Up Is Down: The Military Budget

[davidswanson]

The largest military budget in the history of the world is being increased. Certain weapons are being cut back, others expanded. But the overall budget is going UP. However, you don't need me to tell you that. You've learned it from these fine news sources:

FoxNews.com:

"With Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposing broad cuts in Pentagon spending, a new war over the president's budget has begun. While critics already are warning that the plan could compromise U.S. security, the greater resistance appears to be coming from lawmakers worried that the cuts threaten thousands of jobs in their states."

There really are cuts and critics and chicken littles, but nowhere does Fox tell you that the overall budget is INCREASING. Then again, if Fox didn't lie, how would we know what was true?

Rachel Maddow:

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates today proposed a massive overhaul of Pentagon spending. Since the year 2000 the already huge defense budget has risen 72 percent. Gates' new budget would pry the Pentagon away from its preparations for big conventional you-line-up-here we'll-line-up-here wars ... Anticipating criticism that he is making too big a change away from things that the Pentagon has traditionally LOVED spending money on, Mr. Gates said this: 'Every defense dollar spent to to overinsure against a remote or diminishing risk ... is a dollar not available to take care of our people.' ... And that was the head of the Pentagon acknowledging that there isn't infinite money available for his department, that there have to be tradeoffs. And that thump-thump-thump sound that you heard in the distance as he was talking was the sound of executives at all the big defense contractors passing out."

Love ya three-quarters of the time, Rachel, but you really should have waved blue pom-poms for this one. As noted below, many "defense" contractors are cheering for Gates' budget.

The New York Times:

"WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced a major reshaping of the Pentagon budget on Monday, with deep cuts in many traditional weapons systems but new billions of dollars for others, along with more troops and new technology to fight the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. … Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, reacted strongly against Mr. Gates’s proposal to end spending for the F-22, which employs 25,000 workers in Georgia and across the country. 'It's outrageous that President Obama is willing to bury the country under a mountain of debt with his reckless domestic agenda but refuses to fund programs critical to our national defense,' Mr. Price said in a statement. In addition, a bipartisan group of six senators urged Mr. Gates not to make large cuts in missile defense programs. In a letter to Mr. Obama, they said the reductions 'could undermine our emerging missile defense capabilities to protect the United States against a growing threat.'"

If the New York Times didn't use "objective" (quote one war monger and a second war monger) reporting to back militarism, how would we know we weren't dreaming?

Air America:

"Regular Army No More? (Audio)
"By Ana Marie Cox
"Defense Secretary Robert Gates builds in unprecedented cuts to defense spending, especially on experimental and "next generation" weapons like the F-22 and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. What's next? Lower-tech, proven options such as intelligence and counter insurgency. What it has in common with the rest of the Obama program may surprise you."

I love Air America and was on it yesterday, but fluff is fluff and some of it I'm allergic to.

Center for American Progress:

"Gates Reins In Bloated Defense Budget
"Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced his recommendations for the department's 2010 budget, offering 'deep cuts in many traditional weapons systems but new billions of dollars for others, along with more troops and new technology to fight the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.' The Los Angeles Times described his proposal offering 'the most sweeping changes in military spending priorities in decades.' The Wonk Room's Matt Duss wrote yesterday that Gates's recommendations represent 'an appreciable shift in the way that the United States approaches the issue of military acquisitions.'"

This went on at length without ever mentioning that the budget was going UP not DOWN.

True Majority:

"Tell Congress to support the Gates/Obama defense budget.
"Dear David,
"At last!
"Some of us wondered if this day would ever come. Today the Secretary of Defense explained to Congress exactly the points TrueMajority members have been making for years: wasting taxes on weapons which don't work and have no conceivable use against real-world enemies makes us LESS strong as a nation1.
Show Congress we're ready to invest in True Security -- sign the petition."

OK, I know this isn't a news source. But this is an activist group that drives giant displays of Oreo cookies around the country to illustrate the relative sizes of the military budget and budgets for schools and healthcare. An Oreo got added to the military stack, and "True" Majority wants us to cheer instead of vomiting.

You could find the news if you searched, of course. CNN included the news in its 39th paragraph. AP included the total cost in its second paragraph but not whether it was an increase or decrease. A New York Times editorial in favor of more cuts included the total cost in its ninth paragraph. A USA Today editorial admirably noted and lamented the huge size of the budget but praised the supposed cutting of it and did not note that the overall budget was increasing. The Washington Post's editorial claimed to approve the cuts but deemed them politically impossible, never noting the INCREASING military budget. And, of course, columnists in the Wall Street Journal screamed "Obama and Gates Gut the Military".

But business sources told a very different story. Here's Market Watch:

"Pentagon still a cash cow despite budget cuts
"Analysts weigh in on the winners and losers from Gates' spending proposal
"By Christopher Hinton, MarketWatch
"NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The proposed 2010 defense budget from the Pentagon had a lot of changes, but Wall Street analysts said Tuesday there's still plenty of funding for the country's top military contractors. 'Lockheed Martin had the best outcome from --Defense Secretary Robert-- Gates' budget decisions, there was also strong support for Northrop Grumman's and General Dynamics' shipbuilding businesses,' said Douglas Harned, an analyst with Bernstein Research. 'Notably, there were no indications of plans to bring budgets down significantly in 2011.'"

Here's Jane's:

"US defence stocks surged on Gates' budget proposal
"Major US defence stocks were raised out of the doldrums by Defense Secretary Robert Gates' budget proposals thanks to the lifting of a degree of uncertainty and proposals that were not as dramatic as the markets expected. Fitch Ratings was among those who noted that although four of the top 10 US programmes face reductions or delays, several of the leading projects - including the F-35 and F/A-18 aircraft programmes - were to be increased. The proposal to increase intelligence and reconnaissance support by USD2 billion highlighted the new priorities of the Pentagon and threw up clear winners ranging from sensor and systems providers such as Raytheon (which closed 8.2 per cent up). Textron - which successfully divested its HR Textron unit the day before and increased its exposure to unmanned air systems through the buy of AAI Corporation - was the leader of the day, with a double-digit jump of 11.3 per cent."

The second round articles tended to be worse than the first:

ABC News:

"Will New Military Budget Prolong Recession?
"Many Cities and Towns Rely on Government Spending to Keep Their Economies Strong
"By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ, ABC NEWS Business Unit
"April 8, 2009—Many cities and towns across this country rise and fall with military spending. And with Defense Secretary Robert Gates' announcement earlier this week of new defense spending priorities, many communities are bracing for drastic cuts or a windfall."

This article mentioned that the budget was actually increasing in its 35th paragraph.

My point is not that the reported cuts aren’t real, that jobs won't be lost, or that congress members aren't bought-and-paid-for schmucks. And my point is not just that the military should be cut and that non-military investment produces more and better paying jobs. My immediate point is that we are not getting the news, even from sources that would be screaming it from the rooftops if Obama had an "R" after his name.

Now, the last time I claimed that everybody had something wrong, Hullabaloo complained that they had got it right, so I checked and sure enough Hullabaloo got this right by quoting TPM which got this right. My advice is to follow such sources closely if you want to know you can believe what you're reading.

As you may have figured out, Republicorporate news sources will disguise and promote military spending even if done by a Democratic president, and Democratic news sources will do so only if done by a Democratic president. Democrats in Congress will play along whoever is in the White House, but at least when it's a Republican, SOME news sources will fill us in on what's happening. Practice eternal vigilance.

[L0oniX]

1. We care more about killing than keeping our people healthy.

Single payer health care is off the table and the military and banksters get our money ...and I am not voting for Obama again! Actually, I think I have voted for the last time. Voting is nothing but a suckers game. Only mass civil disobedience will create real change ...as it has in the past. Did we vote to stop Vietnam? Did we vote for equal rights? I am tired of all the liars that pose as leaders. I fucking give up!

[davidswanson]

4. that's not what i'm recommending

voting between two very similar candidates is not a mistake, and you didn't vote for the wrong one

it's just a teeny part of what we have to do from which you expected far too much

[HamdenRice]

2. Unfair. Demilitarization is actually expensive at first

The highest relative military expenditure rate the US ever incurred were in 1945 -- despite the fact that the war ended in the middle of the year.

When Clinton proposed base closings and when Rumsfeld proposed base closings (pre 9/11), both projected massive initial costs.

You are deliberately ignoring context. The administration is proposing massive cuts in the nuclear arsenel, cutting some of the most expensive weapons systems, and pulling as many troops as is feasible out of Iraq. They also propose a "surge" in Afghanistan that is obviously intended to stabilize the situation so that they can eventually extricate themselves.

[davidswanson]

5. the point

which i made repeatedly was that the military budget is going UP, not DOWN

while i disagree with the policies on Iraq and Afghanistan, and while I want actions to follow words on cutting nukes, i didn't raise those topics

[HamdenRice]

7. And my point is, a long term plan to reduce military spending would include an increase at first

There is nothing inconsistent between the long range plan of reducing military spending (which it's pretty obvious Obama is proposing) and a spike in spending this year and probably next year, to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan before getting out, and a switch to less expensive weapons systems while the big expensive ones are being phased out.

If this bugs you, get ready for some really big military expenses. Do you have any idea how expensive it will be to reduce the nuclear arsenel?

[davidswanson]

8. yes

it would cost us money to destroy weapons
it would cost us money to close bases
it would cost us money to end wars
but to fantasize that the increases in the proposed budget have anything to do with such moves is pure fantasy -- find me such expenses in Gates' budget and I'll praise them
Until then, dreaming is better done while sleeping

i wrote about the military budget, not the war budget
we can hope that the war budget will go down someday - i certainly hope so - but that's just hoping

[BeFree]

3. In other words

At least ask them to wear a condom before they get inside your head?
=======


The defense budget is going up? How can that be?
Is that what people want?

[davidswanson]

6. they didn't wear a condom

or you wouldn't have called it the DEFENSE budget

:-)

[BeFree]

9. Yep

I have been screwed. You're right, it is an offensive budget.

Thanks for cleaning up that mess.

But for the rest of the pluribus un unumied, it is a defense budget with a lot of kids spawned from the screwing with people's heads.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. He did promise to increase the number of troops by over 90,000. Did people think that wouldn't

cost anything?

[bigtree]

13. and here some of us were

. . . counseling him to work to limit our military commitments. That alone would reduce the strains that he's trying to remedy with more bodies.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. More troops means having the ability to use them, but does not require it.

The US has had ICBM's for over 50 years, but has yet to use one.

[bigtree]

20. the justification used by the president is to reduce the burden on the forces

That 'burden' can be eased and remedied by a lessening of priorities and missions. The entire rationale assumes that we'll continue this type of self-perpetuating militarism and gives commanders enough rope to hang us with. I prefer they not have enough bodies to contemplate using them in these nation-building coups.

[mike_c]

14. electing the lesser of two evils is not an overwhelming mandate for evil....

You seem to think that just because a majority of Americans rejected McSame, we're all in agreement with Obama's plans.

Clue: we're not.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. I don't beleive that President Obama is evil. Do you?

:shrug:

[mike_c]

18. deftly missing the point, as usual, or more likely willfully ignoring it....

Can you say "figure of speech?"

[bigtree]

11. What's interesting

. . .has been the divide in the media of opinion on the budget between a group they identify as Democratic (which is apparently cheering the 'cuts' in the budget) and the republican opposition (which is making the false argument about a decrease).

There is virtually no representation of the opposition to the effort by the Pentagon to further invest the military posture in prosecuting these 'nation-building' coups and defending our invading forces and our juntas against the resisting populations in a self-perpetuating cycle of attacks and reprisals.

What I worry about is the dynamic which has so many folks defending this Pentagon leadership-driven budget as a defense of President Obama without taking a critical look at the extraordinary expense of tax dollars to support such dubiously justified militarism - funding it to a degree which outmatches out closest 'adversaries' by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Why isn't our party engaged in that debate? It's by design. The type of politics which the president has designed to efficiently execute his pragmatic policy into enactment provides the perfect political wedge against such dissent by emphasizing and characterizing the republican complaints as the essence of opposition to the budget and regarding any move to criticize the president as part and parcel of the republican con.

What happened to critical thinking in our opposition? It's being replaced with a increasingly myopic loyalism to the Executive.


(rec #5. Why do folks leave threads like this hanging at four??)

[davidswanson]

16. ex

actly

[davidswanson]

19. ex

actly

[paparush]

12. Our M$M is a fascist propaganda mouthpiece for the M.I.C.

All war, all the time. Its just too good for business!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

21. Two articles for ya'

Tuesday Feb. 3, 2009 06:02 EST
The "defense cut" falsehood from The Washington Post and Robert Kagan
(updated below - Update II - Update III)

Even for the standard-less Washington Post Op-Ed page, which will publish any version of neocon claptrap regardless of how factually false it is, this is rather striking:

Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of increased defense spending. True to his word, Obama's 2010 fiscal year budget calls for $527 billion in defense spending (not including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan). That is more than the U.S. allocated for defense in 2009 and equals what the Bush administration budgeted for 2010:

The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 defense budget, an official with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said Monday.

If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion allocated for fiscal 2009, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010.

<snip>

UPDATE III: The author of the above-cited CQ story regarding Obama's budget request, Josh Rogin, just emailed me, advising that he has corrected his story to reflect that last year's defense spending total was $513 billion, not $487.7 billion as he originally reported (and as I quoted). Thus, the increase sought by Obama in total defense spending is $14 billion rather than $40 billion. Obviously, that doesn't change any of the points made here -- Obama is still seeking a sizable increase in the "defense" budget, not a "cut" -- but I did want to note CQ's revision to its story.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/03/kagan/


Wednesday Jan. 2, 2008 07:03 EST
The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending

Global Security has taken the Fiscal Year 2008 U.S. budget and prepared a new chart illustrating the most significant and under-discussed political fact in the United States, one that substantially affects every other issue:

Our military spending exceeds the rest of the world's spending combined, and we spend almost 10 times what the second-place country, China, spends. "Only" about $150 billion of the total U.S. amount is attributable to the two active wars we're fighting, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, even if one wants to excludes those amounts, the basic picture remains the same. Nor do these amounts include the billions of dollars in military aid we give to fund the armies of other countries, such as Israel and Egypt, which alone comprise substantial portions of those countries' defense budgets.

And this gap between us and the rest of the world has widened considerably over the last 10 years. That's true because our own military spending, in absolute terms, has increased wildly during that time:

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/02/military_spending/

K&R

[bigtree]

22. .