How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By David Sirota

Pop quiz -- name the political leader who said the following:

"We must be willing to pull the plug before sinking more dollars into weapons that do not provide what our warriors need."

Now name the leader who said this:

"(W)e cannot track $2.3 trillion in (Pentagon spending) ... We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion ... There are those who will oppose every effort to save taxpayers' money ... Well, fine, if there's to be a struggle, so be it."

I'm willing to bet many self-described "conservatives" guessed Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. I would make that wager based on the enraged response to my recent column about government data showing that our waste-ridden, $600-billion-a-year defense budget will cost about seven times more than the healthcare legislation currently before Congress.

In e-mails, letters and Web site comments, right-wingers didn't vent anger at Pentagon profligacy, but at the criticism of Pentagon profligacy -- as if brazenly throwing away billions on outdated weapons systems and obsolete military programs is now a "conservative" value. Notably, the vitriol didn't include contrary numbers disproving the figures I referenced (none exists) -- the responses just used Fox News-ish slogans like "the cost of freedom" to deride all criticism of Pentagon spending as unpatriotic ultraliberalism.

Of course, if that's true, then Stephen Colbert's refrain that "reality has a well-known liberal bias" is now less a laugh line than a devastatingly accurate commentary on the deranged terms of America's political discourse. I say that because here are some objective, nonpartisan, non-ideological facts:

• The 2010 Pentagon budget means "every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on (defense) programs and agencies next year," reports the Cato Institute. "By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."
• "(The Pentagon budget) dwarfs the combined defense budgets of U.S. allies and potential U.S. enemies alike," reports Hearst Newspapers.
• "President (Obama) is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II," reports National Journal's Government Executive magazine.
• In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost -- yes, lost -- $2.3 trillion. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a subsequent Department of Defense study said it was only $1 trillion. To put such numbers in perspective, contemplate what those sums could finance. $1 trillion, for instance, could pay the total cost of universal healthcare for the long haul. $2.3 trillion would cover universal healthcare plus the bank bailout plus the stimulus package.

Obviously -- obviously! -- these points are no cause for alarm and certainly no cause for defense spending reductions, right? All they must prove is that the archconservative Cato Institute, William Randolph Hearst's newspaper chain, National Journal employees and Pentagon officials are secretly America-hating liberals. And -- obviously! -- so are two of the most aggressive neoconservative hawks ever to hold government office, Sen. John McCain and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. After all, they're the ones who issued those scathing statements about wasteful defense spending in the pop quiz above. That means they're actually terrorist-appeasing lefties, right?

Really, how could anyone other than traitorous communists see the data and then consider backing the mildest Pentagon spending cuts? I mean, come on -- in a country whose paranoid conservative movement now makes a dead-serious ideology out of Stephen Colbert wisecracks, how dare any red-blooded American even think of pondering basic budgetary facts?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/...opinion/feature

Edited November 28, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[slim 1,533]

Hmm. Maybe we should start running the military as a more outcome-based part of government like the Department of Health.

Outdated weapons systems? Like the F-22 Raptor?

I really wish anyone who ever gets to cast a vote on defense spending had to go overseas for a couple of months and sit in a bunker. Maybe they'd change their perspective a little.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Hmm. Maybe we should start running the military as a more outcome-based part of government like the Department of Health.

Outdated weapons systems? Like the F-22 Raptor?

I really wish anyone who ever gets to cast a vote on defense spending had to go overseas for a couple of months and sit in a bunker. Maybe they'd change their perspective a little.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Yea, that F-22 sure is junk.

Edited November 28, 2009 by spookyturtle

[slim 1,533]

What killed me is they justified scrapping that program in favor of more "modern" necessities since our modern day battlefield has changed. We need remote controlled toy airplanes and sticky foam so we can humanely catch "terrorists" hidden among "innocent" populations.

I'm just sitting back wondering how, when we fight on the "future battlefield" and the Chinese put THOUSANDS of planes in the air and MILLIONS of men on the ground, how those college kids in New Mexico are going to stop them with their video game.

[Heracles 417]

Slim and even Spook of all people, I agree with you guys on this. Never ever cut back on R&D. Once the enemy has the upper hand, you are SOL.

However, reckless spending in the military on the other hand needs to be cut.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

What killed me is they justified scrapping that program in favor of more "modern" necessities since our modern day battlefield has changed. We need remote controlled toy airplanes and sticky foam so we can humanely catch "terrorists" hidden among "innocent" populations.

I'm just sitting back wondering how, when we fight on the "future battlefield" and the Chinese put THOUSANDS of planes in the air and MILLIONS of men on the ground, how those college kids in New Mexico are going to stop them with their video game.

WWII was won by sheer numbers. As you said, the Chinese will put millions of troops on the ground and thousands of planes in the air.

[slim 1,533]

Booyah!, you almost had me! We agree.... but reckless spending needs to be cut? Cut from where?

[NickD 203]

Can safely state with witnesses, that I didn't get very much of that money when I served with extremely poor accommodations, clothing, and food. Then they made us do dirty things and expected us to use what little pay we got to replace our worn out uniforms, that and cleaning them could easily take over half our paychecks. If we wanted to see our families, also had to pay for that, even if thousands of miles away from home, but whiskey and cigarettes were cheap.

Not much better today when many are on food stamps, but this is the first line of defense and the first to get killed. Could have kicked Bush in the balls when he said he needs more money for our troops, can't believe he could even say that with a straight face when kids I know didn't even have a decent cheapass bunk to sleep in, in Iraq or proper armor protection on their vehicles.

Maybe I spend too much time still watching the military channel where hand held weapons can take out a multi-million dollar tank or aircraft. And why did that little dipshit, Ross become a multimillionaire during Viet Nam. The whole thing seems crooked to me and we have more generals today than during WWII.

One thing that really disturbed us in VN, we would cost a lot less dead than if alive or wounded, and even told that we were expendable. Nothing has changed since then.

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

"By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."

remind me - how many aircraft carriers do those 3 have again?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I love how some of you conveniently gloss over this nugget...

In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost -- yes, lost -- $2.3 trillion. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a subsequent Department of Defense study said it was only $1 trillion. To put such numbers in perspective, contemplate what those sums could finance. $1 trillion, for instance, could pay the total cost of universal healthcare for the long haul. $2.3 trillion would cover universal healthcare plus the bank bailout plus the stimulus package.

...which is oh so telling coming from the very ones who are so concerned about federal expenditures.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[NickD 203]

Can safely state with witnesses, that I didn't get very much of that money when I served with extremely poor accommodations, clothing, and food. Then they made us do dirty things and expected us to use what little pay we got to replace our worn out uniforms, that and cleaning them could easily take over half our paychecks. If we wanted to see our families, also had to pay for that, even if thousands of miles away from home, but whiskey and cigarettes were cheap.

Not much better today when many are on food stamps, but this is the first line of defense and the first to get killed. Could have kicked Bush in the balls when he said he needs more money for our troops, can't believe he could even say that with a straight face when kids I know didn't even have a decent cheapass bunk to sleep in, in Iraq or proper armor protection on their vehicles.

Maybe I spend too much time still watching the military channel where hand held weapons can take out a multi-million dollar tank or aircraft. And why did that little dipshit, Ross become a multimillionaire during Viet Nam. The whole thing seems crooked to me and we have more generals today than during WWII.

One thing that really disturbed us in VN, we would cost a lot less dead than if alive or wounded, and even told that we were expendable. Nothing has changed since then.

Lost is a difficult word to conceive, how does anyone lose 2.3 trillion dollars, perhaps a far more descriptive word would be, misappropriated. That is to be politically correct, stolen would be the street word.

[Heracles 417]

I love how some of you conveniently gloss over this nugget...

In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost -- yes, lost -- $2.3 trillion. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a subsequent Department of Defense study said it was only $1 trillion. To put such numbers in perspective, contemplate what those sums could finance. $1 trillion, for instance, could pay the total cost of universal healthcare for the long haul. $2.3 trillion would cover universal healthcare plus the bank bailout plus the stimulus package.

...which is oh so telling coming from the very ones who are so concerned about federal expenditures.

Good point. Why preach about government wastage when there is one division that is literally permitted to waste money as the please. Aka given a blank check. In the private sector an unexplained loss of $500K would cause you to be fired and probably sued period. Lose even $100million in the military and it's business as usual.

The $2.3 trillion LOST could have actually purchased 16,129 of the F22 mentioned above.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Booyah!

[slim 1,533]

I love how some of you conveniently gloss over this nugget...

In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost -- yes, lost -- $2.3 trillion. .

If welfare and health care would be run as effectively as the defense department, I don't think anyone would worry about their "losses" either.

See, defense is a results-based, department. They're actually the only arm of govt. that is VERY GOOD at what they do and gets the job done every single time. I think if we had a health and welfare department that could actually do what it said, (help people to help themselves instead of help them to have more kids and keep the endless downward spiral going) then they could misappropriate all the funds they wanted as well.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I love how some of you conveniently gloss over this nugget...

In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost -- yes, lost -- $2.3 trillion. .

If welfare and health care would be run as effectively as the defense department, I don't think anyone would worry about their "losses" either.

See, defense is a results-based, department. They're actually the only arm of govt. that is VERY GOOD at what they do and gets the job done every single time. I think if we had a health and welfare department that could actually do what it said, (help people to help themselves instead of help them to have more kids and keep the endless downward spiral going) then they could misappropriate all the funds they wanted as well.

It's not a question of doing their jobs adequately. The issue has to do with the defense contracts, many of which are earmarked onto other bills. As the article indicated, McCain and Rumsfeld have addressed the issue.