Wanted: Enemy to Justify $344 Billion War Budget

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Wanted: Enemy to Justify $344 Billion War Budget

By Ben Cohen, AlterNet. Posted September 4, 2001.

Last week, the co-founder of Ben and Jerry's argued the U.S. government is looking for a new villain to justify a Pentagon budget increase. This week, it found one -- under the worst of circumstances.

You may know some despicable characters, but are they mean enough to apply for this job posting?

ENEMY WANTED. Serious enemy needed to justify Pentagon budget increase. Defense contractors desperate. Interested enemies send letter and photo or video (threatening, ok) to Enemy Search Committee, Priorities Campaign, 1350 Broadway, NY, NY, 10018.

Here's the deal: We know our politicians have their work cut out for them. They need to find an enemy to justify maintaining the Pentagon budget as if the Cold War never ended. But the pool of credible enemies is evaporating. North Korea is even going diplomatic. The Soviets took themselves out of the running years ago. And countries like Iraq -- or tough looking trading partners like China -- don't make the cut.

So, I am distributing a job description as widely as possible to help our politicians find the enemy they seek. Even with the help of defense contractors -- who spend $50 million on lobbyists annually -- our politicians do not possess the creativity to find the right adversary. It's clear that the old concept of enemy doesn't work anymore.

The trouble is the Defense Department needs to find an enemy in a hurry. The Bush Administration has proposed to increase Pentagon spending by $33 billion, the largest defense increase since the Cold War.

This inexplicable proposal is under attack by children's advocates, who would rather use the $33 billion earmarked for the Pentagon to begin modernizing our crumbling public schools and to buy health insurance for millions of U.S. kids and Head Start for the one-third of eligible children who can't get in because it's under-funded.

As pressure mounts to pay for these domestic programs -- and the size of the projected surplus shrinks -- defense contractors and the Pentagon PR machine, including their legion of liaisons on Capitol hill, are getting nervous. Meanwhile, high tech airplanes crash inexplicably, Star Wars tests miss their targets, and the budget crunch in Congress looms. All of this raises questions, questions, questions:

- Why does the Pentagon need a budget of $344 billion -- which would be over three times as much as the combined defense spending of Russia, China, and America's potential adversaries (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria)? And this does include not the over $200 billion spent by U.S. allies annually on defense.

- How do Congress and the President know how much money the Pentagon needs when it can't pass a financial audit -- despite legal obligations to do so? Without audited books, the President and Congress do not know for certain what the Pentagon has and what it really needs.

- Why does the federal government want to spend $344 billion on the Pentagon, when the federal government currently spends only $42 billion on education, $26 billion on affordable housing, $6 billion on Head Start, and only $1 billion on school construction? Does it appear that our national priorities are mixed up or what?

These would be tough questions, even if America had a serious enemy. Without one, these are devastating questions -- and it's so painful to see our politicians trying to answer them that I want to help them find an enemy as quickly as possible.

Larger trends are also causing our politicians to squirm when defending the Pentagon budget, and frankly it's an embarrassing sight (hence, again, the immediate enemy need). For example:

- In our country -- the richest nation in the world -- 14 million kids attend schools that need extensive renovation or replacement. In international test scores, our eighth graders rank 18 in math and 19 in science, below Slovenia, Singapore, and Hungary, among others.

- The child poverty rate hovers at over 15 percent, meaning that about one in six kids lives in poverty.

- Over 40 million Americans, including about 10 million children, have no health insurance.

My enemy search -- if successful -- would go a long way toward easing the consciences of our politicians who support the fat Pentagon budget, which diverts money from poor children, the environment, and other good things.

As of today, however, my search is not going well. So, I am open to any and all suggestions or leads that you might have. I am, of course on the lookout for the right headhunter, but none has materialized.

If you've got any killer ideas, please let me know.

Ben Cohen is co-founder of Ben and Jerry's and President of the Priorities Campaign
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Amazing that an Ice Cream guy from Vermont can't think of any dangers in the world these days......

Some of those figures are wildly misleading - education spending for one - education is funded at the local level, while I don't have the figures at my fingertips I'd be willing to bet we spend more than any country on K-12 education.

OTB
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..OTB your missing the point, the reality is that the US has a Military Keynesian Economy that has as its driver military spending. imho
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
assoholic said:
..OTB your missing the point, the reality is that the US has a Military Keynesian Economy that has as its driver military spending. imho
Bingo! That and priorites on how you 'help' people are the issue. Dems priorites prefer to fund education and build schools, while GOP priorites prefer building prisons, missiles, anti-missile shields against ............bogeymen, as yet to be invented, and feeding that military-defense complex Ike warned us about awhile back.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
assoholic said:
..OTB your missing the point, the reality is that the US has a Military Keynesian Economy that has as its driver military spending. imho
The military budget is about 3.5% of GDP, please tell me how that drives the economy? Our economy is very large (about the same size as the next 7 combined) so we can afford a very large defense budget (or anything else really).

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
WoodPeckr said:
Bingo! That and priorites on how you 'help' people are the issue. Dems priorites prefer to fund education and build schools, while GOP priorites prefer building prisons, missiles, anti-missile shields against ............bogeymen, as yet to be invented, and feeding that military-defense complex Ike warned us about awhile back.
Geez, what a fool.

Are the Democrats suggesting a cut in military spending? NO

The Bush administration has overseen the largest increase in Federal funding for education of any administration (it is up 50% in the last 4 years). The Bush administration has overseen the largest extension of the Medicare system on record.

I guess you've fallen into your worse nightmare, simple-minded propaganda - this time from the people who bring fear mongering to new heights - the Democrats.

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
onthebottom said:
The military budget is about 3.5% of GDP, please tell me how that drives the economy? Our economy is very large (about the same size as the next 7 combined) so we can afford a very large defense budget (or anything else really).

OTB
Using that argument and your numbers given only highlights how truly 'little' is spent on this kind of non-defense spending then. Priorites come into play again since, as you say, our economy is so large and shows what a tiny fraction then goes to this non-military spending.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Face it boys and girls
we should all be hugging and eating CHERRY GARCIA.



Sometimes the stories, quoutes and opinions served on the net are just are foolish ash their authors. After all BRYERS is all natural, has no additaves and never insults sitting presidents.
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..spin offs, plus you are probably not taking into consideration things like NASA, exct. Think of all the high Tech jobs that are created. Look I am not going to be able to convince yoiu of anything because I dont really know that much about it, but why do you think the US spends so much more on the Military then any one else. Even at the hieght of the Cold War the USSR did not even spend half what the US did. Its right in National Security documents that have been declassified.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
WoodPeckr said:
Using that argument and your numbers given only highlights how truly 'little' is spent on this kind of non-defense spending then. Priorites come into play again since, as you say, our economy is so large and shows what a tiny fraction then goes to this non-military spending.
Come on Peckr, think a bit will you.

Assoholic said:

"OTB your missing the point, the reality is that the US has a Military Keynesian Economy that has as its driver military spending. imho"

Which clearly is not the case.

How does the US spending 3.5% of GDP on the military impact our spending on other issues? Again, find the spending per pupil number and we'll see who spends more on education.

As for your foolish remarks about the Democrats (which you didn't bother defending), no one in this election is suggesting cutting defense.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
assoholic said:
..spin offs, plus you are probably not taking into consideration things like NASA, exct. Think of all the high Tech jobs that are created. Look I am not going to be able to convince yoiu of anything because I dont really know that much about it, but why do you think the US spends so much more on the Military then any one else. Even at the hieght of the Cold War the USSR did not even spend half what the US did. Its right in National Security documents that have been declassified.
The US spent the USSR into the ground because at the end of the day we have a successful economy and they don't (same population, economy the size of Belgium - pathetic).

There is certainly a positive spin off from the R&D that happens as part of NASA, the military and intelligence organizations that we have but to say that they "drive" the economy is to grossly overstate it.

The US spends so much on it's military because it desires to be able to PROJECT it's power - the lonely job of the only super power. Look at the issues that the US gets dragged into, North Korea (why should that be a US issue), NATO (why can't / won't Europe defend / police itself)... No political party within the US wants to contemplate a military event that the US cannot control, we have the resources (money), scale (who could really justify building nuke subs) and will to do it. The real question is why don't other countries spend more, the answer (and this is very true of Canada) is that they let the US do the work and complain about it.

OTB
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..well we disagree, like I said its right in declassified documents , where you have the big wigs talking about how they would play up security concerns in order to keep up the military spending. Unfortunately to a degree Lang is right, War = full capacity=full employment, unfortunately its an easy way out of a depression/recession. In 2004 though you would have hoped we had found a better way.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
onthebottom said:
The US spent the USSR into the ground because at the end of the day we have a successful economy and they don't (same population, economy the size of Belgium - pathetic).

OTB
This is beyond absurd!.....you forgot the numbers and history of what Ronnie RAY-GUN did to the USA!

When President Jimmy Carter, BTW the last honest president the USA had this century, left office the national debt was $1 Trillion. When RONBO Reagan left office the NATIONAL DEBT WAS $6.5 TRILLION. Sure Ronnie spent the USSR into the ground but the mindless Reagan did the same to the USA!!!!

This is money that is STILL OWED and will have to be repaid by us, our children & grandchildren, so WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH A SUCCESSFUL ENONOMY?!?!!?!?

Ronnie said he was a fiscal conservative but took the US debt from $1 to 6.5 Trillion with classical deficit spending that made FDR look like Scrooge! And NOW we have Dim-Wit Dubya who is trying to OUTDO Ronnie his role model, with SPEND & BORROW DEFICT SPENDING!!! Next I can just picture Karl Rove trotting out a line on how Dubya is really a 'fiscal conservative'!!!

No wonder Rush is on OXYCONTIN, you need to be high on something to pretend Dubya's policies make any sense at all!
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Peckr,

It's not absurd, frankly we could afford and Reagan chose to fund it by running a 3% of GDP deficit because he believed that you could grow yourself out of deficits. Two separate issues, be happy to debate the fiscal strategy with you but I don't think there is any doubt that we could afford this and the USSR could not.

OTB
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,483
4,884
113
So far, the $US has fallen 30%.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
onthebottom said:
Peckr,

It's not absurd, frankly we could afford and Reagan chose to fund it by running a 3% of GDP deficit because he believed that you could grow yourself out of deficits....

OTB
Of course that's absurd!
Just when are we going to start 'growing' out of Reagan's deficits? It has been awhile since Ronnie's terms and his deficits are still around plus interest! Now Dubya wants to out do RonBo in SPEND & BORROW DEFICIT SPENDING saddling our children and grandchildren with even more debt.

Growing out of the these GOP deficits has not happened yet, but GOP BANKERS are every pleased with the results of this GOP folly of 'fiscal mismanagement Enron style by Dubya' in running up the National Debt. Thank you Dubya they all say as those interest payments on his debt repayments POUR into their coffers faster than they can say........ Lubya Dubya.......:p
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
danmand said:
So far, the $US has fallen 30%.
And your point would be?

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
WoodPeckr said:
Of course that's absurd!
Just when are we going to start 'growing' out of Reagan's deficits? It has been awhile since Ronnie's terms and his deficits are still around plus interest! Now Dubya wants to out do RonBo in SPEND & BORROW DEFICIT SPENDING saddling our children and grandchildren with even more debt.

Growing out of the these GOP deficits has not happened yet, but GOP BANKERS are every pleased with the results of this GOP folly of 'fiscal mismanagement Enron style by Dubya' in running up the National Debt. Thank you Dubya they all say as those interest payments on his debt repayments POUR into their coffers faster than they can say........ Lubya Dubya.......:p
Pecker,

Can you hold a thought in your mind for more than 30 seconds. We were not discussing fiscal policy (although I'd be happy to do so) we're discussing the economic power of the US and it's ability to fund a larger military than the former USSR. The US economy is about 10 Trillion, larger than the next 7 economies (Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy....) combined. Of course we could spend the USSR into the ground, we can spend anyone into the ground if we like.

OTB
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
True, OTB, but to trot out a phrase that has already trotted we into the realm of cliche - "in the age of asymetrical warfare" - spending one's enemies into the ground is no longer an option. After all, spending money in the Cold War only worked because the USSR kept anteing everytime the US raised. If they had folded a few they would have been far better off strategically.
 
Toronto Escorts