EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bush-Style Military Spending Not Over Yet
Thought the Bush years were over? Not so fast.
The main "accomplishment" of those years, apart from getting our country handed over to the big banks and corporations, was of course launching two wars. The cost of those wars so far is staggering, but these amounts are dwarfed by the so-called "regular" defense budget.
Most of what we spend on the military-including hundreds of high-tech planes that are churned out every year and then sit idle-isn't spent on the wars we're actually fighting. And under cover of war, these "regular" budgets have risen right along with the war funding bills.
Enter the Obama administration. It's having trouble fulfilling its promises to end those wars. But it's also having trouble bringing "regular" military spending under control.
Every year a group I lead, the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget, looks at overall U.S. security spending. We analyze the balance between spending on what we call "offense" (military force), "defense" (homeland security measures such as screening baggage and cargo), and "prevention" (preventing wars through diplomacy, peacekeeping troops, and economic development).
In the Bush administration's last year, it devoted 87% of our security dollars to the military. In the first Obama budget that figure is: 87%. The needle hasn't moved. At all.
Why not? In his first speech to Congress, President Obama promised to "reform our defense budget so we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use." To their credit, his administration did manage to knock off a few this year. Though short, it was a longer list than at any time since the period of defense cuts following the end of the Cold War.
The biggest prize was the F-22 fighter jet. F-22s, which cost $350 million each, were designed to fight planes the Soviet Union planned to build and never did. The F-22 is too exotic and costly ever to have been used in the wars we are actually fighting. It deserved to die.
It took a furious battle to keep this plane from coming back from the dead: The F-22's contractor has craftily placed jobs building the plane in 44 states. The Obama administration had to threaten to veto the entire defense spending bill if Congress reversed its plans for the F-22's demise.
But while the Obama administration successfully cut about $10 billion in spending on such turkeys, it then added about $20 billion in additional military spending. He got a lot of deserved credit for increasing spending on the tools of prevention-diplomacy, peacekeeping, and economic development among them. But the end result was the same wildly out-of-balance security budget the Bush team handed off.
Obama also took a stab at reforming the weapons-contracting "system" that hides billions every year in padded contracts and outright fraud. It won't fix the problem-truck-sized loopholes remain-but it's a start.
To his credit, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been lamenting that "America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long, relative to what we spend on the military." The Obama administration's good intentions to fix this are still mostly unrealized.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllSioux Rose
If a fraction of that 87% figure was applied not only to diplomacy but genuine humanitarian-style missions: building schools, roads, hospitals, and providing assistance for the best agricultural models relative to the topography in question, then the "need" for war would be so reduced as to negate all the military spending in the first place. Thus far that spending has been seemlessly woven into our domestic economy to make war (just moving inventory) an absolute staple of U.S. foreign policy.
I am sure that many of these weapons plants can be refitted to produce other forms of energy. Otherwise, the manpower and endless supply of resources ($ that never stops flowing their way) can be utilized in rebuilding America's ghettos, bridges, and declining infrastructure. Ralph Nader reported a few years ago that about 40% (I don't have the statistic on hand) of the domestic infrastructure would warrant a D report card grade if properly inspected, and the vast majority requires serious investment in repairs.
It's all about priorities. So long as our nation allows leaders who directly profit from war to own the media channels that invent all the excuses (cum reasons) for war, then war will be the chief "product" this wounded nation puts to use. With all sorts of necessary social programs being cut from numerous state budgets, while health care is posited as the "American dream" never to be realized by too many, the fruit of rotten policies & priorities has come home.
Sioux Rose,
Military spending should be viewed through a corporate lens and through the lens of a jobs program for those living in areas with lots of bases and arms manufacturers (the South in general and Texas in particular). Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and all the rest spend incredible amounts of money lobbying congressmen and, essentially, writing legislation. At the same time, communities dependent on military spending will vote in a block to support unneeded weapons systems. The unemployment rate of Michigan (my state), one of the unlucky places where military spending does not figure, is 15.2 percent; that of Texas is 7.something percent, much of the economy supported by military spending. That tells the tale.
By contrast, what constituency is benefited by economic development in other lands, by negotiation, by spending money on building hospitals and schools outside the United States? It cannot be identified. The benefits of peace fall upon us all, not just a certain group of us and those benefits do not lead to more jobs--at least in a straightforward way that people can easily understand. The military is really a parasite on the rest of society. It provides a few jobs but many fewer than an investment in non-military industries would provide. After all, an investment in, say, an auto plant provides not only the jobs involved in producing the vehicle but also the wealth associated with its use: transportation of people and goods as well as research that translates into better cars with the possibility of increased sales in other large markets (markets much bigger than arms markets). Investments in an arms system may be a total dead end--if it can be used only in the United States. Investments in ammunition is a total dead end. The only jobs produced are in its manufacture.
As you mention, the other problem with defense spending is what doesn't get funded. Schools don't get funded. Medical care doesn't get funded. Treatment programs for addicts are not funded. And on and on, all of which results in greater societal costs, costs that translate into huge prisons, for one thing. I am not optimistic about Americans understanding the costs of militarism. They haven't gotten it up to now and the media is controlled by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Only sufficient suffering might change perceptions.
Sioux Rose
DROSERA: Naturally I agree with all of your points. I believe it was Nader (?) who came up with strategies for using the bloated military budget and personnel to create things that do matter, as opposed to allowing the MIC monster to pivot its muscles in the direction of unleashing the ungodly powers of destruction. I've always thought that the military, with so many well-trained individuals, many of whom stay in excellent physical shape, would provide a great role model in the inner cities where its members could champion programs involving the local out-of-work youth in rebuilding their neighborhoods. Just as many corporations spend huge sums on brand recognition via a variety of advertising venues, these same corporations could provide upfront money for the rebuilding efforts and in return, each block corner would have a permanent logo of say Coke, or Nike, or Singular Cell phones. I know that seems crass and commercialized, but since thus far we are a crass, commercialized and capitalistic society, this is one way to begin to take manpower and resources (the military's endowment) and instead of building drones and bombs, rebuild neighborhoods! I see this as a model for the HOME front, but it's certainly one that would go a long ways towards creating better relations among nations were U.S. soldiers to focus on rehabilitative missions as opposed to those that go by a number of lofty-sounding names, but in essence destroy everything, including all human lives, under their deadly footprints.
What do you think? I'd like to see solar panels used, community/block gardens begun, added to decriminalizing possession of recreational drugs. We know the present policies of incarceration lay a disproportionate penalty on young persons of color. And once they are let out of the revolving door penal system, many are marked in a manner that makes it difficult to impossible for them to secure honest employment. This ghetto rebuilding project would put them to work. Most people feel good when they can see the fruit of their own labors, and self-esteem can factor into how people treat their bodies (drug free or otherwise). Hopelessness, poverty, and despair otherwise breed the endless cycles of crime and the Medieval systems of punishment that await millions in the "land of the free, home of the brave," not.
Sioux Rose,
Have you heard the role the military played in setting up the Civilian Conservation Corps in the thirties? The military is good at organizing young men, providing jobs for them, setting up a discipline structure, and setting standards. It is too bad those valuable skills are not used to help young men in poor communities who need parameters to be defined so that they can be of service to society. A modern CCC, set up by a branch of the military, could foster pride in the completion of projects that would benefit everyone--the poor, the elderly, the young. It could provide a glue that could bond people together.
The National Guard fills a role in offering military skills which are used in practical ways close to home. Fires, floods, and other catastrophes--those guys are there and I give them my respect. It is too bad the Guard is compelled to fall in line every time some president with imperialistic aims commands them to head off to distant lands. If not for that, I would encourage my children to join up.
An investment in an auto plant is the same thing as an investment in a weapons plant. Our dependence on oil imports provides the excuse for overseas military operations to guarantee the political stability in oil-producing regions that is necessary to maintain a stable supply. This has been a critical component of the marketing strategy of the weapons industry for decades.
It was Harry S Truman , at the advice of economists of the day, who implemented the "Permanent War Economy" as a means of promoting economic growth inside the United States of America.
In order to get The USA on a permanent war footing, imaginary enemies had to be created. Here, the USA took the advice of all the Nazis they had imported from Hitlers Germany using as rationale the "Communist Menace". (Hitlers Bolsheviks".
Those air raid drills wherein students hid under desks or films shown in schools to students in elementary school about "duck and cover" were all designed to instill a sense of permanent fear in US Citizens.
Exploiting this fear allowed the "new" economy to dedicate more and more resources to the manufacture of weapons and of "conflict".
600+ Billion on arms a year, military the bases over, the sponsorship of coups, assassinations, the funding of terrorists to create instability the world over, 800 some odd military bases in over 100 countries , all of this the legacy of HS Trumans "Cold War".
Citizens of the USA are so "conditioned" to the war economy, that Militarism so much a part of the economy , there few that are willing to question the wisdom of it.
Soldiers appearing on school campuses to start the indoctrination process with children as young as 6 is now seen as normal.
This endimec and systemic corruption that has had some 50 plus years to infiltrate virtually every aspect of the US Economy and its Politics will not be something that can be easily dismantled.
Unfortunately the ONLY real way of ending it is with a total economic collapse of the USA. We have leaders of the world meeting furiously trying to determine how they can stave of economic collapse , when said collapse might in truth be for the greater good.
A "resurgent America" will only bring more MIlitarism and more conflict and nations that tie themselves to American Militarism imperil the "Life and Liberty" of EVERYONE.
The Citizens of the United States of America can not AFFORD all of this spending on arms and war and the peoples of the World can not afford to have an America that does so.
Good points. but you are not quite clear enough, WHY a permanent war-economy was needed.
It was needed so continued economic growth could be assured, thus staving off the cyclic crisis of over production, crash, and resulting working class militancy, that had threatened to sink capitalism just 10 years earlier.
The capitalists read their Marx well. The US left, not so well.
The vast majority of the so-called left in the USA think Groucho when they hear Marx. Most D party members will openly dismiss Marx as irrelevant and just plain wong-headed (even though most have no clue what they are talking about).
We don't need no edjamacation here, an ignorant and fearful public serves the ruling class interests. That is why we are seeing the destruction of public education in huge swathes of the country. In many states, more money is spent on prisons and housing prisoners, than on schools.
It is no secret that many of the courses first to be cut from K-college are civics and government/politics courses.
Well GWNorth you summed things up very nicely. My personal bet is on a financial collapse reasonably soon. I can't see the current mess going on for more than another 20 years if that.
It will be "interesting" to see what emerges after the collapse. My money is NOT on an enlightened society rising from the financial ashes.
NC:
To get a good idea of how things will turn out after the collapse of the empire, one should look at the collapse of the former Soviet Union. And don't be surprised if the players are the same all over again.
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: Comprehensive list. Succinctly stated: when Mars rules, all good things come asunder; they become unglued. How can the (sacred) center hold, when so much is directed at destruction? And the vast majority of this sytem's adherents of course believe quite religiously in "right to life." Most are living in a state of paradox so severe that an outright dislocation from reality has already occured.
Excellent GwNorth, i would add, that the 'they' factor is very difficult to separate from the equally complicit 'us'. I believe the majority of the american public is and would be pro military regardless of the brainwashing they receive. True, that even if the 'us' became aware of their collective warrior status and wanted to cease, the 'they's' would not and have not allowed that to happen. Still, our greatest power is in a unified refusal to accept the war machine.
Indeed, when we add up the official DOD budget, so-called intelligence agencies budgets, military aid to foreign countries, and all the related expenditures etc., the USA spends more than the rest of the world combined.
Under Emperor Obama and the D Senate, we see the spending escalate above what the Bush Jr./Congress spent.
Why is it that A D majority Congress and President spends more on imperialism than the Rs? (question is only half rhetorical)
Obama just [11:30 pst] announced he will "finish the job" in afghanistan. Total economic collapse is eminent.
As expected, tens of thousands more troops and tens of thousands more contractor profiteers.
Trillions for Empire and war profiteering. Trillions for the Bankster Mafia. Public Education? Send your kids to private schools. Health Care? Die young and increase the profits for the Illness and Death Profit Insustry, and help decrease the surplus population.
Now that we have our priorities straight, we can "move forward" to the "way forward"
"finish the job" ...
"If you dont know where you are going, then any road will take you there!"
The job can only ever be "finished" if its end is defined. If he was serious about "finishing" the job, he should have described the aims, and set down criteria so that we will know when those aims have been achieved. The aims should not be the usual rhetoric couched in terms of good (us) verses evil (them) (e.g. "fighting terrorism"). Instead, the aims should be measurable and have real relevance to Afghani life.
Also, if we know what the aims are then we can know whether any action we take supports or destroys those aims.
On the other hand, if it is completely open ended, and all we have is the usual propaganda and lofty rhetoric as predicted by George Orwell, then the job is "finished" whenever we say it is. Whenever we choose to declare victory and leave, then we will say it is "finished". The truth is that job will never be declared to be "finished" so long as there is money for more military spending.
And unfortunately, I predict more lofty rhetoric, i.e. lies. What Obama really means is that we are going to commit to lots more military spending WITHOUT describing the required end results, i.e. without committing to any "finish" at all whatsoever.
Obama's a pretty decent Republican when you think about it.
so was/is clinton.
Sick and dying American citizens, poisoned air and water, bad food, crumbling roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are not things that our government masters in Israel care about.
"SouthCom: Washington Develops its Operations in Soto Cano Airbase in Honduras",
by Arnold August, Nov. 23, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16252
I already posted this with a full copy of the article, having done this for the following article specifically about Honduras.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/24-9
guys, girls, and others! i need some help here. answer me this question: how much do we in the us really spend for defense? we know what goes to the defense department every year, but don't we need to add to that total the amount the department of energy spends for nuclear weapons development, as well as what we spend for the veterans administration , plus what we spend for homeland security? only by totalling the sum of the expenditures in each relevant category can we come up with a representative estimate of what we are spending on the defense of this country.
"Yet?"
On 9/11 2001, the first action of a military coup against a democratic citizenry took place. No one was held at gunpoint. Under the guise of the Global War on Terror, militarism flourished, with its annual budget of around $1.2T. PsyOps is a highly successful field, and fear is easy to disseminate. Our representatives in government are corrupt and pay heed to the lure of bribes by the massive MIC.
Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Clinton stared down the military; Kennedy's service was terminated 11/22 1963, and Clinton is reviled by regressives.
The expansion in AfPak will conservatively cost an extra $40B/year. The Animal needs feeding.
For whatever it's worth, the facts pointed out in this article doesn't escape those of us who are paying attention. Those who are teabagging to get their 'America back' are a different story and, unfortunately, part of the problem not the solution.