

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

"The House measure would authorize $621.5 billion for national defense programs, including the Pentagon's base budget and nuclear programs under the Energy Department, as well as another $75 billion in war funding," Politico reported. (Photo: David B. Gleason/Flickr/cc)
The U.S. House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a $696 billion defense policy bill--the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)--that critics were quick to denounce as yet another vote for "endless wars" and "Pentagon boondoggles."
"As always, only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
--Alex Emmons, The Intercept
"Every year, Congress authorizes billions of dollars of Pentagon pork at the expense of other security needs and other taxpayer priorities," Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement. "While war profiteers rejoice, voters wonder why the government cannot provide for education, job creation, healthcare, and needs in their community."
The legislation, which passed with a vote of 344-81, far surpasses in cost President Donald Trump's request for $603 billion earlier this year.
Politico summarized the bill's contents:
The House measure would authorize $621.5 billion for national defense programs, including the Pentagon's base budget and nuclear programs under the Energy Department, as well as another $75 billion in war funding.
It also would tap $10 billion from the war-related Overseas Contingency Operations account to pay for base budget items, including $6 billion to boost Navy shipbuilding. The NDAA funding levels mirror a budget blueprint being crafted by the House Budget Committee.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who voted against the measure, said in a statement that "Congressional Republicans have chosen to bankroll bloated Pentagon spending and funnel billions into the Overseas Contingency Operations slush fund, while refusing to address our fundamental obligation to debate our ongoing military operations."
The Intercept's Alex Emmons argued that the exorbitant military spending approved year after year underscores the warped priorities of Congress.
"As always," Emmons wrote, "only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The U.S. House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a $696 billion defense policy bill--the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)--that critics were quick to denounce as yet another vote for "endless wars" and "Pentagon boondoggles."
"As always, only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
--Alex Emmons, The Intercept
"Every year, Congress authorizes billions of dollars of Pentagon pork at the expense of other security needs and other taxpayer priorities," Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement. "While war profiteers rejoice, voters wonder why the government cannot provide for education, job creation, healthcare, and needs in their community."
The legislation, which passed with a vote of 344-81, far surpasses in cost President Donald Trump's request for $603 billion earlier this year.
Politico summarized the bill's contents:
The House measure would authorize $621.5 billion for national defense programs, including the Pentagon's base budget and nuclear programs under the Energy Department, as well as another $75 billion in war funding.
It also would tap $10 billion from the war-related Overseas Contingency Operations account to pay for base budget items, including $6 billion to boost Navy shipbuilding. The NDAA funding levels mirror a budget blueprint being crafted by the House Budget Committee.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who voted against the measure, said in a statement that "Congressional Republicans have chosen to bankroll bloated Pentagon spending and funnel billions into the Overseas Contingency Operations slush fund, while refusing to address our fundamental obligation to debate our ongoing military operations."
The Intercept's Alex Emmons argued that the exorbitant military spending approved year after year underscores the warped priorities of Congress.
"As always," Emmons wrote, "only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
The U.S. House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a $696 billion defense policy bill--the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)--that critics were quick to denounce as yet another vote for "endless wars" and "Pentagon boondoggles."
"As always, only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
--Alex Emmons, The Intercept
"Every year, Congress authorizes billions of dollars of Pentagon pork at the expense of other security needs and other taxpayer priorities," Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement. "While war profiteers rejoice, voters wonder why the government cannot provide for education, job creation, healthcare, and needs in their community."
The legislation, which passed with a vote of 344-81, far surpasses in cost President Donald Trump's request for $603 billion earlier this year.
Politico summarized the bill's contents:
The House measure would authorize $621.5 billion for national defense programs, including the Pentagon's base budget and nuclear programs under the Energy Department, as well as another $75 billion in war funding.
It also would tap $10 billion from the war-related Overseas Contingency Operations account to pay for base budget items, including $6 billion to boost Navy shipbuilding. The NDAA funding levels mirror a budget blueprint being crafted by the House Budget Committee.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who voted against the measure, said in a statement that "Congressional Republicans have chosen to bankroll bloated Pentagon spending and funnel billions into the Overseas Contingency Operations slush fund, while refusing to address our fundamental obligation to debate our ongoing military operations."
The Intercept's Alex Emmons argued that the exorbitant military spending approved year after year underscores the warped priorities of Congress.
"As always," Emmons wrote, "only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."