The latest New Yorker magazine profiles James Hansen, one of the early conscientious scientists who warned us about global warming (and later stood up to the Bush Administration). He's a gutsy scientist, he says we're not doing enough to combat climate change, and he's begun to try civil disobedience to make his point.
If we were serious about "national security," this is where we would be spending our next trillion dollars, rather than on more useless F-22s, on F-35s that aren't even fully tested, on missile defense for Eastern Europe that doesn't work and which they don't want, and on various helicopters, Presidential planes, and hundreds of overseas bases...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/29/090629fa_fact_kolbert
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Overseas Obstacles for F-35 Still to Come?
This recent Hill article points out that some of our European allies involved in the joint production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters may be having second thoughts, due to the economic crisis and increasing political obstacles...
It strikes me that our allies in this project may be easier to stop than the Pentagon...
http://thehill.com/the-executive/fighters-path-could-get-bumpy-as-foreign-partners-facing-pressures-2009-06-04.html
It strikes me that our allies in this project may be easier to stop than the Pentagon...
http://thehill.com/the-executive/fighters-path-could-get-bumpy-as-foreign-partners-facing-pressures-2009-06-04.html
Summary of House Bill Add-On Costs
This link will take you to an excellent summary of the House military authorization bill, done by the Center for Arms Control:
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/062409_c111_fy10_hasc_hr2647/
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/062409_c111_fy10_hasc_hr2647/
Rep. Frank Objects to Extra F-22 Funding
Marie Rietmann of WAND passed on the statement below from Barney Frank, who was leading the effort in the House to block extra funding for more unnecessary F-22s:
"Statement by Congressman Frank Concerning the Failure to Consider Amendment to Cut Additional Funding for the F-22
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Barney Frank today released the following statement about the refusal of the House Rules Committee to make in order the amendment to block additional funding for the F-22 Raptor stealth aircraft. The funding had been added to the Defense Authorization bill, over the President’s objections, by a vote of 31-30 in the House Armed Services Committee.
'I am very unpleasantly surprised that some members of the Democratic leadership, with whom I generally agree, blocked my efforts to offer an amendment that is strongly supported by President Obama. The refusal of the House to support the President’s effort to cut the F-22 is a very bad sign for those of us who would like to see budget discipline applied to the Pentagon as well as to other agencies.'”
"Statement by Congressman Frank Concerning the Failure to Consider Amendment to Cut Additional Funding for the F-22
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Barney Frank today released the following statement about the refusal of the House Rules Committee to make in order the amendment to block additional funding for the F-22 Raptor stealth aircraft. The funding had been added to the Defense Authorization bill, over the President’s objections, by a vote of 31-30 in the House Armed Services Committee.
'I am very unpleasantly surprised that some members of the Democratic leadership, with whom I generally agree, blocked my efforts to offer an amendment that is strongly supported by President Obama. The refusal of the House to support the President’s effort to cut the F-22 is a very bad sign for those of us who would like to see budget discipline applied to the Pentagon as well as to other agencies.'”
President Threatens Veto on Fighter Planes
The Obama Administration threatened to veto the military funding bill if Congress insists on increasing the number of F-22s, and insists on building an alternative F-35 engine.
Secretary Gates had recommended bringing the F-22 Raptor program to an end, but the House voted by one vote, very early in the morning, to extend the program--despite the fact that not a single one of the 183 F-22s we already built has seen action in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
As for the F-35 alternative engine, unfortunately it appears that the Obama Administration's irritation was brought on by the fact that they cut a few of F-35s to pay for the alternative engine (which Secretary Gates also opposes).
This information came from a great summary by Peace Action's Paul Kawika Martin, who has been very busy on Capitol Hill this week, from an article in Congress Daily by Megan Scully (which unfortunately requires a subscription).
Secretary Gates had recommended bringing the F-22 Raptor program to an end, but the House voted by one vote, very early in the morning, to extend the program--despite the fact that not a single one of the 183 F-22s we already built has seen action in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
As for the F-35 alternative engine, unfortunately it appears that the Obama Administration's irritation was brought on by the fact that they cut a few of F-35s to pay for the alternative engine (which Secretary Gates also opposes).
This information came from a great summary by Peace Action's Paul Kawika Martin, who has been very busy on Capitol Hill this week, from an article in Congress Daily by Megan Scully (which unfortunately requires a subscription).
Sunday, June 14, 2009
http://www.rollcall.com/news/35354-1.html
The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call graciously accepted a recent essay that I wrote on the hypocrisy of Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans who pretend to care about deficit spending, but never even cast a glance at the oversized military budget.
So even though our military budget almost doubled during the Bush/Cheney years, the first place that our so-called deficit hawks look to cut back on spending is Social Security & Medicare, rather than say, the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, which may cost one trillion dollars by the time all the planned (but not yet functioning) fighter planes are built.
We spend as much as the rest of the world--and most of the other top military spenders are our allies in Europe--but the deficit hawks can't see the Pentagon when they're looking for cuts...
The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call graciously accepted a recent essay that I wrote on the hypocrisy of Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans who pretend to care about deficit spending, but never even cast a glance at the oversized military budget.
So even though our military budget almost doubled during the Bush/Cheney years, the first place that our so-called deficit hawks look to cut back on spending is Social Security & Medicare, rather than say, the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, which may cost one trillion dollars by the time all the planned (but not yet functioning) fighter planes are built.
We spend as much as the rest of the world--and most of the other top military spenders are our allies in Europe--but the deficit hawks can't see the Pentagon when they're looking for cuts...
Englehardt Explains Empire
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/03-5
Tom Englehardt, of TomDispatch.com, has written a brilliant essay on one of the missing words in the current American discourse--the word "empire." ( You can see the essay on Alternet, Common Dreams, or at TomDispatch.com )
Englehardt pretends to be delivering a commencement speech to 2009 graduates, since for some strange reason no doubt related to the fact that he actually understands that our nation is acting like an Empire, Tom was not invited to give such a speech in person.
It is well worth reading. Intelligent, well written (as usual for Englehardt), accurate.
It should be required reading in universities all over America. I won't hold my breath...
Tom Englehardt, of TomDispatch.com, has written a brilliant essay on one of the missing words in the current American discourse--the word "empire." ( You can see the essay on Alternet, Common Dreams, or at TomDispatch.com )
Englehardt pretends to be delivering a commencement speech to 2009 graduates, since for some strange reason no doubt related to the fact that he actually understands that our nation is acting like an Empire, Tom was not invited to give such a speech in person.
It is well worth reading. Intelligent, well written (as usual for Englehardt), accurate.
It should be required reading in universities all over America. I won't hold my breath...
Are We 4 Times as Safe as in 1948?
At a recent meeting of a small group of dedicated activists who are still trying to keep the military budget under control, a chart was passed around listing the "Budget Authority for National Defense, FY 1948-2009," in billions of constant FY09 dollars. The amounts included both war and nuclear funding for each year, and showed some interesting facts. (Unfortunately, I missed the part that explained who had actually done the chart, so I can't give proper credit, but I'll summarize some of the key points here.)
In 1948, just after World War II, at the onset of the Cold War, our military budget authority was $171B. It went up significantly during the Korean War, then settled at about twice the 1948 figure during the latter years of the Eisenhower Administration and the early JFK years ($366B in 1961, for instance). The mid-to-late-1960s escalation of the Vietnam War took it up over $500B in 1967 & 1968, 3 times the 1948 amount.
Believe it or not, progressives were actually strong enough politically that the military budget was cut each year that Richard Nixon was in office, dropping from $513B in 1968 down to $352B in 1975. Ronald Reagan increased the military budget each of his first 5 years in office, up to $557B in 1985, but the election of a Democratic Senate in 1986 calmed that down some.
Once the Cold War ended, the military budget dropped steadily during both the first Bush Presidency and during Clinton's two terms, at least in constant dollars, from $502B in 1989 down to $416B in 1993, and then on down to $387 in 2000. (Funny that this decline in military spending is never associated with the strong economy of the 1990s, isn't it?)
At that point, George W. took over, and the military budget almost doubled over the next 8 years, while the economy stagnated. U.S. military budget authority rose up to $426B in 2001, $448B in 2002, $547B in 2003, $570B in 2004, $565B in 2005, $605B in 2006, $660B in 2007, and $709B in 2008.
In other words, our military budget has escalated by 4 times in 60 years--from $171B in 1948 to $709B in 2008. Do you feel 4 times safer? Are we 4x safer now than we were 60 years ago?
In 1948, just after World War II, at the onset of the Cold War, our military budget authority was $171B. It went up significantly during the Korean War, then settled at about twice the 1948 figure during the latter years of the Eisenhower Administration and the early JFK years ($366B in 1961, for instance). The mid-to-late-1960s escalation of the Vietnam War took it up over $500B in 1967 & 1968, 3 times the 1948 amount.
Believe it or not, progressives were actually strong enough politically that the military budget was cut each year that Richard Nixon was in office, dropping from $513B in 1968 down to $352B in 1975. Ronald Reagan increased the military budget each of his first 5 years in office, up to $557B in 1985, but the election of a Democratic Senate in 1986 calmed that down some.
Once the Cold War ended, the military budget dropped steadily during both the first Bush Presidency and during Clinton's two terms, at least in constant dollars, from $502B in 1989 down to $416B in 1993, and then on down to $387 in 2000. (Funny that this decline in military spending is never associated with the strong economy of the 1990s, isn't it?)
At that point, George W. took over, and the military budget almost doubled over the next 8 years, while the economy stagnated. U.S. military budget authority rose up to $426B in 2001, $448B in 2002, $547B in 2003, $570B in 2004, $565B in 2005, $605B in 2006, $660B in 2007, and $709B in 2008.
In other words, our military budget has escalated by 4 times in 60 years--from $171B in 1948 to $709B in 2008. Do you feel 4 times safer? Are we 4x safer now than we were 60 years ago?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)