EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
Your Tax Dollars at War: More Than 53% of Your Tax Payment Goes to the Military
If you're like me, now that we're in the week that federal income taxes are due, you are finally starting to collect your records and prepare for the ordeal. Either way, whether you are a procrastinator like me, or have already finished and know how much you have paid to the government, it is a good time to stop and consider how much of your money goes to pay for our bloated and largely useless and pointless military.
The budget for the 2011 fiscal year, which has to be voted by Congress by this Oct. 1, looks to be about $3 trillion, not counting the funds collected for Social Security (since the Vietnam War, the government has included the Social Security Trust Fund in the budget as a way to make the cost of America's imperial military adventures seem smaller in comparison to the total cost of government). Meanwhile, the military share of the budget works out to about $1.6 trillion.
That figure includes the Pentagon budget request of $708 billion, plus an estimated $200 billion in supplemental funding, called "overseas contingency funding" in euphemistic White House-speak), to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, some $40 billion or more in "black box" intelligence agency funding, $94 billion in non-DOD military spending, $100 billion in veterans benefits and health care spending, and $400 billion in interest on debt raised to pay for prior wars and the standing military.
The 2011 military budget, by the way, is the largest in history, not just in actual dollars, but in inflation adjusted dollars, exceeding even the spending in World War II, when the nation was on an all-out military footing.
Military spending in all its myriad forms works out to represent 53.3% of total US federal spending.
It's also a budget that is rising at a faster pace than any other part of the budget (with the possible exception of bailing out crooked Wall Street financial firms and their managers). For the past decade, and continuing under the present administration, military budgets have been rising at a 9% annual clip, making health care inflation look tiny by comparison.
US military spending isn't just half of the US budget. It is also half of the entire global spending on war and weaponry. In 2009, according to the venerable War Resisters League, US military spending accounted for 47% of all money spent globally on war, weapons and military preparedness. What makes that staggering figure particularly ridiculous is that America's allies--countries like France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan--account for another 21% of the world's military spending. Fully 12 of the top-spenders among big military-spending nations are either allies of the US, or are friendly countries like Brazil and India. That is to say, America and its friends and allies account for more than two-thirds of all military spending worldwide.
China, in contrast, probably the closest thing to a real "threat" to American interests because of America's treaty commitments to the island nation of Taiwan, and China's claim that it is a part of the PRC, spends only some $130 billion on its military, much of which is actually devoted to maintaining military control of the country's own 1.3 billion people, some of whom might prefer to be independent, or to be freer.
The next biggest military spender, Russia, spends less than $80 billion a year on its decrepit military, and isn't even technically an enemy of the US anymore. Its military is largely busy keeping restive regions from spinning off from the mother country, anyhow.
Meanwhile Iran, which the White House and Congress are portraying as America's arch enemy despite its not having invaded another country in hundreds of years, isn't even on the list of the top 17 military big-spenders. Iran's current military budget is a teensy $4.8 billion, about the same as the estimated $5 billion spent on the military by North Korea--America's other "major enemy." Each of those country's military budgets is about one-quarter of the military budget of Australia, or a third of the military budget of the Netherlands.
Just to give one an idea of how small $4.8 billion is in comparison to the $1.6 trillion that the US is spending each year on war and planning for war, that number is roughly what the Pentagon plans to spend over the next year on childcare and youth programs, morale and recreation programs and commissaries on its bases! It's about what the Pentagon will spend acquiring replacement Seahawk, Chinook and Blackhawk helicopters this year.
For the average American, what all this means is that of every dollar you send to the IRS, 53 cents will be going to pay for blowing stuff up, fattening the wallets of colonels admirals and generals, bloating the portfolios of investors in military industries, and of course funding the bonuses paid to executives of those companies, and the campaign chests and expense accounts of the members of Congress who vote for these outlandish budgets. Your money will also be going to pay for the salaries and the bullets of those brave heroes over in Afghanistan who are executing kids, killing pregnant women (and then digging out the bullets and claiming they were stabbed by their families), and for the anti-personnel weapons that are creating legions of legless Afghani kids.
Next time you hear that the government needs to cut funds for providing medical care to the children of laid-off workers, or that supplemental unemployment funds are running out, next time you hear that federal funds that are needed to fund extra teachers at your school are being cut, or that Social Security benefits need to be cut back, or the retirement age needs to be increased to 70, next time you hear that your local post office has to be shut down for lack of funds, next time you hear that Medicare benefits need to be reduced, think about that 53% of your tax payment that is going to finance the most enormous war machine the world has ever known.
And ask yourself: Is this really necessary? Is this really where I want my money going?
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...


212 Comments so far
Show AllThey never raised our taxes for the wars. Not one penny...oh wait, they gave us tax cuts. The bailout is also not paid for by taxes. They are all paid for by china. The monatary sysem of debt creation is at fault, not our taxes.
So what is used for Collateral to acquire this debt? This is an honest question.
Full faith and credit of the US government. That's the way it always is for Treasury bills.
and if this collateral is damaged?
That's a risk investers take. There is talk that ratings services may be downgrading Tbills, I doubt that though. But it could happen, if investors don't like the general environment out of which the bonds are generated.
and that bastard Obama has upped it even more, (is this enough to get me reported and removed from the "civil" discourse that supposedly goes on in these pages?). The Progressive Democrats of America have been flailing for more than a year now with the slogan, "Healthcare not Warfare." to a deaf public and a stone silence from the Democratic party. This is the real third rail of American politics. The military provides jobs, the military creates spending on "defense" in our district. The military gives kids who have no other resources a chance to better themselves. THE MILITARY IS A GREAT PUBLIC GOOD. Who would dare to attack it. In fact let's give them the whole federal budget and let them run the country. They even have a way to keep order built in. And think of all the parades and displays of strength we could show. Think of how other countries would respect us. We've got to keep America strong and that means betting the crap out of anyone who gets in our way.
Well, yeah, now that you mention it. I mean technically he's not a bastard, an offensive word that dates from a time when a child born out of "wedlock" was considered a lesser being. So I'd suggest you remove it. My own son, adopted in Hong Kong, was the child of a single mother, and would qualify as a bastard under such archaic terminology.
Lose it
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Language is fluid. The meaning of words change, evolve. When do you ever hear the word "bastard" used to mean "child born out of wedlock?" Next to never. Maybe super old people still use it.
When someone says to me "get fu**ed, do I smile and say, "thank-you! I'll try?"
Catch up Dave! Change is inevitable.
But change isn't always good...
ha ha
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Your wish will come true with the election of David Petraeus in November 2012.
Dave, can you provide a source for your analysis of the 2011 budget? Or is it your own? Thanks.
Even if it's his own analysis, he had to get the numbers from somewhere. Uncited numbers are worse than no numbers at all.
Hidden numbers are even worse. The US hides the CIA, NSA and other budgets, including some parts of the DOD budget.
The government also hides the size of the military budget by adding spending on Social Security, which is funded by separate taxation (FISA), into the total, to increase the denominator of the "general budget".
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
For example, Blackwater/XE and their ilk are funded by the Department of State so they, hundreds of thousands of them, are not part of the military budget. The Department of State actually has its own fully funded mercenary army. Funny how we never hear how many of them are now in Afghanistan, but I'd bet there are as many of them as there are official US Department of Defense troops.
so - if there are all these contractors out there how come the wars keep expanding?
surely they should be contracting.
Ha! Good one. Thanks for the chuckle!!
We're talking about the 2011 budget here, which is what current tax collections will be paying for.
This is my own construction. I used the War Resisters League data, which is quite good, as a basis. You can see that at:
http://www.warresisters.org/files/FY2011piechart.pdf
Where I differ from them is that they don't count the secret intelligence budget, which is at least $40 billion, and probably substantially more. I used $40, because that is slightly higher than the $37 billion figure that was inadvertently blurted out a couple of years ago in a Congressional hearing. We know that war-related intelligence funding has substantially increased since then. For one thing, the CIA is running most of the Predator Drone operations, which have to be hugely expensive. As well, the CIA has been expanding. As has the NSA. I wouldn't be surprised if that secret "black box" intel budget has ballooned past $50 billion by now.
Other data I culled from government budget data you can easily find with Google.
Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net
"This is my own construction."
OK.
"http://www.warresisters.org/files/FY2011piechart.pdf"
They are an advocacy group, varying considerably from the conventional analysis. Why do you think their numbers are "quite good"? For example, they count veterans benefits as military spending. Why is that a good approach?
"Where I differ from them is that they don't count the secret intelligence budget, which is at least $40 billion, and probably substantially more."
But you don't really know, right? The base figure of $37B was blurted out after all. And how do you differentiate *war* intelligence from other intelligence?
The reason I ask is that by any account, 53% is way higher than the conventional view, so the methodologies ought to be very sound if you want to go with that figure yourself.
Actually the 53% isn't that hard to come by.
The government's own figures, when you remove the SSI obfuscation, is close to 48%.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
"The government's own figures, when you remove the SSI obfuscation, is close to 48%."
Only if you go by the classifications of the advocacy group War Resisters or something similar. The question is if that's a good idea or not.
Thank you for the prompt response. I'm not convinced that "just google it" is completely satisfactory, however. The numbers are kind of the point here, and if I can't verify them, if I can't point at an official document and show they're 100% legit, they're useless for convincing anybody who thinks the opposite.
Also, to be fair you need to assess hidden military spending in other countries before running the comparisons. War Resisters League exposed an extra 25%, and you an extra 5% on top of that. How much of their military budget do you think China obfuscates? They're at least ostensibly communist so obviously they need to make a big show of providing for the people. They have an even bigger incentive to hide military spending. It's clear from just the reported numbers that their spending is far from the threat wingnuts make them out to be, but to paint them as any less despicable than our own government is missing the point entirely.
I already agree with you. We overspend on military and neglect our actual needs (healthcare, schools etc). You you can easily show that we're the main threat to peace by comparing the reported numbers. But if you want to change the minds of people that don't already accept your argument you have to provide concrete, verifiable facts.
Come on. Just google Obama and 2011 budget and you'll get the national budget figure.
Then google Defense Department and 2011 budget and you'll get the official pentagon budget.
If you want the other stuff, google Nasa budget, Homeland Security Budget, VA budget, etc.
It's not rocket science.
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
It's just good practice to cite your numbers, even in an opinion piece. Especially when they're the entire point of the article. There's a fine line between propaganda and rational argument, and a big part of that line is verifiability. The easier you make it to verify, the less likely a person is to mistake your piece for propaganda. I mean, this is the friggin internet and you can't be bothered to slap a link or two in there? If I passed this article on as-is to my friends disposed to disagree, they would reject it out of hand.
Like I said, I agree with you but that's because I've seen similar numbers before and seen the research. This article is preaching to the choir, but it's THIS CLOSE to being genuinely useful as an informational tool to educate people who don't already know this. I think I'm coming across harsher than I mean to, but it's because I want to forward this to some friends, spread this around. But as it stands it's just not worth doing and that's frustrating.
http://www.warresisters.org/files/FY2011piechart.pdf
I see a number of problems. War Resisters say they don't include "trust funds" such a SS yet they list "Social Security Administration" under "Human Resources". In their "adjusted" chart. The chart titled "The Government's Deception" has no dollar figures yet the "adjusted" chart does. The terminology describing the classifications between the two charts is inconsistent. The classification of debt as military spending is very suspect, first in that they claim it to be 80% of the debt with nothing to support that, and then that they go ahead and use 100% of the debt instead of that 80%.
Thank you very much, Mr. Lindorff, for telling Americans about this. What you might have mentioned is that the USA has no natural enemies, and with a near-zero military budget, would be safer and more secure than most nations. The USA is bounded by two oceans and by the peaceful and weak nations of Canada and Mexico. It is impossible for any foreign nation to invade the USA. Our geographic, economic, and demographic size, plus our system of alliances, make it unlikely that any nation would intentionally start a war with us, even if we were disarmed. Yes, I know that militarists will say that 9-11 justifies our fears and our immense defense budgets. But consider: a) our immense defense budget did not prevent the 9-11 events, b) there are indications that our own security services were involved in the 9-11 events, and c) our military reaction to 9-11 has killed more Americans and imposed more financial costs than 9-11. Plus, we have created more enemies, have destroyed our own Constitutional system of law and freedom, and have mortgaged our future. The US military is a 19th century anachronism, engaged in 19th century geopolitics, with 21st century weapons. It is far, far, far cheaper to buy oil from foreign nations than it is to destroy them, occupy them, rebuild them and set up puppet governments.
I couldn't agree more. The military is killing this country, and it doesn't protect us at all. For that matter, the US is probably the most armed nation on the globe in terms of all the weapons in private hands. Anyone who tried to actually invade this country would be in for a very nasty awakening.
We would be an astonishing nation if we simply followed the lead of Costa Rica and abolished our military and diverted the $1.6 trillion currrently being wasted into productive and humane directions--free college for all, better schools, national health care, medical research, energy research and conservation, modern mass transit systems, etc., etc. The mind boggles.
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
"... the USA has no natural enemies, and with a near-zero military budget, would be safer and more secure than most nations. The USA is bounded by two oceans and by the peaceful and weak nations of Canada and Mexico. It is impossible for any foreign nation to invade the USA. Our geographic, economic, and demographic size, plus our system of alliances, make it unlikely that any nation would intentionally start a war with us, even if we were disarmed."
This is essentially the argument, butressed by the Nye Committee's investigation of the Merchants of Death, put forward during the 1930s that gave us the Neutrality Acts, which were opposed by FDR and mostly overturned just prior to US entry into WW2. We even have a treaty--deemed to be the Supreme Law of the Land--the Kellogg-Briand Treaty that outlaws the use of war as an extension of foreign policy that was never repealed and thus remains The Law and was incorporated into the UN Charter. Just because that law's been broken almost every year since 1945 doesn't make in no longer the law, just as the Reagan-era anti-torture laws are still the law. The point being is the federal government is an Outlaw institution run by outlaws for the benefit of other outlaws. Imagine if the Tea Party shared this anaysis, which I believe they do without realization. I believe the successful passage of the Neutrality Acts convinced elites that the warfare state supported by active public and private propaganda must be made permanent after WW2--that Dr Win-The-War introduced by FDR in 1943 must NEVER be fired, and they capitalized on the moment by passing the 1947 National Security Act, thus ensuring a constant war economy and constant warmaking.
"the USA has no natural enemies"
but they're working on it.
Our country is in total control of the big money interests who only care about their own enormous salaries and bonus. What good does it do to make such a fuss about "In God We Trust", when in reality our country stands for running the world our way or else. We are "pro life" but we killed thousands in Iraq and ruined the lives of countless others to satisfy the desires of a few power hungry individuals. The majority of our population are being screwed daily by this small group of loud-mouths who convince people like the tea baggers that we need more war and less of everything else in our own country. Also, we are told the only way to keep the country going is to continue tax cuts for the already filthy-rich.
"our country stands for running the world our way or else"
this is the reality of the "NWO" - with the "New World" giving the orders.
"For the average American, what all this means is that of every dollar you send to the IRS, 53 cents will be going to pay for blowing stuff up"...
But not included in the list of war profiteers are the American energy corporations who now have lucrative oil contracts in Iraq.
One example is ExxonMolbil which is one of the largest and most profitable corporations on earth. They now have access in Iraq to some of the best light sweet crude on earth with very cheap extraction costs.
And Afghanistan is all about Central Asian natural gas and oil to be marketed throughout Asia via trans-Afghan pipelines.
The American military, at the taxpayer's expense, is subsidizing corporate profits.
It would be nice to pierce the corporate veil and prosecute Big Oil CEO's for their indirect participation in American war crimes.
"One example is ExxonMolbil which is one of the largest and most profitable corporations on earth. They now have access in Iraq to some of the best light sweet crude on earth with very cheap extraction costs."
They paid billions to Iraq for that in case you didn't know.
If Exxon paid billions for extracting that oil in Iraq, then why the hell did this nation go to war for it? The Iraqi people didn't want us taking their oil but our nation screamed 9/11 and patriotism at the time and Washington cashed in on it. Even if they did pay, government always subsidizes them anyway so it's not like they lost much. All they have to do is lie, cheat, keep away competition, and manipulate those prices to thrive. That's socialism for them while we're left holding the bag.
"If Exxon paid billions for extracting that oil in Iraq, then why the hell did this nation go to war for it? "
That's a different question than whether or not Exxon paid for it.
"The Iraqi people didn't want us taking their oil "
Generally speaking, I think the Iraqi people want someone to buy there oil. That's what Exxon is now doing, regardless of why the US invaded.
The Iraq War may have been less about oil, than it was about Oil. We tried building airbases in Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Muhammed. The response was 9-11. This is plan B. With airbases in Iraq, we can threaten any power that even looks at MidEast oil within a few minutes, and can free up our aircraft carriers to go somewhere else. Of course, the world's second largest proven oil reserves must have seemed a pleasant reward, but I think this is about Peak Oil. Its still morally bankrupt.
"I think the Iraqi people want someone to buy there oil. That's what Exxon is now doing, regardless of why the US invaded."
I don't think so. They want us out and rightfully so after our military devastated that country. Even if Exxon pays the Iraqi people, the money is pittance to pay for the damages that didn't have to happen. Furthermore, whatever money gets sent to Iraq from Exxon will not go to the people but mainly the elites before the Iraqi people can fight for morsels just like the American people are doing here at home on the economy. I wouldn't blame the insurgents for fighting this hooligan occupation.
"I don't think so."
Please clarify: You disagree that the Iraqi people want to sell their oil to someone? IOW, they would just like to just keep it in the ground?
The fact is, Exxon is paying them for their oil now. That's all that I said.
Whatever Exxon is paying is pittance compared to the damages done to the civilians by the US. I don't just look at numbers. I examine the bloodshed, trauma, anger, and structural damages done that nation that no amount of money Exxon pays them will fix. Gonzonews just wrote an excellent breakdown of the qualitative and quantitative costs of going to Iraq in another post on this thread. There's more to this than Exxon alone and Exxon deserves no sympathies or compensation whatsoever. That company and the rest of the big oil giants deserve to be totally divested and locked out of business. Who will miss them anyway?
"Whatever Exxon is paying is pittance compared to the damages done to the civilians by the US."
That's beside the point, though you might be right.
The question was whether the Iraqis wish to sell their oil, and the answer is that they do, and Exxon is buying.
Care to cite a source?
"Care to cite a source?"
Anything for you Kent:
"http://www.energy-daily.com/reports"
"/Exxon_follows_China_lead_"
"in_clinching_Iraq_oil_deal_999.html"
The sarcasm is a bit offputting but thanks for the source.
"The sarcasm is a bit offputting but thanks for the source."
It was sincere. You and I go back a long way. And you are welcome.
Sometimes we even agree on an issue.
Crazy stuff. Just crazy. :-)
Yeah, about 10c on the dollar, based on the expected profits, from fields that previously had been nationalized... meaning ALL of the profits would've gone to Iraq. Nationalizing the oil fields is what got Qaseem murdered by Kennedy's CIA and got the Baath Party ruling Iraq. Exxon paid 25 billion bucks, but it cost the US taxpayer a trillion or three (depending on your source) to get them into a position to bid. To imply it was a "fair" deal, not a robbery, is to miss the big picture.
"Yeah, about 10c on the dollar, based on the expected profits, from fields that previously had been nationalized."
And in both cases it represents easy, passive income for the Iraqis, who as a nation really don't have any expertise in oil exploration and extraction. They *need* outsiders to do it because they can't do it themselves.
"meaning ALL of the profits would've gone to Iraq."
The prerequisite being that they would have to first steal the infrastructure that they would never have been able to establish to begin with.
"it cost the US taxpayer a trillion or three (depending on your source) to get them into a position to bid. To imply it was a "fair" deal, not a robbery, is to miss the big picture."
It misses the big picture to not realize that there would always be some oil company invested in Iraq with or without a war, excepting of course when there were sanctions against S.H. They got around that anyway. It also misses the big picture when you forget that Exxon, just like any other oil company that would do business in Iraq, is a multi national company that anyone can invest in.
"they would have to first steal the infrastructure that they would never have been able to establish to begin with." Crap! This isn't even ancient history, it's recent. Iraq had an operating oil industry for the better part of the last century and the laughable notion that this was accomplished w/o an infrastructure is beyond comprehension. It's true a lot of it probably got trashed by our sanctions and wars but to assume that they had to offer 9/10ths of their oil to get expertise and equipment, all available on the open market at reasonable, far lower prices, is to betray an appalling ignorance of the West's dealings with Middle Eastern oil states. If they'd "needed" foreign companies so badly our history of intervening to FORCE them to accept our companies wouldn't exist. "They *need* outsiders to do it because they can't do it themselves." For God's sake, they were one of the top 3 oil exporters for decades with a nationalize (read "Iraqi") infrastructure!
"Iraq had an operating oil industry for the better part of the last century"
"Iraq" didn't build that infrastructure, the IPC did, a group of foreign oil companys. "Iraq" had no technical expertise in that area. Ergo, they could never sell oil without it.
"to assume that they had to offer 9/10ths of their oil to get expertise and equipment, all available on the open market at reasonable, far lower prices"
There is no reason whatsoever that they were somehow forced to deal with Exxon. And it was *Exxon* doing the offering, beating out three other competitors.
You don't sound like you know much about the industry. I suggest you read "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, & Power " by Daniel Yergin for a good start. It's long and boring.
"Iraq" didn't build that infrastructure, the IPC did, a group of foreign oil companys. "Iraq" had no technical expertise in that area. Ergo, they could never sell oil without it." IPC was kicked out of Iraq 30 years ago for underproducing (Iraq's oil has always been of more value to all western interests in the ground where it will not drive down the world price. Some estimates contend Iraq has more oil than S. Arabia, certainly a higher grade). In the ensuing 3 decades it was Iraqi expertise that maintained and upgraded the system. It's a silly point, one that substitutes a technicality for common sense. Obviously the cost of facilities to get the oil is less than what Exxon bid or it wouldn't have bothered.
"There is no reason whatsoever that they were somehow forced to deal with Exxon. And it was *Exxon* doing the offering, beating out three other competitors." Are you even serious? Have you read "Confessions of an Economic Hit-man"? The "competitors" were part of the international oil cartel (the informal one) and their "bidding" was based on collusion. They made "an offer that Iraq couldn't refuse"... Iraq hardly needed a further lesson in how far they could hold out. Saddam H. was neither the first, nor will be the last, head of state to get a lesson in "accepting offers"