The Legacy of Bush II

Curb your enthusiasm. Even if your favored candidate did well on Super Tuesday, ask yourself if he or she will seriously challenge the bloated military budget that President Bush has proposed for 2009. If not, military spending will rise to a level exceeding any other year since the end of World War II, and there will be precious little left over to improve education and medical research, fight poverty, protect the environment or do anything else a decent person might care about. You cannot spend well over $700 billion on "national security," running what the White House predicts will be more than $400 billion in annual deficits for the next two years, and yet find the money to improve the quality of life on the home front.

The conventional wisdom espoused by the mass media is that Bush's budget is a lame-duck DOA contrivance, but that assumption is wrong. The 9/11 attacks have been shamefully exploited by the military-industrial complex with bipartisan support to ramp up military expenditures beyond Cold War levels. This irrational spending spree, which accounts for more than half of all federal discretionary spending, is not likely to end with Bush's departure. Which one of the likely winners from either party would lead the battle to cut the military budget, and where would the winner find support in Congress? Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have treated the military budget as sacrosanct with their Senate votes and their campaign rhetoric. Clinton is particularly clear on the record as favoring spending more, not less, on the military.

John McCain, who previously distinguished himself as a deficit hawk and was almost in a class by himself in taking on the rapacious defense contractors, has thrown in the towel with his inane support for staying in Iraq till "victory," even if it should take a century. It is simply illogical to call for fiscal restraint while committing to an open-ended war in Iraq that has already cost upward of $700 billion. Bush's request for $515.4 billion for the Defense Department doesn't even include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which accounted for nearly $200 billion over the last budget year and which will cost at least $140 billion in 2009. Add to those numbers $17.1 billion for the Department of Energy's weapons program and over $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security and other national security initiatives spread throughout the federal government, and you'll see that my $700-billion figure underestimates the hemorrhaging.

McCain knows, and has frequently stated as a Senate watchdog, that much of the military spending is wastefully superfluous for combating terrorists who lack any but the most rudimentary weapons. Bush totally betrayed his campaign 2000 promise to reshape the post-Cold War U.S. military when he seized upon the 9/11 attack as an opportunity to reverse the "peace dividend" that his father had begun to return to taxpayers. Instead, Bush II ushered in the most profligate underwriting of weapons systems that are grotesquely irrelevant for combating terrorism.

The U.S. already spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military, without a sophisticated enemy in sight. The Bush budget cuts not a single weapons system, including the most expensive ones, those designed to combat a Soviet military that no longer exists. Those sophisticated weapons have nothing to do with combating terrorism and everything to do with jobs and profits that motivate both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It is not known whether Osama bin Laden even possesses a rowboat in his naval arsenal, but that won't stop Joe Lieberman from pushing, as is his habit, for an increase in the defense budget to double the funding for the $3.4-billion submarines built in his home state of Connecticut. Nor does the collapse of the old Soviet Union--and with it the need for enormously expensive stealth aircraft to evade radar systems the Soviets never built--dissuade congressional supporters of those planes from pushing for more, not less, than Bush is requesting. Nor does wasting an additional $8.9 billion on ICBM missile defense have anything to do with stopping terrorists from smuggling a suitcase nuke into this country.

The centerpiece of the Bush legacy is a "war on terror" based on a vast disconnect between military expenditures and actual national security requirements that the presidential candidates all fully understand. The question is whether the voters and media will force them to face that contradiction or whether we're in for more of the same--no matter how much the candidates go on about change.

Read more Super Tuesday coverage on HuffPost

Comments

[Herrington]

Well sadly, the defense industry is one of only three industries we have left. Too bad it is entirely putting the cart before the horse. In order to warrant defense, you have to have something to defend.

The Reaganites have killed the tax base that it would take to support their militaristic fantasies. The tax break economic boom did not materialize, for thirty years now. And, the truth is that it couldn't. Tax cuts have never stimulated the economy, ever.

Despite the compelling intuitive sensibility of it, tax breaks do no stimulate, but are entirely neutral for the economy. This will apply to tax break for the middle income public as well as the rich. Gasp!

This is true because government is just another consumer. What comes in goes out.

So from a middle class American"s viewpoint, taxation is more a matter of what their money is spent on than it is what it does to the overall economy.

Tax cuts for the wealthy, while they seemingly should increase investment, do not do so if there is no demand for investment. In a declining economy, the demand for investment declines along with the demand for goods and services.

The tax breaks to the wealthy of the Reagan and Bush administrations have increasingly, as demand for investment decreased, been funneled offshore, into passive investments like the stock market and into destructive mergers and acquisitions. The only active investments have been in the creative dead end of real estate and the highly likely dead end of weapons.

We are defending, in the most absurdly extravagant way, a horse that is being killed by the defending of it.

For solutions, look to increasing the minimum wage to $25, imposing tariffs to recover industries and developing domestic energy and alternatives. We have a real enemy and it is not Bin Laden, it is a society that condones the worship of wealth.

[WorkingClass]

Forget it Mr. Scheer. If the Democrats cared about the issues they would not be choosing between Obama and Clinton.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Things I believe:

I believe a sound ENERGY policy is more vital to our national security than WEAPONS SYSTEMS.

I believe a responsible BUDGET is more vital to our national security than burdening our grandkids with INSURMOUNTABLE DEBT.

I believe that teaching our children SCIENCE is more vital to our national security than teaching them RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.

I believe that JUSTICE is more vital to our national security than STRENGTH.

I believe that FAIRNESS in our tax code is more vital to our national security than TAX RATES.

I believe that HEALTH CARE is more vital to our national security than the INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

I believe that ACCOUNTABILITY is more vital to our national security than a UNITARY EXECUTIVE.

I believe that the United States CONSTITUTION is more vital to our national security than SIGNING STATEMENTS.

These things I do believe.

[Bluedanube]

The U.S. will collapse under it's own weight of corruption and hypocrisy. The rest of the world will pick over the bloated carcass. Meanwhile conservative Americans will try and rally the general public for one more mindless cheer of "We're Number One!"

[randyw]

Well said now it needs to be repeated endlessly by EVERYONE till the MSM finally picks up on this message! Yeah right !

[Bad actor]

Mr. Scheer: I read your column in the SF Chronicle and consistently agree with you. I have mentioned in the Huffpost that I saw an interview of B. Bhutto in which she said on the tape that Osama Bin Laden was murdered in 2002 and even named the killer who was in custody and then released. McCain and Bush pretend that the hunt is still on. In a future column or blog, will you please discuss this.

[ld]

You're maybe the sanest, smartest guy around. Why do I think no one listens anyhow?

[outnow]

"What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if you can't use it?"

-Madeleine Albright taunting Colin Powell in the early years of the Clinton Administration.

The intersection of America's international economic and military policies is illustrated by Chalmers Johnson's observation that:

"Bill Clinton was actually a much more effective imperialist than George W. Bush. During the Clinton administration, the United States employed an indirect approach in imposing its will on other nations. The government of George W. Bush, by contrast, dropped all legitimizing principles and adopted the view that might makes right. History tells us that an expansive nation must at least attempt to disguise what it is doing if it wants to consolidate its gains...."

Bill Clinton increased the commitment to NATO, the networks of military bases, entered conflicts in Columbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, while U.S. manufacturers continued producing nearly half of all arms sales to the world. Harvard historian Stanley Hoffman pointed out the both Bush, Jr. and Al Gore were "unilateralists" in the 2000 election. This militarism is in support of the benefits of "globalization."

It appears that both Hillary and Obama are on the bandwagon.

[vipersdad]

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives will bemoan what they characterize "wasteful" spending on programs like public education, public health, research on alternative fuels, etc..., but DUMP money (no questions asked) on so-called "defense" spending. With a potential Democratic White House and congress, my only hope is that there is increased oversight - I am hoping that we get some audits that uncover the MASSIVE waste that we all know is happening under the covers. Only then will the public sentiment change and people will seriously start discussing trimming the defense budget.

[rwe2late]

In order to achieve the "ultimate" in modern military security, there must be "full spectrum" dominance. Therein lies the basis of the military-corporate alliance.
Information, communications, economies, resources, the internet, dissenters, and even potential dissenters, all must be controlled. Both military and corporate institutions are undemocratic to their core. They both believe in and practice, secrecy, information control, autocratic power, and coercion. Political leaders, affiliated with corporate and military institutions and ideology, all too readily embrace undemocratic full spectrum means to strengthen their own political dominance, all in the name of "security".

And so, we are told, only the military professionals can make us secure. They will seek out and destroy all the enemies they can find or imagine, anywhere in the world. Of course, in order to do this, they insist they must gain control over all the resources any enemy may potentially use. And if insurgencies arise in opposition to our invasions and occupations, or our support of cooperative dictators, then we must destroy those insurgent "enemies" also...

That is the vision, that is the future sought by the robber barons, arms merchants, dictators, and militarists.

Thus, we and others are told to sacrifice economic security, political security, our rights, our ethics, our environment, our health, life and limb, all to pursue the security promised with a world-wide police state run by Homeland Security, Blackwater, EXXON, Wal-Mart, and McDonald"s.

[rwe2late]

In the movie Cool Hand Luke, the warden mistakenly identifies the problem a tortured prisoner has with the prison as basically" a failure to communicate".
Similarly, both HRC and Obama mistakenly claim what ails the US is basically a "failure of leadership".
Sadly, neither a "smarter" warden, nor a warden who promises better relations with the guards can be counted on to bring about needed change.
Both HRC and Obama blithely ignore the military corporate institutional powers that currently drive our economy, our policies, and our politics regardless of political leadership. Oh sure, they both say they will more cleverly manipulate those powers, thanks to learned or innate wisdom. But most interestingly, they do not propose to reduce funding for military programs! Instead, both promise to INCREASE funding!
Obama"s website pledges to "EXPAND" the military.

Obama at the recent debate:
"American interests are going to be protected"...

and
"I mean, the terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real -- and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale."

-----
If the"interests" to be protected are the currently accepted ones, neither Obama nor HRC will bring about any noticable change.
We currently spend a trillion dollars yearly on US militarism, way more than the rest of the world combined, and much more than the official "defense" budget. That spending has deformed our economy AND our politics, and has produced similar deformities in other nations.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA24Ak04.html

[Sundialsvc4]

The most significant opponent to this mess was the most significant military officer of his time -- which was 47 years ago last month. In January of 1961, the highest-ranking General in the United States Army (who had since become President and thus Commander-in-Chief) delivered a stinging rebuke to the "military industrial complex" even as he attached that historic name to them.

It is difficult to see this in the standard media, or even in much Internet-based media, because "money talks" in every way. But there is one thing that will not escape notice: "this money does not actually exist."

Our nation has quite-literally been sold into the bondage of the kings of the east and the kings of the west, and all for a mess o' pottage.

The entire world community is faced with the collective consequences of this infatuation with armaments... and with the neglect of basic humanity. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that all of the people on this planet will follow our lead into the perdition that unrestrained greed for money and power has brought to our (non-elected) leaders.

"Tonto! We're surrounded by injuns!"

"Whaddaya mean 'we,' paleface?"

[Neaguy]

The biggest disappointment is Obama. That guy is increasing the military, takes advice from Zbig Brzezinski and is endorsed by 13 members of the conservative Council of Foreign Relations. Where's the change, Mr. Audacious?

When will the college kids actually start informing themselves about this guy and demanding that he actually be for change?

[ellasfan]

Thank you, Mr. Scheer, for pointing out the enormous "elephant in the living room". Obama did in fact point out the trillions of dollars being spent in Iraq during the L.A. debate with Clinton, but his statement was buried in the MSM's commentary. If a family were spending the vast majority of their income on weapons (remember the next-door-neighbor in "American Beauty"?), while going into massive debt and unable to care for the immediate needs of the family members, what would their future look like? It's an addiction, and when the parents are addicts, the kids suffer horribly.

[Cathexis]

Baby steps, Mr Scheer. Baby steps.

[AdlaiStevenson]

Finally,someone is talking about the elephant in the room. Thank you, Robert Scheer! The most salient fact in your commentary is that our country spends more on its military than all the other countries in the world combined! See this link for what other countries spend: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

Now, Mr. Scheer, can you keep writing about this issue and help frame a way for the Democratic candidates to talk critically and safely about this in the election? It should be a major focus, since it's draining our budget more than any other area of spending. Military spending uses more than half of all discretionary money in the federal budget. Go with it!

[cadawa]

No populist, humanist candidate survived the deluge of corporate money. This election is non event.
It's up to Americans to assume the leadership role and make it so uncomfortable for whoever occupies the Oval office and pretends to represent us in congress must carry out our mandate.

[desmirl]

As long as lying politicians understand the use of FEAR against a population of sheeples, any honest politician or pundit who tells the sheeples that they are spending way more than they can afford on war and the tools of war will be considered a traitor. Too bad for America. It might have once been a good idea.

[way2muchsense]

I kinda wondered what $515 billion buys. There has GOT to be massive waste, fraud, and abuse through and through the defense budget. The problem isn't recalcitrant politicans; it's where to begin cutting.

[RamonBackwards]

Thanks for pointing out how Ron Paul has been explaining this to the country for years now, and was one of ONLY TWO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN EITHER PARTY who expressed a desire to significantly reduce military spending.

Thanks also for then pointing out how both of these candidates were mocked by all (entirely useless) MSM outlets, and how the American people either never heard the message, never heard the message framed in a context that allowed them to consider it as a viable possibility, or simply decided that they didn't want to head in that direction.

WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET. WE are the government, and WE are responsible for ALL of our government's actions. WE deserve what we'll get for Iraq.

And we will eventually get it, which will then cause us to do MORE of the things that caused the problem in the first place.

Thanks.

[RickO]

The legacy of Bush43 is that he has nearly handed victory to the country's enemies by amplifying the fear of terrorism (terrorism's primary goal, hence its name), scuttling our economy in the name of national security and further enriching the already bloated top tier while he drapes his efforts in the foul robes of religion to give his plutocracy the heavenly seal of approval.

While the small-fry terrorist groups like Al Qaeda do the dirty work, our large competitors like China, Russia and India are watching from the sidelines, lending us money and strengthening their positions of advantage until it's the right time to have their way.

The American middle class is a metaphor for the country itself. All the trappings of wealth and prosperity but deep in debt and heavily mortgaged with all the protective armor of a soap bubble. And far too anesthetized to even notice, care or to vote for real change.

We are indeed circling the drain.

[ScooterLiddy]

You said it man. We are a totally insane nation who are going the way of the Soviet Union. Spend spend spend on military nonsense until we bankrupt ourselves into oblivion.

[nancytheragingliberal]

The only "war on terror" that I see is the terror that exists in every square inch of the White House. They conjured up their war, which they had to have that minute, based on lies. "W" has left the next president a mess, the size of his deranged "mind" and let me tell you, that is pretty darn large. The next President will have to figure out how to get us out of W's mess. Why, #41 and his friends have been bailing Dear Leader, The decider, out of all of his errors, over the course of his miserable 60 years on earth. W. has nothing to show for his life, except a vast wasteland of death and destruction. It pains me to know that 4,000 of our young soldiers are dead, 40 thousand maimed, one million poor Iraqui people dead, millions more maimed, and four million Innocent Iraqui citizens fleeing their country. Yes, a human catastrophe presented to the world by the abomination called, "Team Bush".

[adzeman]

McCain and Clinton are industrial complex cogs. If anything expect more pork for the services. Obama, I'm not so sure. But it looks bad for the taxpayer and the the young service people dying in that shithole.

[RS]

Sadly Robert, I don't forsee the corporate controlled mainstream media calling for any cutting of the Pentagon's EXTREMELY BLOATED budget anytime in the near future. Here are two principal reasons why: First, remember who owns NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC: GENERAL ELECTRIC. Second, defense contractors--especially GE, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Honeywell happen to be MAJOR ADVERTISERS on most of the corporate owned media outlets. Naturally, these media outlets will NEVER RUN ANY NEWS WHATSOEVER that exposes the IMMENSE WASTE in the Pentagon's budget and the POSITIVELY OBSCENE PROFITS that these defense contractors reap.