Can You Think of Any Other Ways to Spend
$716 Billion?
The Senate passed a military budget bill
that, among other things, earmarks money for
shiny new nukes
By Matt Taibbi
June 21, 2018 "Information Clearing House" - While the world continues to be transfixed over the gruesome images coming from the border, business went on as usual in Washington. Earlier this week, the Senate quietly passed the $716 billion "John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019."
The bill, which passed 85-10
in a massive show of bipartisan support,
represents a considerable boost in defense
spending across the board –
roughly $82 billion just for next year.
The annual
increase by itself is bigger than the
annual defense budget of Russia ($61
billion) and the two-year jump of over
$165 billion eclipses the entire defense
budget of China ($150
billion).
The bill is a major win for Trump, who has
made no secret about his desire to push
through giant increases in military
spending. The legislation even sends the
U.S. down the road to meeting the
Trump administration’s lunatic goal of
developing smaller, more "flexible" (read:
usable) nuclear weapons, as it
includes $65 million for the development
of a new, lower-yield, submarine-launched
nuke.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda? |
But the problem with the
defense bill, at least in terms of
attracting coverage, is that it's also a big
win for almost every other major political
constituency in Washington.
Spending on defense lobbying
has actually been dropping slightly in
recent years, but that may only be because
the opposition to defense spending has
become so anemic that lobbyists don’t really
need to bother anymore. Historically, both
parties reflexively vote to increase the
defense budget, and there was not much
#resistance in Congress on this issue.
Opposition even to the bill’s quirks was
limited, and overall opposition to the huge
increase in spending was virtually
nonexistent outside a few voices.
Rhode Island’s Jack Reed tried to introduce
an amendment blocking the spending on the
new low-yield nuke. But Oklahoma Republican
James Inhofe, filling in for McCain as the
chair of the Armed Services Committee,
put a stop to that.
***
Twenty-eight years ago, Congress passed a
bill
requiring federal agencies to pass financial
audits. But the Department of Defense
hasn’t bothered, not once. Along with Utah’s
Mike Lee and Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, Bernie
Sanders introduced an amendment that
would have forced the DOD to conduct a
successful audit by 2022.
The proposed penalty was pocket change by
DOD standards – the government would have
redirected $100 million in defense spending
to deficit reduction – but the amendment was
killed.
Sanders, Lee, and Connecticut’s Chris Murphy
also tried to
introduce an amendment preventing U.S.
military planes from refueling Saudi
coalition bombers in the campaign against
Yemen, which, by some estimates has killed
over 10,000 civilians and
displaced over 3 million.
The amendment, too, was killed.
The ease with which this massive spending
increase passed exposes all the howling we
always get from think-tanks and the press
whenever any ambitious social program is
proposed. It’s all bunk – all of it.
Ask experts how much it would cost to make
higher education at public colleges and
universities free, and
you’ll
get some big numbers. You will also hear
strident opposition in op-ed pages to how "unrealistic" the
idea is, even though most free-ed proposals
would fit easily into an $80
billion-per-year outlay.
Nobody ever calls massive increases in
military spending "unrealistic." Not even
when Donald Trump wants them.
This article was originally published by "Rolling Stone" -
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
======
Join the Discussion
It is not necessary for ICH readers to register before placing a comment. We ask that you treat others with respect. Take a moment to read the following - Comment Policy - What Or Who is Information Clearing House and Purpose and Intent of this website: It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH. Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.