Pentagon's 2014 Military Budget: Can't Touch This

[unhappycamper]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/pentagon-budget-deal-charts-cuts



Until Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) rode to the rescue this week, Pentagon brass and their allies had been issuing dire warnings about the nation's military readiness: The armed services were being decimated, they said, by sequestration—the automatic budget cuts that were set to trim $1 trillion from the Pentagon budget over the next decade. "It's one thing for the Pentagon to go on a diet. It's another for the Pentagon to wear a straitjacket while dieting," grumbled Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.). The message got through: The House overwhelmingly approved the Ryan-Murray plan just two days after it was introduced.

But now, the Pentagon has once more gotten a reprieve from the budget ax: Under Murray and Ryan's congressional budget deal, the Pentagon will get an additional $32 billion, or 4.4 percent, in 2014, leaving its base budget at a higher level than in 2005 and 2006. (The Department of Defense expects its total 2014 budget, including supplemental war funding, to be more than $600 billion.)

~snip~



The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $1.5 trillion, about twice the cost of the Vietnam War when adjusted for inflation. Those funds came entirely from borrowing, contributing nearly 20 percent to the national debt accrued between 2001 and 2012. And that's just the "supplemental" military spending passed by Congress for the wars—the regular Pentagon budget also grew nearly 45 percent between 2001 and 2010.

No wonder, perhaps, that defense watchdogs found the Pentagon's wailing about the sequester less than convincing. "These 'terrible' cuts would return us to historically high levels of spending," snapped Winslow Wheeler of the Project on Government Oversight. According to Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the Pentagon could reduce its budget by $100 billion a year without undermining its readiness. The sequestration cuts for 2013 amounted to $37 billion.









This camper maintains that the F-35 costs around $247,000,000 or 76 million cupcakes.

[Laelth]

1. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

[Oakenshield]

2. Gotta have the best toy *cough* I mean weapons.

If that means cutting social security and food stamps, well, that's just the price of freedumb.

[The Wizard]

3. The same formula

brought down the Roman Empire.

[FairWinds]

4. OK, so what to do ?

As a veteran (of Vietnam) I have joined Veterans for Peace.
Check out our neat-o Golden Rule Project !!
There are other good organizations as well.
don't just lament - get out there and do something about it !!

[toby jo]

5. Good point. I joined the American Friends Service Comm.

They've got a great take on peace.

This pentagon spending makes us vulnerable - crumbling from within.

[JDPriestly]

6. Republicans and Libertarians oppose government spending on anything other than "defense."

That is, the military.

But it is obvious even to Republicans that our economy needs to generate not just money and profits and paychecks but jobs.

The military budget is the Republicans' form of infrastructure, education, healthcare, you-name-it government stimulus. And Democrats wouldn't dare vote against the Republican proposals. No one wants to be blamed for being unprepared to defend the country. So, just in case we ever need to defend ourselves, we arm and start attacking others -- everywhere on the globe. Wars are sometimes necessary. But we are constantly at war. It is not believable that wars are always necessary. That is not the reason for the excessive military spending.

Bush said it: if the economy is bad, start a war. War is good for the economy. My paraphrase. I think he said it to the president of Argentina.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/bush-war-boosts-the-us-ec_n_592444.html

That's how Republicans view things. They will argue that we came out of the Great Depression only because we fought WWII, not because the banks were held accountable and FDR helped poor people. That is why they like war.

They hate any other kind of government involvement in the economy (except the Fed bailing out the banks and the stock market).

Until we persuade Americans that it's really great to invest as a people in ourselves, we won't be able to get out of the war and more war mode.

I'm not suggesting socialism. There are many ways our government can encourage investment in our economy that do not involve war toys or killing.

And, while we are at it, we should establish a commission, even if it is of volunteers from industries, unions, religions, government agencies especially law enforcement, social work, education and courts, to propose plans to deal with the challenges of technology and the international competition to our economy. They would not dictate how we should approach our future, but would advocate for more cooperation in figuring out how we as a nation will survive new challenges to our economy. The debate within the commission should be telecast on the internet.

I lived in Austria in the late 70s and early 80s. The Austrian government was very aware that their small, land-locked nation would face the challenge of a global economy. It established a policy to identify niches in the world economy, that is areas of production and industry that would fit Austria's limitations (small size) and talents (well educated with a good apprenticeship system that can train excellent technical workers). Today, Austria is holding its own. Compared to where we were before the global economy, we are floundering whereas so far they are not (although they were not as wealthy a country as we were in 1985).

Austria actually de-nationalized some of its business sector. (Beginning with the Hapsburg monarchy, the kaisers had been quite involved in the economy in ways we have not known. Generally, in monarchies that I know about, the crown would license or show a preference for certain private companies or even compete or monopolize certain parts or businesses of the economy. That is why it was very easy for socialists in Europe to nationalize or interfere in the private sector in ways we have not known. It was merely a transition from the role the crown had always played in some cases.) And it encouraged small businesses that produce things well for which there is not a huge market in the world. That is one way they have coped and survived while other countries failed. They are a bit better organized about their economic strategy or at least were better organized at that crucial period.

We need to be less rigid about our capitalist ideology. It is not either or. We don't need to lose the advantages of small businesses or capitalism. We just need to learn to work together much better than we do.

The businesses that belong to the Chamber of Commerce are quite willing and able to work together to promote policies that harm the poor and working people. Why aren't they figuring out what sort of economic niche we can make for ourselves in the world and then promoting the policies that will help all Americans not just themselves. We are not the biggest country in the world. We do not have the untapped natural resources that some other countries like Russia have. We are not well organized. (You should see the inside of a car repair garage in Germany. Talk about organized! That is one of the reasons their businesses do well.) We need to rethink our place in the world so that we can live well and our children and grandchildren can too.

Do we really want to be the bullies of the world? Because that is where our current policies are taking us. Between NSA surveillance of every electronic inch of the planet and our huge military capacity, that is where we are headed.

Unless we organize to think about the future and the opportunities available to our country, we will not do well. I don't see this happening at the present time. We are rudderless and directionless as a nation. There is nothing socialist about simply having a national direction or focus that everyone understands is important.

[FairWinds]

7. Hey Toby & JD . .

Yup, AFSC is great - they do wonderful work.
And JD, why not join the Democratic Socialists of America?
You wouldn't want to be an anti-social socialist, would you?
[Humor alert - meant in a friendly way]
For all its dysfunction, the Right is quite organized.
We have to do that too . .