Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 5, 2008 5:12:45 GMT -6
Proposed Military Spending Is Highest Since WWII
By THOM SHANKER
"As Congress and the public focus on more than $600 billion already approved in supplemental budgets to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for counterterrorism operations, the Bush administration has with little notice approached a landmark in military spending.
The Pentagon on Monday will unveil its proposed 2009 budget of $515.4 billion. If it is approved in full, annual military spending, when adjusted for inflation, will have reached its highest level since World War II.
That new Defense Department budget proposal, which is to pay for the standard operations of the Pentagon and the military but does not include supplemental spending on the war efforts or on nuclear weapons, is an increase in real terms of about 5 percent over this year.
Overall since coming to office, the administration has increased baseline military spending by 30%, a figure sure to be noted in coming budget battles as the American economy seems headed downward and government social spending is strained, especially by health-care costs....
About 14% of the national economy was spent on the military during the Korean War, and about 9% during the war in Vietnam. By comparison, when the current base Pentagon budget, nuclear weapons and supplemental war costs are combined, they total just over 4% of the current economy, according to budget experts. The base Pentagon spending alone is about 3.4% of gross domestic product.
“The Bush administration’s 2009 defense request follows the continuously ascending path of military outlays the president embraced at the beginning of his tenure,” said Loren Thompson, a budget and procurement expert at the Lexington Institute....
Pentagon and military officials acknowledge the considerable commitment of money that will be required for continuing the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as efforts to increase the size of the Army, Marine Corps and Special Operations forces, to replace weapons worn out in the desert and to assure “quality of life” for those in uniform so they will remain in the military.
Yet those demands for money do not even include the price of refocusing the military’s attention beyond the current wars to prepare for other challenges....
“I believe that we need to have a broad public discussion about what we should spend on defense,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...."
Me too. We need to vote out all the worthless and expensive weapons systems that either don't work, or duplicate what we already have. We don't need any more Osprys or Raptors. And we don't need to spend another dime on Star Wars anti-missle defense systems—especially when it's never been proven to work.
"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mullen have said military spending should not drop below 4 percent of the national economy. “I really do believe this 4% floor is important,” Admiral Mullen said. “It’s really important, given the world we’re living in, given the threats that we see out there, the risks that are, in fact, global, not just in the Middle East.”...."
What B.S. We're under less threat from outside attack, or internal insurrection, than we've been at any time in all of US History. Bush is a war criminal, and Mullen's not far from being one himself. The real security risks are economic. And the biggest threats to our liberties and way of life come from the Bush junta itself, not terrorism.
"“The secretary believes that whenever we transition away from war supplementals, the Congress should dedicate 4% of our G.D.P. to funding national security,” Mr. Morrell said. “That is what he believes to be a reasonable price to stay free and protect our interests around the world.”
That's not his decision to make. It is up to we, the people, to decide how much to "dedicate to funding national security"—since it is we, the people, who must pay for it.
"No weapons programs are canceled in the new Pentagon budget, officials said."
So this must mean that ALL of our current weapons programs work extremely well, and they're worth their weight in gold. (Or was it salt?)
Or could it mean that all Pentagon officials have been bribed extremely well.
"The 2009 military spending proposal will be the 11th year of continuous increases in the base military budget, he added.
War-fighting supplement spending measures are outside the base Pentagon budget, an issue that has angered some in Congress. Pentagon officials have proposed a $70 billion special war budget just to carry on operations from Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, into the early months of the next presidency.
Another supplemental spending proposal is expected before October, but after Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior commander in Iraq, reports to Congress on his recommendations for troop levels through the end of 2008....
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who visited Iraq again last month, said that expanding the ground force as proposed in the new budget was an important step to relieve pressure on the Army and Marine Corps — one he would support even though he said it came too late...."
Our nation is going bankrupt, while every appointed government official wants more money for his own projects, while also opposing tax increases.
Isn't it nice to be governed by a pack of jackals who are guided only by a fact-free, and logic-free idiotology?
By THOM SHANKER
"As Congress and the public focus on more than $600 billion already approved in supplemental budgets to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for counterterrorism operations, the Bush administration has with little notice approached a landmark in military spending.
The Pentagon on Monday will unveil its proposed 2009 budget of $515.4 billion. If it is approved in full, annual military spending, when adjusted for inflation, will have reached its highest level since World War II.
That new Defense Department budget proposal, which is to pay for the standard operations of the Pentagon and the military but does not include supplemental spending on the war efforts or on nuclear weapons, is an increase in real terms of about 5 percent over this year.
Overall since coming to office, the administration has increased baseline military spending by 30%, a figure sure to be noted in coming budget battles as the American economy seems headed downward and government social spending is strained, especially by health-care costs....
About 14% of the national economy was spent on the military during the Korean War, and about 9% during the war in Vietnam. By comparison, when the current base Pentagon budget, nuclear weapons and supplemental war costs are combined, they total just over 4% of the current economy, according to budget experts. The base Pentagon spending alone is about 3.4% of gross domestic product.
“The Bush administration’s 2009 defense request follows the continuously ascending path of military outlays the president embraced at the beginning of his tenure,” said Loren Thompson, a budget and procurement expert at the Lexington Institute....
Pentagon and military officials acknowledge the considerable commitment of money that will be required for continuing the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as efforts to increase the size of the Army, Marine Corps and Special Operations forces, to replace weapons worn out in the desert and to assure “quality of life” for those in uniform so they will remain in the military.
Yet those demands for money do not even include the price of refocusing the military’s attention beyond the current wars to prepare for other challenges....
“I believe that we need to have a broad public discussion about what we should spend on defense,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...."
Me too. We need to vote out all the worthless and expensive weapons systems that either don't work, or duplicate what we already have. We don't need any more Osprys or Raptors. And we don't need to spend another dime on Star Wars anti-missle defense systems—especially when it's never been proven to work.
"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mullen have said military spending should not drop below 4 percent of the national economy. “I really do believe this 4% floor is important,” Admiral Mullen said. “It’s really important, given the world we’re living in, given the threats that we see out there, the risks that are, in fact, global, not just in the Middle East.”...."
What B.S. We're under less threat from outside attack, or internal insurrection, than we've been at any time in all of US History. Bush is a war criminal, and Mullen's not far from being one himself. The real security risks are economic. And the biggest threats to our liberties and way of life come from the Bush junta itself, not terrorism.
"“The secretary believes that whenever we transition away from war supplementals, the Congress should dedicate 4% of our G.D.P. to funding national security,” Mr. Morrell said. “That is what he believes to be a reasonable price to stay free and protect our interests around the world.”
That's not his decision to make. It is up to we, the people, to decide how much to "dedicate to funding national security"—since it is we, the people, who must pay for it.
"No weapons programs are canceled in the new Pentagon budget, officials said."
So this must mean that ALL of our current weapons programs work extremely well, and they're worth their weight in gold. (Or was it salt?)
Or could it mean that all Pentagon officials have been bribed extremely well.
"The 2009 military spending proposal will be the 11th year of continuous increases in the base military budget, he added.
War-fighting supplement spending measures are outside the base Pentagon budget, an issue that has angered some in Congress. Pentagon officials have proposed a $70 billion special war budget just to carry on operations from Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, into the early months of the next presidency.
Another supplemental spending proposal is expected before October, but after Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior commander in Iraq, reports to Congress on his recommendations for troop levels through the end of 2008....
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who visited Iraq again last month, said that expanding the ground force as proposed in the new budget was an important step to relieve pressure on the Army and Marine Corps — one he would support even though he said it came too late...."
Our nation is going bankrupt, while every appointed government official wants more money for his own projects, while also opposing tax increases.
Isn't it nice to be governed by a pack of jackals who are guided only by a fact-free, and logic-free idiotology?