Co-authored by John Amick
Recent commentators have rightly called out Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's obvious hypocrisy on cuts to Pentagon spending. This strikes us as a good time to step back and take a broader look at Pentagon spending, and deconstruct the spin coming from the Washington elites.
Historically, the United States has made cuts to the Pentagon budget once its major wars come to an end. It happened after the Korean War, Vietnam and the Cold War. And after a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now is the time to seriously consider significant cuts to a bloated, wasteful Pentagon spending machine. Yet those within the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex have been working hard to convince the American public that their perceived right to profit off of Pentagon spending is sacrosanct.
To fight the war profiteers, Brave New Foundation's War Costs campaign is producing several investigative films that will expose the financial and human costs of an ongoing war mentality in the U.S. Currently, we are pleased to release a series of short videos that examine key players in the lobbying effort to keep Pentagon spending high. Our first two videos include Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
The rhetoric about cuts to the Pentagon's budget -- which is five times larger than the next biggest defense spender, China, and about $100 billion more than then next 10 nations combined -- has been excessive and hardly anything but fear mongering. Panetta, defense industry darling Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and others call it "doomsday," "catastrophic," a hollowing of the force, akin to a "brigade without bullets." Mitt Romney said these level of cuts "is like putting a gun to our head."
What about fiscal responsibility, Mr. Romney? What about all the waste, like marching bands or NASCAR sponsorships or the $50 billion in cancelled weapons programs -- caused by industry business practices -- that contractors get to keep? The Romney-Ryan proposed budget adds more money to an already-massive Pentagon reserve. Worries of more recessionary pressure on the American economy are mounting -- Pew now reports one in five Americans go without enough food in a time of record food stamp enrollment. Yet, the Romney ticket pledged this week to "retroactively" reverse any sequestration cuts to the Pentagon -- and push for the House budget that slashed funding for social programs, like food stamps -- all in an effort to protect profits for their war-profiteering friends.
And is sequestration a doomsday mechanism, as Panetta has claimed? Hardly.
In reality, sequestration cuts -- $55 billion reduction in defense spending in FY 2013 -- would return defense spending to 2006 levels, by all measures a healthy time for the Pentagon budget. This reduction in spending would mean the U.S. would still outspend the next ten top defense-spending nations combined by $45 billion.
Now is the time to urge your member of Congress, your friends, family and neighbors to call for substantial cuts to the Pentagon budget. The profiteering and waste must stop. Cuts have widespread support, regardless of party politics. It's our money, and we have the power to demand accountability in how it's used. These videos are the first in a series to explore these hysterical statements made by officials that want to keep the status quo. It's time to expose the unnecessary items the Pentagon acquires that hardly make us safer or go to service members. It's wasteful, it's harmful, and we must speak up.
Let us know what you want to see War Costs examine in our effort to stop out-of-control war spending. Go to WarCosts.com or visit us on Facebook for more.
Follow Robert Greenwald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robertgreenwald
Benjamin Zycher: Unfounded Hand-Wringing Over Military Spending Cuts
Automatic budget cuts seen driving up long-term weapons costs
Panetta hints at military budget cuts during Washington state visit
The budget for military bands include weapons and uniforms that are used during combat deployments. Division bands deploy with their units, carry and fire guns.
Feel free so knock the single purpose golf courses which are the exclusive use for military personnel and certain government types, but military bands do a lot more than march around on parade decks for private military functions.
A savvy politician could run on a pro defense platform, then direct huge funding to the Corps of Engineers under the premise of providing improved homeland defenses by repairing and/or upgrading dual purpose infrastructure systems like roads, bridges, waterways, utilities and communication systems.
Eisenhower pulled off the biggest and most successful peacetime boondoggle by directing the creation the US interstate highway system. It was sold as a means of improving rapid troop and material movement, but its primary benefit for decades has been improved commerce and civilian travel.
Its a shame that the anti-socialist GOP thinks that the US military which is the largest socialist economy in the world is a good thing, and that the left thinks that everyone that wears a government uniform is a baby killer.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/sources-flight-suit-could-be-cause-of-oxygen-loss-in-f-22-flights/
[quote]
Investigators are focusing on part of the suit, called the "Combat Edge," which hampers breathing and causes oxygen loss when combined with a physiological condition that collapses air sacs in the lungs, according to details of the report that were shared with Security Clearance.
{snip}
Combat Edge is a vest-like garment that expands and contracts on a pilot's torso to fight the effects of severe G-forces experienced while flying the F-22. The problem being looked at is that the garment may restrict the pilots' breathing beyond what is intended, according to sources familiar with the report.
[/quote]
I just do not get the point of this? If the spending is really a problem, then it is a problem everywhere. All subsidies should be cut and all waste should be addressed. Not just waste that is not helping you out. All of it.
But that is never brought up. People who make films are against the waste that goes the military, but they love all of the waste that comes their way (film making is heavily subsidized industry). People who work in education want less money for corporations, but more money for them. They are not doing anything to make their area more deserving of funding. they just want it. What do? Cut military spending and dump money into heavy/civil construction? Why because you operate heavy equipment?
It is all about greed and selfishness.
The military is evil. all people associated with it area evil. It makes no sense to only attack military spending while ignoring everything else. It also does not make sense to ignore the negative aspects of cutting spending. Everywhere.
We could put some of that defense budget into alternative energy and create lots of jobs. But the GOP wants to DRILL and FRACK and MINE COAL.