Congressman Barney Frank yesterday called a meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss his proposal to cut 25% from the military budget. He specifically invited grassroots activists and organizations interested in a less expensive, saner, less warlike military budget to come meet with him, to get the ball rolling towards reform.
Frank pushed the need for organizations and coalitions interested in domestic social needs to join the military budget cuts fight--otherwise, he said, they would not have the money for their own needed projects. He also handed out his excellent Nation essay (link below).
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/frank
Congressman Frank was joined by about 75 activists, and 4 of his colleagues: Rep. Barbara Lee, new Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus; Rep. Lynn Woolsey, current Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus; Rep. Dennis Kucinich; and Rep. Keith Ellison. All 5 spoke briefly, and pointed out how important this effort was, both to provide needed funding for health care and alternative energy initiatives, and to create a safer world.
Military reform experts Larry Korb and Gordon Adams also spoke, making a case for a military budget based not on political power or DOD wish lists, but based on strategy and real defense needs.
Congressman Frank then engaged in an extensive Q&A session with the audience, and made it clear that he saw this meeting as the first of many. He stressed that this will be a long fight, a drawn-out process, and that winning more funding for projects like housing the homeless might well require a two-step, year-long process: step one, putting a maximum cap on this year's military budget, forcing the DOD to make adjustments; and step two, then pushing to win more funding for domestic needs in next year's budget. He understood that no one was particularly overjoyed with this, but said that might be the only choice...
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Time to "Hold the Line"
Gordon Adams, the former White House staffer for national security budgeting in the Clinton Administration, makes the case that we should "hold the line" on military spending, that after the unrestrained military spending of the Bush/Cheney years, it's time for a pause...
Here's are two key paragraphs from his piece (emphasis added):
"This phony 'cut' debate conceals an underlying reality: there has basically been no discipline in defense budgeting for the last eight years. In FY2001, the defense appropriation was $315 billion, including supplemental funding. In FY 2009, including the supplementals, defense will actually receive nearly $650 billion, or more than twice as much as it did eight budgets ago.
When DOD's resources are fully counted, they reflect historically unprecedented growth. Going back to World War II, our annual defense spending now dwarfs any previous period in history. It is more than the defense spending of every other country in the world combined. It has provided new generations of aircraft, ships, missiles, military vehicles, led to significant growth in the projected costs of current and future weapons programs, providing an almost unprecedented fiscal boon to the manufacturers of military equipment."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gordon-adams/hold-the-line-on-defense_b_166507.html
Here's are two key paragraphs from his piece (emphasis added):
"This phony 'cut' debate conceals an underlying reality: there has basically been no discipline in defense budgeting for the last eight years. In FY2001, the defense appropriation was $315 billion, including supplemental funding. In FY 2009, including the supplementals, defense will actually receive nearly $650 billion, or more than twice as much as it did eight budgets ago.
When DOD's resources are fully counted, they reflect historically unprecedented growth. Going back to World War II, our annual defense spending now dwarfs any previous period in history. It is more than the defense spending of every other country in the world combined. It has provided new generations of aircraft, ships, missiles, military vehicles, led to significant growth in the projected costs of current and future weapons programs, providing an almost unprecedented fiscal boon to the manufacturers of military equipment."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gordon-adams/hold-the-line-on-defense_b_166507.html
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Barney Frank calls the question
Barney Frank has a good essay in the newest Nation magazine, making the excellent point that any pundit or editorial board or Blue Dog in Congress who says we have to cut the deficit for our children should be required to consider the military budget as well as the domestic budget.
We spend as much money as the rest of the world. We spend half of our discretionary budget on the military. And the military budget has basically doubled during the Bush years. So shouldn't we look there first for the money we need for health care, alternative energy & jobs?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/frank
We spend as much money as the rest of the world. We spend half of our discretionary budget on the military. And the military budget has basically doubled during the Bush years. So shouldn't we look there first for the money we need for health care, alternative energy & jobs?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/frank
Friday, February 13, 2009
AEI Tries to Sell Some F22 & F35 Pork in Post
In last Sunday's Washington Post (Outlook, 2/8/09), two AEI authors tried to make the case for military spending as "stimulus". Given that military spending zoomed upwards during the Bush/Cheney years, while the economy struggled mightily (even before the current huge downturn), this does not seem likely.
In fact, it does not only seem causative, it's not even correlative.
Plus, as has been pointed out frequently, mass transit construction, health care, education, and weatherization projects all produce many, many more jobs than military spending.
The gist of the article is that the new President should agree to continue to produce another $20 to $25 billion in F22 Raptors, as a "stimulus" project. Given that there is actually no strategic reason to have more F22s, since the Soviet Union has now been gone for almost 2 decades, I don't blame them for trying to sneak the planes in through the stimulus door.
But here's the kicker--their F22 funding is partly just a "loss leader" to get to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a hugely expensive (hundreds of billions of dollars, minimum), over-budget, repeatedly-delayed fighter plane that one of George W. Bush's DOD brass (a former Lockheed top dog) kept pushing forward.
The authors sneak this paragraph into the article: "Nor are defense programs a lifetime commitment...Continuing production of the F-18 and F-22 Raptor fighter jets for two or three years would, in essence, provide a bridge for the airplane industry until the F-35 Lightning is ready for full-scale production..."
So we can't afford to rebuild public schools, but we should keep producing unneeded F-22 Raptors until we are ready for full-scale production of the unneeded F-35? Not.
In fact, it does not only seem causative, it's not even correlative.
Plus, as has been pointed out frequently, mass transit construction, health care, education, and weatherization projects all produce many, many more jobs than military spending.
The gist of the article is that the new President should agree to continue to produce another $20 to $25 billion in F22 Raptors, as a "stimulus" project. Given that there is actually no strategic reason to have more F22s, since the Soviet Union has now been gone for almost 2 decades, I don't blame them for trying to sneak the planes in through the stimulus door.
But here's the kicker--their F22 funding is partly just a "loss leader" to get to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a hugely expensive (hundreds of billions of dollars, minimum), over-budget, repeatedly-delayed fighter plane that one of George W. Bush's DOD brass (a former Lockheed top dog) kept pushing forward.
The authors sneak this paragraph into the article: "Nor are defense programs a lifetime commitment...Continuing production of the F-18 and F-22 Raptor fighter jets for two or three years would, in essence, provide a bridge for the airplane industry until the F-35 Lightning is ready for full-scale production..."
So we can't afford to rebuild public schools, but we should keep producing unneeded F-22 Raptors until we are ready for full-scale production of the unneeded F-35? Not.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Engelhardt Excellent on Afghanistan
Tom Engelhardt, whose posts are almost always worth reading, does it again with an excellent post on the danger to America posed by continuing to try to fight in Afghanistan.
His basic point is that just because the Soviet Union lost the Cold War, that doesn't mean the U.S. won--it could mean that the U.S. lost more slowly.
Our bloated military budget is a clear symptom that the Cold War disease still infects us.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/125564/?page=1
His basic point is that just because the Soviet Union lost the Cold War, that doesn't mean the U.S. won--it could mean that the U.S. lost more slowly.
Our bloated military budget is a clear symptom that the Cold War disease still infects us.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/125564/?page=1
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Go Barney!
Barney Frank states the obvious, but on the Sunday talk shows, it's earth-shattering!
He rides over both his conservative opponents and George the host--as you must do on these shows!--to make his points that spending on domestic needs does stimulate the economy, while spending on the military is far too often wasteful, with no oversight.
In particular, he corrects a sad attempt to call the stimulative package the most expensive spending program ever, by pointing out that the Iraq War will earn that crown, something conservatives seem blissfully disinterested in...
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39471
He rides over both his conservative opponents and George the host--as you must do on these shows!--to make his points that spending on domestic needs does stimulate the economy, while spending on the military is far too often wasteful, with no oversight.
In particular, he corrects a sad attempt to call the stimulative package the most expensive spending program ever, by pointing out that the Iraq War will earn that crown, something conservatives seem blissfully disinterested in...
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39471
GoBama! Cut Those Nukes!
President Obama wants to work out a new deal with the Russians, to slash each nation's nuclear arsenal by 80%! Thank you, Mr. President...
I did debate prep for Dennis Kucinich, which meant I got to see dozens of the primary debates, and I had noticed that Barack Obama seemed serious about rolling back our nuclear stockpiles.
We should do what we can to help...it's not like chances like this come around every week...every year...every decade...every generation...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5654836.ece
I did debate prep for Dennis Kucinich, which meant I got to see dozens of the primary debates, and I had noticed that Barack Obama seemed serious about rolling back our nuclear stockpiles.
We should do what we can to help...it's not like chances like this come around every week...every year...every decade...every generation...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5654836.ece
David Swanson nails it--as usual!
David Swanson is a good friend of mine, and his excellent piece for the American Chronicle hits the nail on the head regarding the need to cut the military budget in a serious way. Here's the link: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/90041
David not only raises the cuts that we need in the usual wasteful weapons programs like the Joint Strike Fighter, the Osprey, the Navy destroyer, the Future Combat System, etc., he points out that the military budget should be cut in areas that are often soft-pedaled, even by reformers, such as our nearly one thousand overseas bases, our torture and spying systems, missile defense, the militarization of space, the new Northern Command and Africom, and, of course, the occupation of Iraq and the growing quagmire in Afghanistan.
I particularly enjoyed this paragraph: "Well, for fiscal year 2009, we're looking at $653 billion for the Pentagon, plus $162 billion in supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan. A quarter of $815 billion is $203.75 billion. Anyone who couldn't figure out where to cut $203.75 billion from the military and wars is probably a danger to themselves and others."
David not only raises the cuts that we need in the usual wasteful weapons programs like the Joint Strike Fighter, the Osprey, the Navy destroyer, the Future Combat System, etc., he points out that the military budget should be cut in areas that are often soft-pedaled, even by reformers, such as our nearly one thousand overseas bases, our torture and spying systems, missile defense, the militarization of space, the new Northern Command and Africom, and, of course, the occupation of Iraq and the growing quagmire in Afghanistan.
I particularly enjoyed this paragraph: "Well, for fiscal year 2009, we're looking at $653 billion for the Pentagon, plus $162 billion in supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan. A quarter of $815 billion is $203.75 billion. Anyone who couldn't figure out where to cut $203.75 billion from the military and wars is probably a danger to themselves and others."
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Simply Unsustainable
Chalmers Johnson once again speaks Truth to Empire, calling the question on our bloated and provocative military budget, which actually makes us less safe. He is particularly hard on the F22 & the F35 fighter planes--and justifiably so--and on our extensive array of overseas bases (seen by the rest of the world as imperial outposts).
Johnson doesn't just critique the worst proposed weapons programs, however--he sets out the complicated strategies that the Department of Defense uses to make its spending politically untouchable, even when the programs are recognized as failures.
To quote a paragraph from him, near the beginning of his article: "Given our economic crisis, the estimated trillion dollars we spend each year on the military and its weaponry is simply unsustainable. Even if present fiscal constraints no longer existed, we would still have misspent too much of our tax revenues on too few, overly expensive, overly complex weapons systems that leave us ill-prepared to defend the country in a real military emergency. We face a double crisis at the Pentagon: we can no longer afford the pretense of being the Earth's sole superpower, and we cannot afford to perpetuate a system in which the military-industrial complex makes its fortune off inferior, poorly designed weapons."
Johnson has been one of the most perceptive critics of our military overreach for at least the last decade, going back to his brilliant book Blowback. His analyses are always worth reading--my thanks to Don Hazen & Alternet for posting it.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/124881/?page=1
Johnson doesn't just critique the worst proposed weapons programs, however--he sets out the complicated strategies that the Department of Defense uses to make its spending politically untouchable, even when the programs are recognized as failures.
To quote a paragraph from him, near the beginning of his article: "Given our economic crisis, the estimated trillion dollars we spend each year on the military and its weaponry is simply unsustainable. Even if present fiscal constraints no longer existed, we would still have misspent too much of our tax revenues on too few, overly expensive, overly complex weapons systems that leave us ill-prepared to defend the country in a real military emergency. We face a double crisis at the Pentagon: we can no longer afford the pretense of being the Earth's sole superpower, and we cannot afford to perpetuate a system in which the military-industrial complex makes its fortune off inferior, poorly designed weapons."
Johnson has been one of the most perceptive critics of our military overreach for at least the last decade, going back to his brilliant book Blowback. His analyses are always worth reading--my thanks to Don Hazen & Alternet for posting it.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/124881/?page=1
Military Cuts Issue Percolating--At Last!
There has definitely been a strong uptick in articles and comments regarding cutting the preposterously bloated military budget that Bush & Cheney left behind.
The important one, perhaps, was Rahm Emanuel's comment on the Sunday morning talk shows a couple weeks ago, referring to $300 B in DoD overruns--that put the issue on the radar for the talking heads and punditry.
In addition, it seems clear that as America's economic woes have deepened with each passing day, even the densest members of the D.C. Establishment have begun to realize that overpriced, unnecessary weapons systems (JSF, I hear your name being called! Virginia subs? Osprey?) & our overextended system of overseas bases (are we an Empire or a shining city on the hill?) & new dangerous provocations like militarizing space may be the only places left to find some money for a serious green jobs push, for health care for everyone, and for a slowing down the deficit burden we've been handing our children and grandchildren.
President Obama promised more troops and better equipment for those troops. Given our economy, the only way to get there is to cut back on the unnecessary weapons systems.
Oh, and end the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan...
The important one, perhaps, was Rahm Emanuel's comment on the Sunday morning talk shows a couple weeks ago, referring to $300 B in DoD overruns--that put the issue on the radar for the talking heads and punditry.
In addition, it seems clear that as America's economic woes have deepened with each passing day, even the densest members of the D.C. Establishment have begun to realize that overpriced, unnecessary weapons systems (JSF, I hear your name being called! Virginia subs? Osprey?) & our overextended system of overseas bases (are we an Empire or a shining city on the hill?) & new dangerous provocations like militarizing space may be the only places left to find some money for a serious green jobs push, for health care for everyone, and for a slowing down the deficit burden we've been handing our children and grandchildren.
President Obama promised more troops and better equipment for those troops. Given our economy, the only way to get there is to cut back on the unnecessary weapons systems.
Oh, and end the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)