I did a Huffington Post, trying to make the case for Europe & Canada to help the U.S. peace movement on those issues where they also have a big stake in rolling back our more grandiose imperial designs--link below...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-cobble/how-europe-canada-could-h_b_189463.html
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Hacking the F-35? It's Jointly Built!
There's an interesting story in the Washington Post this morning, following up on a story that the Wall Street Journal broke, that some hackers from another country (with various side references to China later on) had broken into the Pentagon/Lockheed computer systems for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
[The F-35 is the new fighter plane that Secretary Gates wants to produce to take the place of the F-22, which he wants to phase out. Part of the rationale for the F-35 is that each new plane is cheaper than each new F-22, which is true--each new F-35 "only" costs about $100 million, not even a third of each new F-22 (about $339M). The problem is--and maybe this is why the Pentagon has such problems with cost overruns in its budgets--apparently no one has noticed that only about 60 more F-22s were going to be built.
So even if they are individually more costly, the remaining cost would only be about 1/10 as expensive as the more than 2,400 F-35s that the Pentagon has requested!
The total costs for the entire F-35 program could add up to close to a trillion dollars, more than President Obama's recent stimulus package.]
To get back to the hacking story, various officials immediately reassured us that no critical information was lost. Aside from the unlikeliness that these officials actually know what was lost, the whole thing gives me the sense of a vast misdirection ploy. After all, aren't we building the F-35 jointly with 8 other nations in the first place?
And do we really think that the other 8 nations--including the United Kingdom, Norway, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia & Canada--are all going to protect U.S. military secrets as compulsively as we do (except for Israel, of course, which apparently has the right to spy on us without serious penalties--see developing Jane Harman scandal for further details)?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042103938.html?nav=hcmodule
[The F-35 is the new fighter plane that Secretary Gates wants to produce to take the place of the F-22, which he wants to phase out. Part of the rationale for the F-35 is that each new plane is cheaper than each new F-22, which is true--each new F-35 "only" costs about $100 million, not even a third of each new F-22 (about $339M). The problem is--and maybe this is why the Pentagon has such problems with cost overruns in its budgets--apparently no one has noticed that only about 60 more F-22s were going to be built.
So even if they are individually more costly, the remaining cost would only be about 1/10 as expensive as the more than 2,400 F-35s that the Pentagon has requested!
The total costs for the entire F-35 program could add up to close to a trillion dollars, more than President Obama's recent stimulus package.]
To get back to the hacking story, various officials immediately reassured us that no critical information was lost. Aside from the unlikeliness that these officials actually know what was lost, the whole thing gives me the sense of a vast misdirection ploy. After all, aren't we building the F-35 jointly with 8 other nations in the first place?
And do we really think that the other 8 nations--including the United Kingdom, Norway, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia & Canada--are all going to protect U.S. military secrets as compulsively as we do (except for Israel, of course, which apparently has the right to spy on us without serious penalties--see developing Jane Harman scandal for further details)?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042103938.html?nav=hcmodule
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Want a New Green Economy? Cut Military Spending!
Even though Secretary Gates requested a 4% increase in the military budget, the Blue Dogs and the conservatives have wailed loudly that these supposed "cuts" will cost Americans jobs.
The truth is, though, that military spending is one of the least effective ways to create jobs here at home. Research sponsored by the Women's Action for New Directions Education Fund ( www.WANDEducationFund.org ) makes the point clearly:
*Investing $1 billion in the military creates about 8,500 jobs.
*Investing $1 billion in mass transit creates almost two-and-a-half times as many jobs, about 19,800 jobs. And helps us defeat global warming, arguably the biggest current threat to our real security.
WAND Education Fund's research also shows that weatherizing homes or spending more on health care creates one-and-a-half times as many jobs as military spending (and more than just cutting taxes, the other favorite but ineffective conservative mantra).
And spending $1 billion on education creates about 17,700 jobs, more than twice as many as military spending.
So if you want to put America back to work, cut the bloated military budget and spend the billions you save on mass transit, schools, health care, and weatherizing homes.
The truth is, though, that military spending is one of the least effective ways to create jobs here at home. Research sponsored by the Women's Action for New Directions Education Fund ( www.WANDEducationFund.org ) makes the point clearly:
*Investing $1 billion in the military creates about 8,500 jobs.
*Investing $1 billion in mass transit creates almost two-and-a-half times as many jobs, about 19,800 jobs. And helps us defeat global warming, arguably the biggest current threat to our real security.
WAND Education Fund's research also shows that weatherizing homes or spending more on health care creates one-and-a-half times as many jobs as military spending (and more than just cutting taxes, the other favorite but ineffective conservative mantra).
And spending $1 billion on education creates about 17,700 jobs, more than twice as many as military spending.
So if you want to put America back to work, cut the bloated military budget and spend the billions you save on mass transit, schools, health care, and weatherizing homes.
We Should Help Obama Cut Nukes
President Obama has been pretty steadfast over his career in his stated intent to slash the world's nuclear stockpiles, by emphasizing non-proliferation, focusing on "loose nukes", and working directly with Russia to cut nuclear weapons way down in both of the two main nuclear arsenals, America's & Russia's.
Those of us on the progressive side should encourage him in this, and help him. We should not take such an effort lightly, since the forces that will try to undercut and hollow out such a plan are strong and well-connected.
Barack Obama is doing something very good here, very brave, and we should make it clear we support him on his nuclear reduction proposal.
After all, tomorrow is Earth Day--and you can't hug the earth with nuclear arms...
Those of us on the progressive side should encourage him in this, and help him. We should not take such an effort lightly, since the forces that will try to undercut and hollow out such a plan are strong and well-connected.
Barack Obama is doing something very good here, very brave, and we should make it clear we support him on his nuclear reduction proposal.
After all, tomorrow is Earth Day--and you can't hug the earth with nuclear arms...
$100 Million in Cuts? Easy.
President Obama yesterday asked his Cabinet to help him find $100 million in new spending cuts. Heck, I can do that, without breaking a sweat.
The new supplemental request for Iraq & Afghanistan is $83 billion. My suggestion is that we go ahead and get out of Iraq instead, and reverse course in Afghanistan. (Think about it, Barack--what would LBJ do if he had a second chance? Do you think--knowing what he learned from Vietnam--that LBJ would let himself get sucked into Afghanistan like he did Vietnam, even though he knew from the start it was a disaster?! A word to the wise...)
Let's close down hundreds of overseas bases, not force European Missile Defense down the throats of the Czechs & Poles who don't even want it, and help President Obama carry out his long-time goal of actually slashing our nuclear stockpiles (and Russia's!). That would save a few gazillion bucks.
Here's an idea--don't buy any more F-22s, since Secretary Gates says he wants to end them, not mend them. That specifically includes the 4 that somehow snuck into the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental request, even though one of the big raps against the F-22 is that it has never been used in either of our current wars! Since each one costs something like $339M, cutting 4 of them would save over $1.3B--more than 13 times President Obama's goal!
And here's a swell idea--the Pentagon original asked for 2,458 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, each of which is estimated to cost a minimum of $100M--exactly the President's stated goal! So if we just cut one of them, bingo, we're there! And if we cut, say 2,458 of them, we'd save a cool $245.8 billion!!! (Some experts say it's closer to $1 trillion, more than the President's stimulus package!) Wouldn't $245.8 billion build a lot of new schools, levees, weatherized homes...?
The new supplemental request for Iraq & Afghanistan is $83 billion. My suggestion is that we go ahead and get out of Iraq instead, and reverse course in Afghanistan. (Think about it, Barack--what would LBJ do if he had a second chance? Do you think--knowing what he learned from Vietnam--that LBJ would let himself get sucked into Afghanistan like he did Vietnam, even though he knew from the start it was a disaster?! A word to the wise...)
Let's close down hundreds of overseas bases, not force European Missile Defense down the throats of the Czechs & Poles who don't even want it, and help President Obama carry out his long-time goal of actually slashing our nuclear stockpiles (and Russia's!). That would save a few gazillion bucks.
Here's an idea--don't buy any more F-22s, since Secretary Gates says he wants to end them, not mend them. That specifically includes the 4 that somehow snuck into the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental request, even though one of the big raps against the F-22 is that it has never been used in either of our current wars! Since each one costs something like $339M, cutting 4 of them would save over $1.3B--more than 13 times President Obama's goal!
And here's a swell idea--the Pentagon original asked for 2,458 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, each of which is estimated to cost a minimum of $100M--exactly the President's stated goal! So if we just cut one of them, bingo, we're there! And if we cut, say 2,458 of them, we'd save a cool $245.8 billion!!! (Some experts say it's closer to $1 trillion, more than the President's stimulus package!) Wouldn't $245.8 billion build a lot of new schools, levees, weatherized homes...?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
UFPJ says cut the military budget!
It's Tax Day, and the biggest peace coalition, United for Peace & Justice, is circulating a petition calling for a 25% cut in the military budget, since that's where half of every discretionary tax dollar you spend goes! And since that's where there are so many wasteful, unnecessary weapons projects...And since that's one of the main places that the Bush/Cheney Administration massively increased our spending during the past 8 years...
So sign up, and let's start to get this Empire mess turned around!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/302/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1864
So sign up, and let's start to get this Empire mess turned around!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/302/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1864
Are We Being Gamed?
I give Secretary Gates points for political bravery. He stood up and told Congress that the Cold War was over, and the Soviet Union is long gone, so we don't need to spend any more money to build more F-22 Raptors. 183 of them is enough.
But I can't help but wonder if those of us who actually want to cut the military budget aren't being "gamed" here. I know that Secretary Gates is skilled at bureaucratic maneuvering, and very familiar with the ways of Congress--so he knows that there is a better-than-average chance that Congress will fund more F-22s, not cut them off.
Meanwhile, Secretary Gates quietly took a giant step down the road to institutionalizing the over-budget, delayed, incredibly expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which very few people have noticed because all the attention is on the F-22 proposed cuts.
(Though I note that 4 F-22s have also been carefully requested in the Iraq/Afghanistan $85B supplemental, which seems tacky to me, given that one of the big criticisms of the F-22 is that it has yet to be used in either of our two current wars...So why do we need to "replace" 4 of them in an Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental, when they've never been used there?)
So what's the likely outcome? A requested cut in the F-22, which Congress ignores, plus a requested big increase in the F-35, which Congress gladly agrees with...Voila! We end up spending even more on unnecessary fighter planes, while supposedly cutting them...
The magic of military spending, where a 4% increase, after 8 years of massive Bush/Cheney spending increases, is characterized in the media as a cut...
But I can't help but wonder if those of us who actually want to cut the military budget aren't being "gamed" here. I know that Secretary Gates is skilled at bureaucratic maneuvering, and very familiar with the ways of Congress--so he knows that there is a better-than-average chance that Congress will fund more F-22s, not cut them off.
Meanwhile, Secretary Gates quietly took a giant step down the road to institutionalizing the over-budget, delayed, incredibly expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which very few people have noticed because all the attention is on the F-22 proposed cuts.
(Though I note that 4 F-22s have also been carefully requested in the Iraq/Afghanistan $85B supplemental, which seems tacky to me, given that one of the big criticisms of the F-22 is that it has yet to be used in either of our two current wars...So why do we need to "replace" 4 of them in an Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental, when they've never been used there?)
So what's the likely outcome? A requested cut in the F-22, which Congress ignores, plus a requested big increase in the F-35, which Congress gladly agrees with...Voila! We end up spending even more on unnecessary fighter planes, while supposedly cutting them...
The magic of military spending, where a 4% increase, after 8 years of massive Bush/Cheney spending increases, is characterized in the media as a cut...
Zakaria asks a good question
In the 4/12 Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria had a column discussing Secretary Gates's proposed military budget. He points out that our military spending in recent years has taken place "...in a dreamland, where ever more elaborate weapons are built without regard to enemies, costs, or trade-offs." True, that.
He notes that a lot of the military budget "...is based on wish lists from the services, which are often lists that were conceived during the Cold War." Also true, that.
He makes note of the fact that the supposed aircraft carrier cut will not really be carried out until 2030. Okay...
And he also raises a very good question, one that most commentators seem to have missed in all the uproar raised by F-22 supporters--and definitely a point Congress should consider:
“...while we don't need the F-22, we are still going to make 2,443 F-35s at an eventual cost of $1 trillion. Do we really need those? What is the thinking behind the size of that program?”
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2009/04/a_military_for_the_real_world.html
He notes that a lot of the military budget "...is based on wish lists from the services, which are often lists that were conceived during the Cold War." Also true, that.
He makes note of the fact that the supposed aircraft carrier cut will not really be carried out until 2030. Okay...
And he also raises a very good question, one that most commentators seem to have missed in all the uproar raised by F-22 supporters--and definitely a point Congress should consider:
“...while we don't need the F-22, we are still going to make 2,443 F-35s at an eventual cost of $1 trillion. Do we really need those? What is the thinking behind the size of that program?”
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2009/04/a_military_for_the_real_world.html
Friday, April 3, 2009
6 Big Cuts to Save Big Bucks
Analyst William Hartung spells out 6 programs that can be quickly and safely slashed from the Pentagon's budget, saving us $35 B a year without jeopardizing a hair on anyone's head.
Hartung notes that saving this much would almost equal the cost of the Afghanistan war. As a lifelong smart aleck, I'd point out that cutting these 6 programs as Hartung suggests, while also getting out of the dead-end quagmire of Afghanistan would be even smarter! We could save $70B a year, build a lot of schools, provide people health care, weatherize millions of homes. Or we could double our savings!
I'm sure all the Blue Dog budget-cutters will agree with Hartung, since their #1 priority is supposedly the budget deficit, right? Surely they'd like to save $35 B a year, right?
And even better, President Obama could avoid LBJ's fate, where an unwinnable, unpopular war slowly but surely sinks a popular, transformative domestic policy agenda. I know President Obama knows LBJ's history/tragedy--so when do we start to act on that knowledge?
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4018163&c=AIR&s=TOP
Hartung notes that saving this much would almost equal the cost of the Afghanistan war. As a lifelong smart aleck, I'd point out that cutting these 6 programs as Hartung suggests, while also getting out of the dead-end quagmire of Afghanistan would be even smarter! We could save $70B a year, build a lot of schools, provide people health care, weatherize millions of homes. Or we could double our savings!
I'm sure all the Blue Dog budget-cutters will agree with Hartung, since their #1 priority is supposedly the budget deficit, right? Surely they'd like to save $35 B a year, right?
And even better, President Obama could avoid LBJ's fate, where an unwinnable, unpopular war slowly but surely sinks a popular, transformative domestic policy agenda. I know President Obama knows LBJ's history/tragedy--so when do we start to act on that knowledge?
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4018163&c=AIR&s=TOP
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Why AfriCom?
Why in the world is an African-American President continuing to allow Africom to exist, to meddle, to interfere? Is a big military outpost on the African continent really an idea of the future, or a leftover from a discredited past of colonization and control?
I came across this interesting web site/article through a link from blogger AliceDem on OpenLeft, who also commented that "we are borrowing money from the Chinese in order to compete with China in Africa." Good line. Bad idea.
And yet another place we could save some money for health care for all...
http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/gao-report-on-africom/
I came across this interesting web site/article through a link from blogger AliceDem on OpenLeft, who also commented that "we are borrowing money from the Chinese in order to compete with China in Africa." Good line. Bad idea.
And yet another place we could save some money for health care for all...
http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/gao-report-on-africom/
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Fewer Nukes!
President Obama today began negotiations with Russian President Medvedev to reduce the number of offensive strategic weapons significantly. The two leaders pronounced their nations "ready to move beyond Cold War mentalities."
Thank you, Mr. President--let's get this one done!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040100242.html?hpid=topnews
Thank you, Mr. President--let's get this one done!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040100242.html?hpid=topnews
Liberal Groups Call for Military Cuts
A coalition of liberal groups is pushing a letter around Capitol Hill these days, calling for serious cuts in the military budget, in order to pay for long-neglected social programs and new Obama Administration domestic initiatives promised during the election campaign.
Key progressive lawmakers are quoted in an article in The Hill, including Progressive Caucus Chair Raul Grijalva and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee head Tom Harkin, making the case that it's time for less spending on the military, and more on our social needs.
Niel Ritchie of the League of Rural Voters points out the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as an example of wasteful, unnecessary spending, noting that "a few hundred billion dollars is a lot of schools and a lot of health care."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/liberals-want-more-defense-spending-left-behind-2009-03-25.html
Key progressive lawmakers are quoted in an article in The Hill, including Progressive Caucus Chair Raul Grijalva and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee head Tom Harkin, making the case that it's time for less spending on the military, and more on our social needs.
Niel Ritchie of the League of Rural Voters points out the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as an example of wasteful, unnecessary spending, noting that "a few hundred billion dollars is a lot of schools and a lot of health care."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/liberals-want-more-defense-spending-left-behind-2009-03-25.html
save money--close some foreign bases
A GMU prof, Hugh Gusterson, has suggested in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (you know, the one with the doomsday clock!) that it's time to look at shuttering some of America's overseas bases. He argues that closing many of our approximately 1,000 foreign bases would save the taxpayers billions of dollars a year, decrease resentments that have built up among our allies, and bring us back closer to our nation's original founding in a rebellion against colonizers.
He suggests that the next 50 years will see strong movements against U.S. bases, and reminds us that the Declaration of Independence had strong words against bad habit of the British of quartering troops among the colonies...Words to the wise...
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/empire-of-bases
He suggests that the next 50 years will see strong movements against U.S. bases, and reminds us that the Declaration of Independence had strong words against bad habit of the British of quartering troops among the colonies...Words to the wise...
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/empire-of-bases
Levin says military cuts will be "painful"
Carl Levin of Michigan, Chair of Senate Armed Services, said yesterday that military budget cuts will be "large" and "painful".
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/31/senator-expect-painful-cuts-in-pentagon-budget-1/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/31/senator-expect-painful-cuts-in-pentagon-budget-1/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)