Orwell for Congress! (Never mind, he's already there...)

[unhappycamper]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Orwell-for-Congress--Nev-by-Thomas-Magstadt-Budget_Congress_Congress_Debt-131102-851.html

Oceania was a Soviet-style dictatorship ruled by "Big Brother". Stalin is dead and the Soviet Union is history, but Orwell's insights are still relevant.

Orwell for Congress! (Never mind, he's already there...)
OpEdNews Op Eds 11/2/2013 at 07:36:13
By Thomas Magstadt

Critics in this country have long railed against profligate military spending. They point out correctly that US taxpayers are saddled with a greater defense burden than is true in any other advanced society in the world. Taxpayers are curiously oblivious to this argument, so it's hardly surprising that calls for deep defense cuts fall on deaf ears in Congress.

However, Republicans who fought to defund "Obamacare" and who oppose raising the debt ceiling, the very ones who clamor the loudest against the evils of big government and budget deficits but have no problem with outlandish expenditures on war and weapons, are shameless about demanding deep cuts in social spending . Thus, for example, i n the spring of 2011:

"the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives [was] intent on taking out fuel subsidies for the poor, federal funding for Planned Parenthood, money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System, and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that "supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs," among many other programs, but not (as New York Times columnist Gail Collins pointed out recently) the millions of dollars the U.S. Army sinks into its "relationship" with NASCAR.

To repeat: these are the same politicians who never question the size or contents of a bloated defense budget and are not in the least troubled by the Pentagon's well-documented failure to account for untold billions of dollars that simply disappear without a trace every year. The US Defense Department hemorrhages taxpayer dollars and yet Congress continues to pretend that military and war-related waste and mismanagement aren't a problem. (Never mind, for example, that most of the $73 billion in AID money poured into Afghanistan apparently vanished into thin air .)

[stuartsdesk1]

1. Defense Budget Should INCREASE - To Take Real Care of Injured and Disabled Veterans

Unhappycamper -

You are right. The defense budget is bloated and rife with waste. BUT, it should not be decreased.
Instead it should be INCREASED to provide lifetime care and support to all of our injured and disabled veterans.
The actual lack of timely services, money and understanding is shameful.

Will that cost money? Yes, of course. There is plenty of money available from bloated corporate treasuries which
has accumulated due to bad tax laws, hidden profits, special exemptions and plain cheating. We need to convince
the average American to send a message to congress, especially to the Republican congress, that increased tax revenue is
a moral imperative in order to properly take care of our veterans.

Additionally, American business has to be pushed to provide all veterans with reasonable employment opportunities.
This could be accomplished by NEGATIVE tax incentives.

NEGATIVE? Yes. INCREASE tax rates on corporations who don't employ a generous cohort of veterans. The extra revenue
could go into providing better veteran's benefits.

About the waste that exists in the defense establishment - this is not due so much to bad judgment but rather to
undue lobbying by corporate interests. Wake up Supreme Court. Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE and are not protected
by the Bill of Rights. The US constitution talks about people, peoples and persons, not corporations.

Until the "conservative" Supreme Court justices are replaced and the Court comes to its senses, corporate lobbying and pork projects will continue to waste a significant fraction of the defense budget which could be better spent on veterans well being.

Not to mention the cost of ill considered wars in the middle east, promoted by "chicken hawk" neocons like Bill Kristol,
Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Kagan Brothers etc.

[unhappycamper]

2. I'll disagree with you on the increase

Here's my starting point:




The military consumes 57% of the same budget that we use for stuff like, Labor, Food Stamps, etc. etc. etc.

The military continues to spend big bucks. Some examples:

* new $5+ billion dollar stealth destroyers (3 total)
* $7+ billion dollar submarines (one a year)
* a new $40 billion dollar aircraft carrier
* 100 new bombers for $81 billion dollars (new RFP)
* and my personal favorite, the $243 million dollar F-35

Since the military did not get funding for new scout helicopters, they decided to ground the Koiwa fleet and use Apaches and Blackhawks instead. (Blackhawks are around $45~$50 million dollars each; Apaches cost more.)

Northrup Grumman just announced a new drone, the RQ-180 to replace our $244 million dollar Global Hawk drones. ( I'll bet you a buck these will be more expensive than the drones they are going to replace.)

To sum it up, the military construction program is cranking up.

I would prefer that the military gets cut to around $450~5000 billion dollars with the understanding that veterans care has first priority. Period.

[stuartsdesk1]

3. OK - Don't Increase the Defense Budget - Move a Chunk to Veteran's Benefits

OK. I will agree with you. I didn't realize that veterans benefits were NOT
bundled into the defense budget. (That's a rather cynical situation in itself.)

So, I will modify my proposal as follows - Cut a sizable chunk from the defense budget (e.g. 5 - 10% of the proposed
57% of discretionary spending, i.e. 2.8% to 5.7% of the total proposed budget) and transfer all of it to veteran's benefits.
That would increase veteran's benefits by 1.5X to 2X.

I'm guessing that you might still wish to cut more. Be careful.

Despite constituting massive waste, excessive defense expenditures do serve some useful
purposes.

A good fraction goes into working peoples wages which are then recycled into the economy with a multiplier
effect. Sudden, massive decreases in defense spending would be a disaster for the economy
and for jobs.

Admittedly, some of the wasted money goes into corporate dividends, corporate treasuries and excessive executive compensation. That is where additional taxation should be applied, to return that money to needy veterans.

I also believe in following Teddy's maxim "Speak softly and carry a big stick." I would go further to say -

"Speak softly but directly, carry a VERY big stick but use it only as a last resort. Avoid useless, painful
and profitless bloodshed at all costs. The bigger the stick, the less it has to be used"

What does unhappycamper say to that?

[unhappycamper]

4. The MIC has been infiltrating our economy for a looooong time now.

How they do it: Farm out work for a project, such as the F-35.

Around 43 states have companies building F-35 parts, The F-35, IMO is the 21st century equivalent of the $500 toilet seat.

Look at the very small list in my post above.

A $40 billion dollar aircraft carrier? $5+ billion dollar destroyers? $7 billion dollars submarines? $81 billion dollars for 100 new bombers?

The P-51 Mustang, arguably the best fighter in WWII, cost $50,000 delivered. You know those 186 (or 187) F-22 Raptors we are so proud of? $350~$418 million a pop. St. Ronnie's B-2 bombers (now only 20 of them): $2.2~$2.4 billion each (plus the cost per flying hour is around $35 grand).

This camper suggests:

* rethink our warmongering ways
* feed Americans before building expensive war crap
* take care of your veterans FIRST
* Dempsey and crew should stop whining
* the DoD start taking steps to downsize