000 (Carter)
Argentine Dirty War: 30,000 (mostly Carter)
Iraq sanctions: 1.5 million (mostly Clinton)
Turkish Kurdistan: 40,000 (mostly Clinton)
That's at least 10,8022,000 killed by democrats, 9,292,000 if one only counts the liberal governments (Clinton wasn't really a liberal). And this is just the tip of the iceberg; these are only the most famous incidents over the last couple of decades. If you add up the total from periods preceding this and the less famous incidents the number get much, much higher. If you add in starvation (a direct result of capitalism) it gets even higher.
Democrats could have stopped the congressional authorization for the Iraq war (via filibustering) but instead lots of them defected to the warmongers’ side. They could have stopped many of the nasty things the Republicans are doing by filibuster but choose not to. Many democrats actively supported the war. Most of those who did oppose it offered little opposition, chickening out when the shooting started and either abstained or voted in favor of the pro-war "support our troops" resolution in March. Even Dennis Kucinich, leader of the "anti-war" opposition in the house, abstained from the vote instead of voting against it. It was only after Bush's war started going sour that vocal criticism began to come from democrats, which is completely opportunistic. Bush's lies and fabrications about the Niger Uranium had already been exposed prior to the war, but it wasn't until after the invasion was completed and the democrats needed an issue to attack Bush with that they started whining about it.
The Democratic Party, the party of slavery, has a long history of mass murder and empire building.
This is not a laughing matter folks. Delude and/or lie to yourself all you want but if you support(ed) the Democratic party in any way shape or form, even with the BS cop out "lesser evil" argument, you are complicit in the policies of this war mongering. History tells you this. Stop supporting death and destruction. Wake up your friends and neighbors with this dirty truth as well.
It's later than you think and there is no solace in the friendly fascism that is upon us. Even if there is a pretty black face telling you to "remain patient."
the double post wasnt intended
**How Many Democrats Will Stand Up to Obama's Bloated Military Budget and $75 Billion More in War Spending**
admiral mullen:
"I recognize that the military budget is higher now than it has ever been” but “I would see that in the future as an absolute floor."
tinyurl.com/669cag
**How Many Democrats Will Stand Up to Obama's Bloated Military Budget and $75 Billion More in War Spending**
admiral mullen:
"I recognize that the military budget is higher now than it has ever been” but “I would see that in the future as an absolute floor."
http://tinyurl.com/669cag
Maybe Sen. Bernie Saunders will stand up to Obama's Bloated Military Budget.
Poppa seems to have the control over all, and even the main media are afraid of him and his gang.
As Chris Powell pointed out recently in conjunction with an FOIA request brought by Bloomberg News, which the Fed declined to comply with:
“Any government that can disburse $2 trillion secretly, without any accountability, is not a democratic government. It is government of, by, and, for the bankers.”
War spending is war spending no matter who does it. Obama is just another Bush with some whitewash. He supports our corrupt trash at the top, the oligarchy. Question is: Why aren't Americans protesting, angry, or rioting? Why are we so apathetic? Why don't Americans care? Maybe we are taking too much prozac, eating too many hamburgers, listening to too much rap music, or smoking too much dope to care.
Everyone who voted for the warmonger is wearing their Obama Goggles! The same wars that were cruel mistakes when waged by Bush, are now cool and important, especially when viewed through the goggles...Americans are nothing but sheep, the peace movement is officially dead.
Not whitewash blackface
Accumulation of massive amounts wealth in a global market remains the prime motivating force in this new industrialized world. Since the super wealthy can make money without much effort, and we depend on them for our jobs, opportunity, and security, our society on the whole does not complain much and will even assist the wealthy to continue their imposing exploitations of us peons. We must protect the markets and jobs above all else.
The formation of a well designed social organization that we all envisioned fifty years ago is suffering the consequences and is heading into gradual and certain decline. The extent of its eventual decline is not difficult to predict as the necessary solutions are not currently being considered.
The ultra rich have long planned to protect themselves from the slow but certain collapse of the capitalistic system brought on by the predictable depletion of low-cost energy. With the world’s people demanding conservation, pollution control, and curtailment of fossil fuels, the power elite are now clearly expediting the total control of money, resources, and technology for their own protection and without regard for alternative measures that would help us all. There is certain insanity involved here and not much we can do about it if all of you are right.
The last Democrats who opposed war got their brains blown out in a car in Dallas and on the way to the kitchen in Los Angeles.
The message has been loud and clear ever since to anyone who has dared to think otherwise.
So we just need to admit we live in a fascist state and continue working for the man. "I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the....." now sit down, shut up, and behave.
Yep
Mind you the most insidious fascist state ever created because so many of us actually think we're free.
Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait another four years when maybe we can find someone who will inspire hope.
Hope? We got hope and Obama is not in the equation. Wallowing in hope will get you no where. We have to get up off our butts and do something. We need action, not Obamian hope.
Get out in the streets! Lots of demonstrations planned for this Saturday at offices of the Federal Reserve. And tax day is a good day to complain that we have taxation without representation. Have a tea party in front of your Representative's district office. We want and end to the wars, an end to giving our tax funds to the banksters and we want health care, not health insurance. That is not the way that Congress is voting! Don't just stay home and grouse about it. Get out on the streets!
Obama is the hopium of the masses.
· Yr Obd't Servant
That's funny Obe, I "hope" you all know I was being sarcastic.
I hope to say that indeed I picked up on your sarcasm, rebelnow.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Q. "How Many Democrats Will Stand Up to Obama's Bloated Military Budget and $75 Billion More in War Spending?"
A. Not enough.
Q. "Where is the resistance?"
A. There isn't any.
And the machine rolls on...
And what is the radical solution of the Impeccable Virtue Party? Third party candidates! Next time, people will NOT be deceived -- except how can they not, since the corporate media remains what it is, and officials who hold elections & count the votes remain what they are?
Meanwhile, the extreme right, taking advantage of the situation, encourages greater discontent BUT WITH A REAL GOAL -- and they not only have guns, they also have a fifth column of religious zealots in the military.
Stop the linear, magical thinking and start thinking about how history moves. The pre-revolutionary situation becomes MORE revolutionary when the ruling class has to condition its militarism & support for banks by extending itself by payments & promises towards the left. By embracing EFCA and FOCA and remaking the other public agencies so that they begin to fulfill their actual functions, the effect is the OPPOSITE of what the rulers think: instead of creating support, they create further DEMAND, which is demonstrated by the fact that those who gave their critically-conditioned support to Obama have been forthcoming with criticism. Paul Krugman, who is no radical, immediately began deploring the whole pseudo-rescue plan; civil libertarians have not & will not give Obama any sort of pass, as they press for action on the torture memos already released.
To answer the author's question, count the number of Blue Doggies and DLCers and the answer is crystal clear.
Hmmm, I came up with a NEGATIVE number! THAT can't be right!
· Yr Obd't Servant
If McCain had been elected, Democrats would be showing a little more spine. That's another terrible thing for progressive causes about the Obama victory.
Obama not only has the support, for now, of the majority of the population but also of the corrupt Democrats in congress, which is about 95% of the party.
Everything Obama wants, Obama will get. And Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex and the Health Care conglomerates are smiling from ear to ear.
"If McCain had been elected, Democrats would be showing a little more spine. That's another terrible thing for progressive causes about the Obama victory."
They didn't show spine when Dubya did it and I seriously doubt any different were Mccain in office.
Wrong, Dems didn't have the kind of majority under Bush that they have now. They'd at least pretend to be an opposition party under McCain, unlike now.
Mr. Scahill pretty much nails it. Howard Zinn, when interviewed before the election, also nailed it. The two party system is a corrupt and phony showpiece. This is crystal clear when it comes to Imperial Policy. Imperialism, the MIC, cronyism, and a corrupted interest representation system (lobbying which is just plain bribery) have produced what Chomsky calls a "sham democracy". We have the most sophisticated media propaganda system in the world. When elections come around you have only two choices: both are supported by the financial and economic elite, two factions of the same country club.
Hail Caesar
**where's the resistance ?**
now there's a good question, meanwhile...
the chinese cant even build some god damned railway
tinyurl.com/2ps3hu
without some anglos breathing down their necks
tinyurl.com/chn3oz
We need to hit the streets and protest against this MIC budget.
This article neatly complements the headline article on CD: Obama Risks Liberal Backlash on War Funding by Greg Hitt.
I forsee no MEANINGFUL opposition, and my comment on the above-cited piece is just as relevant to Scahill's typically cogent reporting and analysis:
______________________________________________
"'I can't imagine any way I'd vote for it,' said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House."
______________________________________________
Oh, please!
I sympathize with Rep. Woolsey, one of the few remaining bedraggled feathers on the "anti-war" ostrich wing of the Democratic Party. But why do politicians even SAY things like this?
I can certainly "imagine" her voting for some version of this legislation; it only takes a cosmetic tweak or two to appease the anti-war wing's feeble flapping.
Can't you hear the "concession" remarks already? All that's needed is a seemingly "positive" element-- provisions for "withdrawal", an "exit strategy", even a "sunset clause" will do. They they'll be able to Save Face with naïve, gullible, and hope-besotted moderates who need to believe that the political elite can be persuaded or stampeded into Giving Peace a Chance.
Obama and the Gorgon Pelosi need not fear rebellion in the ranks. It's ironic that Conyers, of all people, is quoted in this article. Pelosi long ago severed and consumed Conyers' gonads-- their shriveled husk is still blowing around Under the Table along with the shreds of the Constitution and rule of law.
It's the proverbial "backlash-- with a wet noodle".
· Yr Obd't Servant
I find everything about the news coverage on Obama to be scary. For one brief moment the ICRC report on how we engaged in torture made the news. For another very brief moment the fact that Obama has gone beyond Bush in gutting our 4th ammendment rights was also in the news. By the next day, these stories, which have a major impact on our lives, pretty much disappeared. This same happened with Elizabeth Warren's criticism of Geithner and her recommendation that the banks should be liquidated. These stories have been replaced by the Chinese and Russians breaking into our electrical grid for the purpose of terrorism. I heard on NPR this morning how we should go in on the ground in Somalia to rid that nation of pirates.
I heard the weird anaylsis of this budget that you are writing about. Our news is full of propaganda, lies and distortions. It's quite scary. In the meantime, despite some exceptions, the left wing is not questioning Obama. I believe we are in a dictatorship, one that is more open than Cheney's. It is aided and abetted by the silence of people who should be screaming from the roof tops. I feel we have some hope in a judicial push back, as well as people who will speak out, such as you. Keep reporting the facts.
Right with you. "Our news if full of propaganda, lies and distortions." The media keeps presenting a liberal side to Obama as if it was fact, while his actions are consistently the opposite. It's a twofer: they rile up the Right about imaginary threats of socialism, while keeping the liberals pacified thinking they've won.
I also "believe we are in a dictatorship." I was reading on cannonfire about a piece in Time magazine where Obama's campaign admits the use of psychological operations in the election. They brag about who was involved, how effective it was, and then say they will now use the group to get Obama's agenda enacted.
Call me old-school. I know all political campaigns use focus groups and consultants to frame and sharpen their message, but this seems to have gone beyond that. They are waging psychological war on us -- whether it's dividing and conquering by exploiting age, race and gender in the campaign or simply lying to the public about policy--the thing is that if we no longer believe in the public's right to have access to real information on which to base consent, well, then we don't believe in, or have, a democracy. (Course, the Republicans will say democracy is mob rule and our nation is a Republic. The Democrats will say nations are bad and we should just have One World.) We seem to have lost any say in our government. Our nation has been hijacked by defense contractors waging what amounts to psychological war on us to elect candidates favorable to their agenda. At least indirectly, we even pay for it.
"...They are waging psychological war on us..."
- Very true. And of course, it's not just psychological. It's also economic, & of a magnitude great enough to determine the contours of our living conditions. The Wall St bailout alone consigns most of the population to generations of serfdom.
The main thing that has to be understood (as a CD poster wrote just the other day) is that this is very literally a "war." It's a class war, & entirely real. But only one side -- the ruling class -- realizes that the war exists. The other side (a.k.a. "We the People") is scarcely aware that a state of war exists, & that they're under a ferocious & carefully-designed attack.
- All your observations are 100% on point. But this surreal corruption of "the news" is itself a reflection of our society's crisis. So in a sense, one can hardly expect that the media will do anything other than what you accurately describe.
The news media are the voice of the ruling class, which is in desperate straits. On the one hand, their position depends on keeping the population under control. On the other hand, they need the population to bear the financial burden of the economic collapse, & to pay for the ongoing wars. These goals are incompatible, & it will only get more difficult to reconcile both of them as time goes on. It would be one thing if our rulers really had a way to restore prosperity -- but they don't. So they're compelled to resort to various forms of lying, deception & flim-flam.
As peoples' lives get lousier, it can only get harder to keep them under control, while forcing them to pay for the crimes of the banksters & for the continued operations of the war machine. But the media will naturally do its best, to keep diverting & frightening the general public ("Pirates! Terrorists!"), because a confused & frightened public is easier to manage than a highly conscious one.
The lying is itself a symptom of the disease.
Sioux Rose
Dave B: I sometimes marvel at your sharp reasoning powers. Had Dorothy been accompanied by you, instead of lion, tin-man and scarecrow, that wizard of Oz wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes behind that curtain!
Yeah, I think that this is a fair assessment of our current predicament.
The NPR news is getting worse by the day: it's more an exercise in apologetics or in obsequious blandness than serious, probing, investigative reporting. It did not even occur to those NPR folks that there might be more to the Somalia situation than meets the eye.
NPR - National PR, and PBS - Public BS, have become just what their monikers represent.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
Of course, the fact that NPR has been right on top of the increase in military spending issue, the escalation of Bushs' war in Afghanistan, and the futility of our foreign policy with respect to terrorism sort of refutes your claim.
But then you would actually have to listen to NPR to get that.
The media outlets have been generally hard to trust, even NPR and PBS at times. It can be tricky there too to separate the wheat from the chafe.
I am a long term listener and contributor to NPR outlets. I find that what many object to is their strict adherence to impartiality, always giving all sides of an issue an outlet. I like them precisely because of that.
You wouldn't think that we are on the verge of a depression when you look at this obscene military budget, and the billion dollars Obama wants to shower upon Pakistan.
Any connection between the billions poored year after year into the military empire and the misery at home (for instance, the lack of a decent system of health insurance)?
By the by, how many billions have been alloted to nuclear weapons in the new budget, Mister Obama-World-Without-Nukes? For example, in fiscal year 2007, $ 16.4 billions went to nuclear weapons and the Department of Energy's weapons laboratories. So what's the scoop on that issue for fiscal year 2009?
Pakistan is one of the main reasons Obama is president. He and his defense supporters have a deep interest in Pakistan. We look for the equivalent of the Iraqi National Congress for Pakistan to find out who we plan to install.
And yes, year by year and war by war, America just gets poorer. We were the wealthiest nation on earth. Now we are indentured to the defense-terror-intell industry that has turned out to be our own worst enemy. There. I said it.
Sioux Rose
PITCH FORK: I second your "pronouncement," and only would add that the prison-industrial and pharmaceutical complexes are also part of the drift net, and plausily ALL related in the common goal of ultimate population control(s).
Let's not forget agribusiness.
Bush/Cheney funded their ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with separate supplemental spending bills, along with the usual massive Department of Defense budget appropriation. Progressives howled for good reason.
Keeping two sets of Pentagon books each with separate, opaque audit trails (parallel to a third, deeply classified black budget set of books denominated for national security purposes rather than warfare) created just the sort of catch-me-if-you-can environment for corporate cronyism and outright theft that characterized the whole Bush/Cheney era. Also, at least back when George W. was still on his GWOT popularity roll and grassroots public opinion had not yet turned against the Iraq imperial fiasco, it was clever wedge issue partisanship for the Bushies to force the Democrats to vote twice annually on whether our brave American warriors abroad should be stabbed in the back by the craven Washington politicians here on the home front. The Bush regime's use of supplemental war funding legislation also of course doubled the opportunities to increase the gross revenue share of the already gargantuan military/industrial/national security complex's piece of the federal government's budgetary pie.
Okay, so team Obama takes over and reforms this vile process by ending the use of supplemental appropriation bills, instead including the cost of waging America's ongoing wars and military misadventures abroad within a single, giant Department of Defense appropriation. Now progressives howl, but for different good reasons.
During the last couple years of the Bush/Cheney reign of error, the separate Iraq war supplemental bill created an opportunity for antiwar Democratic members of Congress to confront the bloody quagmire the neocons' militarism created. Some legislators simply voted no. Others sought to insert a withdrawal deadline, or add bench mark goals as a condition of appropriating the money. Ultimately however, Little George's veto power and the GOP's internal party discipline prevailed. The Democratic leadership got rolled, and rolled over, in the DC parliamentary gamesmanship contest once again.
Jeremy Scahill (and David Swanson's linked AfterDowningStreet article) neatly exposes the media's superficial and misleading coverage of Gates and Obama's recently announced "reform" of national defense/national security spending. What I'm more interested in is the comparative vices and virtues of the two different approaches to using supplemental spending bills to finance the nation's wars.
Which is better public policy - having Congress vote up front to support or reject a specific military misadventure, or having Congress vote on a single, take-it-or-leave-it bill, with funding for the war or wars contained within it along with the tax money designated to be spent on nukes, drones, blood plasma and toilet paper?
Any ideas?
Bill from Saginaw
-The Bush regime's use of supplemental war funding legislation also of course doubled the opportunities to increase the gross revenue share of the already gargantuan military/industrial/national security complex's piece of the federal government's budgetary pie
That is a good point. Perhaps Obama is taking away the opportunity from the token antiwar Ds to vote against a seperate war spending law.
But wasn't the real budget always been made of fictitious numbers anyway?, with secret "classified" spending and multiple departments involved in overseas war and "covert ops" or whatever sexy name you have for killing foreign nationals around the world.
It all comes down to the question:"How can you have a democracy, if you don't know what your government is doing?"
As I understand it, the historical origin of the super classified "black budget" appropriations process was the Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb during World War II. It was all done with a wink and a nod and a handshake between FDR and the very top leadership of the House and Senate. Everybody knew full well that secretly appropriating tax dollars to be secretly spent on secret government projects could open up a whole very nasty, corruptible can of worms, but the Nazi and Japanese barbarians were massing outside the castle walls.
When WWII ended, the black budgeting process continued and expanded as OSS morphed into the institutionalized CIA, NSA, and DIA national intelligence agencies under authority of the National Security Act. The justification for the continued secrecy was Cold War spy versus spy gamesmanship: if the KGB ever knew how much US tax money was being spent by our civilian and/or military spooks, the security of the entire nation would be gravely jeopardized for reasons which (naturally) were classified, and therefore certainly could not be divulged to the taxpayers.
As a result, for over half a century there were annual Congressional appropriations off the books of the regular federal budgetary process. The size of this black budget itself was classified. And we can all just let our imaginations run wild guessing what the bookkeeping standards and auditing trail might look like, given the fact that the CIA guys in charge of dispensing this largess specialized in setting up dummy corporate fronts, sophisticated money laundering, and spreading bribes to snitches, moles, and other valuable intelligence assets that were spread all over the globe.
The closest we the people ever came to getting a meaningful peek at the monster that the black budget process had created was during the BCCI banking scandal, which itself was a spinoff of the clandestine Iran-Contra funding of the anti-Sandinista contra paramilitaries. To put it mildly, neither the Church Committee investigations, nor those into the BCCI network that a young Senator John Kerry once spear headed, produced any lasting oversight or landmark reforms.
As the old saying goes, often the easiest way to rob a bank is to own it. Could it just possibly be that sixty years of black budget hanky panky had some role in the billions upon billions that have mysteriously vanished during the great global financial meltdown of 2008-2009?
Small wonder former CIA deputy director Focco only got three years, and Bernie Madoff isn't talking publicly, but he reportedly may be cooperating fully with federal authorities.
Bill from Saginaw
odoco
Bill - any ideas on what info might have been stored in the World Trade Towers building # 7 that mysteriously collapsed on 9/11?
"...An interesting point nestled half-way through the WSJ piece illustrates a point some antiwar activists have been making since Obama's election -- he is likely to win increased support from Democratic lawmakers for wars they may not have supported when Bush was in power..."
One sees the same thing with liberals everywhere, even on websites like CD, OEN, etc. If Bush did it, it was abhorrent & criminal; but if Obama does it, it's "just being realistic," or "something he must do so that he won't be assassinated."
" If Bush did it, it was abhorrent & criminal; but if Obama does it, it's "just being realistic," or "something he must do so that he won't be assassinated."
"
THANK YOU ! Everytime I say this to an Obamabot, they're unable to reply effectively. A criminal act is a criminal act no matter who's doing it.
interesting how conservatives have been saying he is gutting the defense department.
so which is it?
personally, one wants the following:
close a minimum of 50% of all overseas bases.
cut programs that are duplications. one damn plane can work for the all of the armed forces with slight modifications. no more cost overruns. if a defense contractor cannot meet the price that it bid, tough shit. fire blackwater and all other security contractors immediately.
The "accusations" that conservatives level at Obama are so unhinged and fantastical that it would be more productive debating someone in the Western State looney bin than some of these conservative commentators.
Oh, if Obama _were_ such a left-wing, socialist, peacenik!
To answer the question posed in the headline - not nearly enough
Democrats will only stand up (as the republicans do) when their masters arrive with their bribes.
The two divisions of the same party system will stand only so much progressive nonsense talk before cracking down.
Democrats know their place, as Obama always has.
Democrats? Stand up?
I hear ya. Doesn't it take a spine to stand up? If they've done nothing else, and I mean quite literally that they have done NOTHING else, the Dems in Congress have proven over that last 8 years that they have NO SPINE.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
Military spending has always been the preferred method of economic stimulus in the US.
In the current economic environment, no politician will risk voting against this stimulus.
Hopefully those who were comparing Snobama with FDR, JFK and MLK during the campaign will now start comparing him with LBJ.
Of course many economists note that money spent on military does not impact the economy as well as money spent on almost anything else....
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/report-shows-increased-u.s.-military-spend...
Report Shows Increased U.S. Military Spending Slows Economy
For Immediate Release: May 1, 2007
Contact: Lynn Erskine, 202-293-5380 x115
Washington, DC: The Center for Economic and Policy Research released a report today estimating the economic impact of increased U.S. military spending comparable to the spending on the Iraq war. The report, presenting the results of a simulation from the economic forecasting company Global Insight, shows the increased level of military spending leads to fewer jobs and slower economic growth.
For the report, The Economic Impact of the Iraq War and Higher Military Spending, by economist Dean Baker, CEPR commissioned Global Insight to run a simulation with its macroeconomic model. Global Insight's model was selected for this analysis because it is a commonly used and widely respected model. It estimated the impact of an increase in annual U.S. military spending equal to 1 percent of GDP (approximately equal to the military spending increase compared with pre-September 11th baseline).
The projections show the following:
-- After an initial demand stimulus, the effect of increased military spending turns negative around the sixth year. After 10 years of higher defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in the baseline scenario with lower defense spending.
-- Inflation and interest rates are considerably higher. After 5 years, the interest rate on 10-Year Treasury notes is projected to be 0.7 percentage points higher than in the baseline scenario. After 10 years, the gap would rise to 0.9 percentage points.
-- Higher interest rates lead to reduced demand in the interest-sensitive sectors of the economy. After 5 years, annual car and truck sales are projected to go down by 192,200 in the high military spending scenario. After 10 years, the drop is projected to be 323,300 and after 20 years annual sales are projected to be down 731,400.
-- Construction and manufacturing are the sectors that are projected to experience the largest shares of the job loss.
"It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy," said Baker. "In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment."
The report recommends that Congress request the Congressional Budget Office produce its own projections of the economic impact of a sustained increase in defense spending.