Ike Was Right

"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., 1953

During 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.

Comments

[chappelforpres]

Senator Sanders

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 .

[PierreLeClerke]

The corruption in this government is beyond words. Yes Ike was right. He never envisioned however the complete and all encompassing grasp the present consolidation of power the Weapons/oil barons have on our Nation and the entire planet held hostage by this grip of greed.

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?

[DeWayne]

The blatant propaganda that the US-Corp-Gov is spreading Democracy is an obscene lie, the Elite in control of the US-Gov are spreading Regimes that enslave weak nations around the world, this enslavement enforced by America with the largest Military in the entire world.

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.

[DeWayne]

I take strong isue with the statement that the 'Pentagon is only doing the bidding of our gov/Congress'. A Fascist-cabal has taken over most of our government, those evidencing mental dementia such as Richard Cheney have for decades in control of the Pentagon purged out personnel and generals that do not think in same degenerate terms as themselves. I believe the new term for this is the Lucifer Effect.

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.

[Gma11]

Mr. Saunders - Please keep "keeping tabs." We need to be reminded.

[PashaM]

It's all just a big joke anyway. The leader of the people we are fighting is currently hiding in a cave somwhere with his trusty AK-47,still $200 at most almost anywhere in the world with a crate of ammo. Folks I think we can hold Charleston without blowing half a trillion dollars a year, and if we cant then it's time to look for new leadership.

[WilliePilgrim]

Repeal the 17th amendment and make congress once again beholden to something other than the natural wishes for every constituent to recieve as much in the way of government largess as they can get away with. With both houses of congress vying for the vote at home, how could it be any other way? If the upper house were once again selected by governors and legislatures they would no longer be in the business of getting re-elected by accumulating giant campaign chests and the support of the little people who see government as little more than a pipeline of money to be effectively tapped by responsive representatives in BOTH houses of congress.

[bgregs]

How exactly would this help?? The old way caused there to be a seperation from the people and the govt that, while originally designed into the constitution, was not a good thing. Also you mention that the Senators and Representatives are fighting for the same constituency. Perhaps you are unaware that a Senator is elected from the WHOLE state, while a Representative is elected from a single district in the state?

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!

[CaseyBabes]

Saunders has written a lot of words unnecessarily. Sure, the military industrial complex via the Pentagon is a tremendous problem, ever since Ike. But the Congress has been a willing partner. Blame the military types all you want but just remember they are doing the bidding of bought off Congressman who'll do anything lfor reelection.

[jhamm1]

Indeed. In fact, members of the so-called "fighter mafia" (a U.S. Air Force think tank that spear headed the development of the F-16 and A-10 in effort to convince the collective brass that effective weaponry does not need to be unnecessarily expensive and who have further lamented F-22 as completely unnecessary waste of money whose performance has been highly overrated) have come to refer to the current conglomerate behind this corruption as the MICC (Military Industrial Congressional Complex).

[bgregs]

Yes, you are correct, there are many times in recent memory when Congress has insisted that the military spend taxpayer dollars for some pie-in-the-sky dream with no chance of ever working. However, there have been just as many times where the brass were trying to get something done which was utterly useless, as well!

[Doug Tico]

Well Bernie. First off. Thanks for what you tried to do for Costa Rica . You're one of the VERY few good folks in DC ( Devils Cave)

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 :-)

[bgregs]

We DON'T need a strong military in times of terrorism! We need a strong INTELLIGENCE community, and a strong POLICE FORCE!!!! Fighting terrorism is no different than fighting crime, they need the same resources! Furthermore, we are currently spending more on our military than the rest of the WORLD COMBINED!!!!!! WHY? If we were to GUT our military spending down to no more than twice what the next 2 military's spend combined, then we could afford to pay down our TEN TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT while at the same time providing health care for EVERYONE in the country, AND fix our infrastructure, all out of the same tax base that we have now. If we were to couple this with a reasonable tax code, then we could also afford to create a better education system, provide college or trade school for everyone that wants it, and create a national service requirement that everyone serve 2-4 years in some capacity helping the US and the rest of the world.

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!

[CaseyBabes]

Lemme see......we scale down the military forces and its resources, then we build up the police forces and their resources. Cool. Uh, but haven't you created a second military? And where and how do you improve the Intel community?
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.)

[bgregs]

Yes, we are spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined, including Russia and China. As regards creating a police force, no, that's not the same thing as a military force. Military is created and trained to kill first, and never ask questions. Police, by contrast are a combination of presence, which reduces crime rates, and investigation, which tracks down crimes already committed. Further, a smaller number of police are needed to reduce crime rates than military. Look at New Orleans after Katrina. How many thousands of national guard troops were needed, compared to how many police would have been required.

[likeicare]

Mr. S. --

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.

[joebhed]

Saw that show.
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

[SamEllison]

Senator what do think about the Carlyle Group buying Booz Allen?

[randyjet]

I hope that all of you will go to Sen.Sanders web site and look at his program to bring gas prices down. If you are an Obama supporter, you will NOT like it. It is very similar to Clinton's plan. He is actually for the ordinary person, unlike Obama who likes high gas prices since he and his supporters are well off enough to noit worry too much about it. I heard NOTHING from Obama about high gas prices in his speech tonight. Unless he starts doing something about that, he will NOT get my vote.

[BMBTHC]

Dear Mr. Randyjet, I saw no mention in Sen. Sanders' proposal suggesting a federal gas tax holiday, which is the defining characteristic of Sen. Clinton's proposal.
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.

[randyjet]

The fact is that Obama has NO program at all for immediate relief from high gas prices. In the original post that I got from Sanders he mentioned a gas tax holiday. The fact is that in his proposed legislation he wants to give the President execptional power to stop price gouging and take OTHER measures to keep the price down, that could also be a tax holiday. Go to his 5/07/08 press release. Also Sanders want to punish speculators and regulate them as well. Obama has said nothing on that. He also wants to dump oil from the SPR onto the market which Obama has said nothing about. In short Sanders has a real program. I woiuld think that a major candidate for President would think that high gas prices are a major problem and propose means of fighting it. As I said, Obama is AWOL on this rather important issue.
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!

[bgregs]

randyjet,

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!

[rwt1138]

If your standard for voting is going to be low gas prices, burn your voter registration card. Gas prices are never going down again. In fact, expect them to skyrocket; it is not inconceivable that they will hit 12 to 15 dollars a gallon in the next couple of years. In fact, any additional instability in the middle east (say, some country decides to bomb another oil producing country for exercising rights it has under a treaty with it) could double that. Remember gas lines?

McCain is itching for war with Iran, if you think he's going to lower gas prices you are setting yourself up for a serious disappointment.

The fact of the matter is we needed to be thinking about this stuff 15 years ago and taking steps to reduce our demand for oil, but it was cheap and easy and voters who cared only about low gas prices ensured that nobody even remotely interested in fixing the problems before they occurred ever got elected. Another fact of the matter is that Americans have been paying too little for gas for a long time, we have the cheapest gas prices in the world, and it was always a false economy; that is, we weren't paying what we needed for gas, we subsidized low prices by borrowing against the future when oil was less plentiful and demand was higher--aka today.

Chickens, commence roosting

[Stillman]

I strongly urge everyone to watch the superb documentary "Why We Fight." Here's the link to its IMDB entry: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/

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.

[saltpeter]

An additional victim of the military industrial complex is the death of the concept of the "Republic", as in the inability of local political and economic interests to hold as much sway over the votes and the policies supported by their federal representatives. What the military industrial complex did was to internationalize our policies. Once upon a time diverse individuals as Strom Thurmond and Adam Clayton Powell could co-exist in the same party. This was because, primarily, local business interest in South Carolina and Harlem, respectively, determined who would be the candidate. This was an era when litmus tests were not given to each candidate by the party-at-large to see if candidates supported certain policies.

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.

[saltpeter]

So here's my question to you, Senator Sanders, what is in the water in Vermont that makes great politicians such as yourself able to stick to your principles in the face of these imperialist-backed pressures that I'm sure even your party places upon you and your colleagues? What can a politician do to protect the interest of his/her constituency while fighting off the overwhelming threat posed by these international interests; interests whose only concern is the expansion of wealth off of the continued misery of others?

[sociocanuck]

Dear Sir,

You are awesome. Much respect - if respect from just one random Canadian is really worth all that much. ^_^