"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Washington, D.C., 1953During the next few weeks Congress will consider hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending, yet this legislation will receive relatively little review and scrutiny. Spending by Pentagon officials continues to grow at an incredible rate and it is time for Congress to determine whether this level of funding makes sense. President Eisenhower, the five-star Army general who was the military commander of the European theater during World War II, laid out stark choices that he and the country faced during his first year in the White House. Fast-forward 48 years to the last year of George W. Bush's presidency, and it is remarkable how prescient Eisenhower was.
Today, President Bush's military budget is $515 billion, more than half of all discretionary spending. This is in addition to the $200 billion a year being spent on the war in Iraq, and another $16 billion spent on nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, as military spending explodes, the middle class in America is shrinking, poverty is increasing and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider. While we now spend $94 billion more on defense than three years ago, poverty and hunger are increasing, 47 million Americans lack health insurance and an entire generation of young people wonders how to afford college.
In his last budget, President Bush provided a very generous increase in funds for the military while proposing major cuts in programs which benefit low- and moderate-income families. At a time of real threat from international terrorism, all of us understand the need for a strong military to protect our country. However, the Pentagon cannot be exempt from Congress' oversight responsibility to root out waste, fraud and abuse. We must also demand a major improvement in transparency and accountability from the Department of Defense.
Here are just a few examples that Congress must explore if we are serious about saving taxpayer dollars:
• The Government Accountability Office recently assessed 72 major weapons acquisition programs and reported a colossal $295 billion in cost-overruns on a $1.6 trillion contract portfolio.
• One item--the Army's Future Combat Systems--may cost the taxpayer more than $200 billion, a staggering $40 billion cost overrun from initial 2003 estimates.
• The total cost for the F-22A fighter program, a Cold War legacy, amounts to an astronomical $65.3 billion, so large that the Air Force has been forced to reduce its buy from 648 to 181 aircraft. Still, that amounts to about $355 million a copy.
• The Air Force has on order $1.3 billion in spare parts and other inventory that it doesn't need. In fact, even thought this unnecessary inventory has yet to be delivered, $223 million is already marked for disposal. Why is the Air Force buying a huge quantity of spare parts that they have no need for?
There also has been enormous waste and fraud by contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It was recently discovered that a 22-year-old businessman sold as much as $300 million in old ammunition (much of it defective) to the Afghan army and police forces under a contract with the Army Sustainment Command. Millions of cartridges were shipped from China, making their procurement a possible violation of U.S. law.
In Ramadi, Iraq, the Air Force paid a private U.S. contractor $32 million to construct an air base - that was never built.
A GAO survey examined $8 billion in contractor incentive fees that were paid out regardless of outcome. In other words, the Pentagon is paying contractors bonuses whether or not they are deserved.
Not only did President Eisenhower vigorously fight against misplaced national priorities and over-spending on the military, he also understood why that happened. In a 1961 speech, as he was leaving office, he said; "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."
Recently, the present Secretary of the Navy, Dr. Donald C. Winter, formerly a Northrop Grumman executive, echoed Eisenhower's concerns when he publicly stated that "industry does understand the Department of the Navy. Industry hires our alumni, and runs an extensive and effective intelligence collection effort targeting us." In his remarks, Dr. Winter warns against this revolving door, as well as excessive profits by defense contractors.
How much waste and fraud exists within the Pentagon? How many unneeded weapons systems are we paying for because defense contractors have hired hundreds of lobbyists who were formerly high ranking military officials? How many billions of dollars are we spending for unneeded military projects that are relics of the Cold War or a result of pork-barrel politics?
At a time when this country has a $9.3 trillion national debt, a declining economy and enormous unmet needs, the time is long overdue for Congress to stop rubber-stamping White House requests for military spending and to address the Pentagon's needs within the context of our overall national priorities.
This article was published in the Boston Globe on Tuesday, May 20.
With all due respect, it is essential that you resist falling victim to the following statement:
"At a time of real threat from international terrorism, all of us understand the need for a strong military to protect our country."
It's my opinion that our faith, in the strategic value of a strong military to; contain, root-out and defeat terrorism, is misplaced, and only serves as a springboard for additional waste, corruption and inefficiency .
To deal with threats comparable to those we faced form the Soviets during the Cold War - maybe. Or, should a potential enemy, such as China, move determinedly to develop disturbing numbers or classes of new offensive weaponry.
But, when dealing with small, ideologically motivated bands of lightly armed insurgents, employing classic guerrilla style / suicide tactics, the advantages of vastly superior weaponry and overwhelming military power are greatly diminished. This manner of conflict must be fought on an entirely different level, utilizing another type of skill sets .
So Senator, where is the outpouring of rage against the machine? Those of us that have carried the banner have seen the pathetic lack of engagement on the part of the People of this Nation. What will it take before they get off their self serving lazy asses?
What (instead) the Fascist's of this nation are spreading around the world, is constitutional and unconstitutional "dictatorships and regimes" around the world, these have the sole purpose of safeguarding "un-bridled Capitalism from abroad (Super Powers) that suck dry the life-blood of those enslaved.
This same establishment of Congressional personell is also evident, those (hard-core sell-out) in the upper levels of Congress whether DEM or GOP have sold their souls to this Fascist-cabal, denying newly elected representatives from carrying out the 'mandates' of American citizens (such as 2006).
America needs concentrate entirely of electing Congressionsl-rep's that will return a Constitutional-gov of Law, and unseat all upper-level sanctuary of another.
There are three things that would help:
1) Public Financing of elections. This will result in the large corporations and uber-rich people having less influence on our Presidents, Senators, and Representatives.
2) Redefine the 1st Amendment to apply only to PEOPLE, not corporations.
3) Either remove the Electoral College, or do like several states already have, and assign the electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote!
What problem ?
Because the majority of the oxygen thieves in congress are ball-less whores.
Why are the two biggest terrah-riss, as the imbecile pronounces those supposedly seeking a nookyoularr threat, still alive...much less in office ?
Because your cohorts are mostly scumbags like those two.
Next time you post here maybe you could tell us how many civilians have been killed since 2002 or won't your REAL bosses at the CIA allow that ?
Feel a Wellstone in your shoe ?
The sky IS falling but nobody sees it...almost nobody :-)
If we take all of these suggestions (never gonna happen, I know!) we could go a long way toward fixing our standing in the world in a very short period of time, and completely remove the terrorists from the world by removing their problems with us!
Ah, yes, in your world all one need do is scale down the country's problems by replacing them with Utopia.
So we're spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined.....that right? China, a re emerging Russia included?
(Ya really gotta get outside and play with the guys and gals while on school break.)
Is there any way you can be cloned? We need, like 542 more of your kind, doing the public's business.
I saw a documentary about FDR on PBS the other night, and one of the Republican gasbags, from 1930-something, was spouting the very same talking points that the Republicans are STILL talking about: Big Government, BAD, No Government, GOOD.
One of FDR's associates was commenting on how the rich and powerful at the time, were willing to pat FDR on the head for what he had accomplished in his first 100 days, but they thought it was time that they be handed back the reins of government so they could run it like they always had.
That's what the public doesn't understand -- the wealthy have always run this country -- and continue to do so. People have been dazzled by some pretty fancy footwork to convince them otherwise, while the politician-thugs have their hands in their pockets, stealing them blind.
Please keep up the good fight, Mr. S. With Obama on our side now, I think we can really, finally, win for a change, this time.
Pretty decent.
One key historical point, always left out of the FDR populist insurrection.
There was one PLAN that the monied interests wouldn't swallow.
The Chicago Plan.
In light of the failure of the FED in avoiding/controlling the Depression, FDR asked for innovative financial/economic solutions.
The Chicago School economists drafted a plan.
The Chicago Plan.
Look it up.
The FED would be abolished.
The debt-money system of the US, the REAL cause for both the Deprtession and today's financial imbroglio, would be scrapped.
The US government would create the nation's money, paying into health, ediucation, social security, etc.
Taxes would be all but abolished.
The people would control their economic destiny.
The bankers stepped in.
Try that and we go for the jugular.
No recovery allowed.
FDR backed down.
Never heard of the Chicago Plan?
Now you know why.
A modern day proposal is here.
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/CreatingNewMoney.pdf
The following is from Sanders' site: "Sanders said the legislation could help reduce the high prices of gasoline and heating oil by a putting a windfall profit taxes on oil companies, eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas companies, suspending shipments to the strategic petroleum reserve, limiting speculation in oil futures and giving the U.S. Department of Justice the power to prosecute price gougers." [http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=297500]
- There is no mention of a federal gas tax holiday.
- Sen. Obama has spoken in favor of a windfall profits tax on oil companies as has Sen. Clinton.
Mr. Randyjet. I am not sure what Sen. Obama would "NOT" like about Sanders' proposal. The two appear to be of a mind. Perhaps you could support your claims with some proof and analysis rather than hitting your caps lock key for all your negatives.
I have been to Obama's web site rather often and have been amazed at how he changes his positions. He has now tossed his original health care plan and adopted Clinton's. I hope that he continues tossing his other proposals as well, but I think it shows a lack of preparation or serous thinking about what to do. I hope you can show me Obama's plan for bringing gas prices down NOW!
First let me point out to you the fact that Senator and President Clinton are worth FAR more money than are Senator and Mrs. Obama.
Second, let me point out to you the fact that a gas tax holiday has been tried before. In Illinois, when gas first reached the (then) unthinkable level of $2.00/gal. The state suspended all gas taxes down to county level, which was approximately 45 cents per gallon. The average driver saw between a 15 and 20 cent reduction in the cost of the gas, with the rest going to the oil companies. Now then, the federal gas tax is only 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline, which means that, in my case, this is only a maximum savings (assuming that the oil companies passed it all on to us) of $2.94/ fill up. That's the MAXIMUM. Therefore the gas tax holiday proposed by Senators Clinton and McCain will do nothing except cost the federal government millions of dollars in road repair money.
Third, Senator Obama HAS spoken about high gas prices and what he would do to fix that problem. His solutions, however, are all of the permanent variety, with the end result being that we are no longer using petroleum products!
It begins with Ike's final State of the Union address (quoted above) and proceeds to explain why we seem to be stuck in endless warfare. Lots of selfless American soldiers (and innocent foreign citizens) die, while a very few corporations make billions or trillions of dollars. Those corporations "own" your senators and congresspersons, lock, stock and barrel. Ours is the best government that money can buy.
When the military industrial complex took root, specifically since Vietnam, the interests of the American legislative branch began to focus on international (imperialists) concerns. It became important for the parties to build voting blocks to garner support for these imperialist ventures. This is when local interest began to take a back seat (unless a military base or arms company operating in one's congressional district).
This notion has expanded beyond military concerns and ventured into other international economic concerns such as oil and other "free trade" corporate interest. Now, if a congressman from Iowa has a hope of gaining support from the national wing of his party, he's just as likely needs to show support for business investment in China as he does regional interest for corn farmers.
You are awesome. Much respect - if respect from just one random Canadian is really worth all that much. ^_^