Ships the Navy Doesn't Need

[Purveyor]

Mar 15, 2016 8:00 AM EDT
By Editorial Board

It’s as much a springtime tradition in Washington as the White House Easter Egg Roll, though not nearly as edifying: As Congress takes up the Defense Department’s budget request, lawmakers scramble to add ships, tanks and planes that the military hasn’t even asked for. This year, however, taxpayers have been promised change -- and it’s easy to test how serious Congress is.

The chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas and Senator John McCain of Arizona, have pledged to rein in runaway defense spending. There are plenty of pet projects lawmakers want to add to the military's 2017 budget, but three stand out:

* Purchasing three new littoral combat ships rather than the two the military has requested, wiping out hundreds of millions in planned savings.
* Allocating money to a special fund that would allow the Navy to build the next-generation nuclear-armed submarine without dipping into its ordinary shipbuilding budget.
* Building 10 new Virginia-class attack submarines, which cost around $2.5 billion each, instead of the nine the military requested over a five-year period.

All of these proposals have two things in common. First, their supporters say they’re critical to national defense. And second, they bring federal money to their supporters’ districts. In most cases, that first claim is simply untrue. And even when it isn’t, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the project should be approved.

more...

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-15/ships-the-navy-doesn-t-need

[JFKDem62]

1. We can not educate American children or send them to doctors when ill.

We drink poisoned water.

Millions of American children live in third world conditions.

Or country's infrastructure is falling apart.

But we can spend $trillions on worthless military junk.