Again I ask the question, why must the military budget be increased?

[Savannahmann]

One of the things we rightly demanded of Bush was that he increase taxes in order to afford his war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military spending increased, and it's obvious why.

It cost tons of money for the tons of jet fuel to fly personnel and equipment there. It cost tons of money to maintain those aircraft. It cost tons of money to ship items over, and then transport them via road convoys to the point where they are needed. It cost money to move the supplies the troops need to go to war. Then there is the cost of the materials. All of that cost money. OK, that makes sense, and it perfectly logical. Which by the way, many Democrats rightly asked where the money would come from to pay for this war.

Now, Iraq is over. We are no longer spending tons of money to move troops there. We are no longer spending tons of money to get equipment there. We are no longer spending the money to support the troops there. This should save us money. Ending the war should save us money, not cost more.

The war in Afghanistan is winding down, it will be over in months. We're already moving troops out. No longer will we have to pay the tons of money to ship supplies over there for them to use. This should save us money right?

Yet the two year budget plan increases the money the Military gets by 2%. A friend who is retired Military sent me this from the RW trash site The Weekly Standard. He was outraged that the Republicans were cutting the Cost of Living adjustments for the Military Retirees. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ryan-defends-reduction-cost-living-adjustments-early-military-retirees_770921.html

Under the 2011 Budget Control Act, about $1 trillion was cut from the defense budget over 10 years--roughly $500 billion by the law's spending caps and another $500 billion through automatic sequestration cuts, which exempted personnel. The Ryan-Murray deal relieves $31.5 billion in sequestration cuts to defense over the next two years. "From my conversation with just Chuck Hagel and General Dempsey recently, the biggest relief this gets is military readiness," Ryan said. "The statistics are very, very concerning about our readiness."

The COLA reduction for military retirees, which doesn't take effect until January of 2016, would save an additional $6 billion over 10 years in the defense budget. "The defense community asked us to look at compensation and their entitlement spending within the Pentagon. We knew we couldn't put back into the Pentagon's budget as much as we'd like to, and these reforms help them with their budget," said Ryan. "The savings stays with the Department of Defense and that comes on top of the money we're giving back through the sequester."

Again, why must we pump more money into a military that is not going to be fighting wars anymore? I can understand if we're planning on invading someone, but who's left to invade? Why do we need to increase the military budget anyway? I keep asking this question, and have yet to get a good answer. Are those elected types in Washington going to seriously try and tell us that it cost more money to not fight a war than it does to fight two?

Where is the Media on this? Why aren't they asking Chuck Hagel this question. Why aren't they asking him why it cost more money to not fight two wars than it does to fight two wars? WTF are they spending that money on? Why do they have to take it from the retiree's to fund what military action?

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. Because military weapons companies and contractors need the money.

and the job of it is, they can and do sell their weapons and services to any country, often to both sides of a conflict.

thus, peace is never profitable.

[Savannahmann]

2. OK, but why are Democrats supporting this?

Why am I the only one asking this question? Don't tell me the smartest guy in the room is a blue collar worker from Georgia.

[Chrom]

8. no, you are not the only one asking this question

Everyone should be asking this question and demanding they stop their horrible abuse of the taxpayer NOW!

We need to demand they stop blaming the victims of their horrible economic policies and help people in this country with our money!

The most infuriating thing is...they expect us to believe they were helping Iraq....while they don't give a damn about Americans.

It is beyond evil and everyone should be screaming "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"

Instead, everyone is suffering from stockholm syndrome and/or learned helplessness.

[hack89]

26. Because those weapons are made in Dem districts as well as repuke districts

No politician is going to vote to eliminate hides constituent's jobs.

[Scuba]

29. And apparently no Democrat ever considered the idea that the defense money could be redirected ....

... to other jobs in his/her district.

Nurses, snow plow drivers, firefighters and social workers could be paid instead of defense workers.

If we can't afford to educate our children, heal our sick and care for our elderly, what the fuck is it the defense budget is defending????????

[bossy22]

32. we spend more on education and social services than defense

by a wide margin.

I'm not saying that this means the defense budget needs to be increased, I'm just stating a fact.

[former9thward]

35. What do you define as social services?

Defense spending is 22% of budget
Education is 4% of budget

[bossy22]

37. anything from Medicare/SS to Housing Assistance

you have to look further than the federal budget to understand how much we spend (as a country) on things. For example, while education is only 4% of the federal budget, its not the complete amount we spend on education in this country. Education spending, primarily K-12, is almost exclusively paid for by local governments. Defense on the other hand, is almost exclusively paid for by the Federal government. Therefore you need to look at spending as a % of GDP. the u.s. spends about 6% IIRC of GDP on education while only 3.5-4% on Defense

[Egalitarian Thug]

74. The defense budget is only part of the military budget, when you account for military spending,

we spend far more on that than anything else.

[hack89]

40. Politicians are not usually known for their imagination or courage

They are not going to willingly cut high paying jobs in their districts.

[Scuba]

43. I didn't mean to suggest "cut" but "redirect".

[hack89]

44. People would still lose their jobs

Or take pay cuts. Imagine you are a 50 year old engineer whose job has been redirected - are you expecting him to suddenly change careers? Will he be paid what he was paid before?

[Scuba]

45. And other people would get jobs, or pay increases.

What about them?

[hack89]

47. Why not do both?

Keep the present jobs and implement policies that grow the economy for others. Why does it have to be a zero sum game where one group has to sacrifice so another can benefit? That sounds like a repuke economic plan.

[bossy22]

48. the jobs probably won't pay as much

Defense sector jobs are high-paying often manufacturing/engineering based. Those types of jobs are not easy to create.

[Scuba]

56. Nurses, teachers and other professionals should also be well paid.

[bossy22]

60. so should doctors, lawyers, and actuaries

it doesn't mean we will get those jobs from a diversion of defense funding.

[bossy22]

46. Exactly

Many of those defense sector jobs are niche skills- they really can't be applied elsewhere.

[SQUEE]

77. I disagree..

Apply some of this bleeding edge tech and manufacturing to a modern day Manhatten Project for sustainable energies, low environmental impact farming and housing, American based manufacturing of computer and tech equipment. Revitalize NASA.
Truly beat those swords to plowshares... We were once the Arsenal of Democracy, we can do the same but this time to save the world from ourselves instead of the Axis,.

[rusty fender]

78. Because nurses, snow plow drivers, etc.

don't give politicians big enough kickbacks in the form of campaign contributions.

And when the politicicans lose an election, the nurses, etc. don' t have big, fat jobs waiting for the Hon. Senator, Congressman.

[bossy22]

33. yep

and I don't necessarily have a problem with it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

49. follow the money.

A lot of us have used various tools to find who is making money from whom.
In order to understand what is REALLY going on, you have to do some legwork.

Here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/

http://www.followthemoney.org/
( this lets you plugin your district,among other things)

http://data.influenceexplorer.com/earmarks/


and one of my long time favorite sites:
http://sunlightfoundation.com/

THIS is how you get to be the smartest guy in the room...by doing your homework, as so many other DU folks have.

[Mojorabbit]

63. Vet groups real upset over cuts to their retirement pensions too. Very upset. nt

[goldent]

19. This is exactly it

Add to it that working for the large military contractors is considered a solid job (good benefits, often unionized) and much of it is considered leading edge technology. Shrinking this industry is not good politically.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Because they need to stock up before the people realize they serve no useful purpose.

[spanone]

4. they are a bloated bureaucracy that neither side questions.... sadly.

we could all be starving and the military would get their budget increased.

[SummerSnow]

5. Military retirees: You betrayed us, Congress.....Cnn.com

http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/12/news/economy/military-pensions-budget/



http://www.foreignassistance.gov/web/CountryIntro.aspx

This site tells you how much foreign aid we give annually to different countries. Make sure you have tissue handy

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Yup, it is the lion's share, except it is not

[on point]

28. Error: Social security should be listed as sub-set of interest on the debt. it is pmt on loans to US

[Hoyt]

6. The sad truth is that a large part of our economy is based upon lethal weapons systems.

And, a lot of people in this country like using them abroad, and profit from them.

[bossy22]

12. you mean about 4% ?

[Chrom]

7. Very Good Question!

Seriously, someone should have to answer that.

All their bullshit about the money spent on people trying to eat, perhaps live another day....and no one gives a damn
about trillions lost and wasted by lying assholes.

[woo me with science]

9. Nobody has to answer for a damned thing anymore. The media is propaganda,

designed to protect the One Percent and their corporate politicians.

Obama just gave a soaring speech about inequality, and he had a prime time interview right after that.

He was not even asked about the TPP.

These corporatists are NEVER made to account for the chasm between their words and their deeds, including the fact that military spending and corporate welfare are never part of any of their austerity negotiations.

We have a purchased corporate media and a purchased corporate government.

[SomethingFishy]

10. The war in Afghanistan is winding down?

Funny I thought they were trying to get Karzai to sign an agreement to keep us there for at least another 10 years...

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/19/21534305-endless-afghanistan-us-afghan-agreement-would-keep-troops-in-place-and-funds-flowing-perhaps-indefinitely

KABUL – While many Americans have been led to believe the war in Afghanistan will soon be over, a draft of a key U.S.-Afghan security deal obtained by NBC News shows the United States is prepared to maintain military outposts in Afghanistan for many years to come, and pay to support hundreds of thousands of Afghan security forces.

The wide-ranging document, still unsigned by the United States and Afghanistan, has the potential to commit thousands of American troops to Afghanistan and spend billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

The document outlines what appears to be the start of a new, open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan in the name of training and continuing to fight al-Qaeda. The war in Afghanistan doesn’t seem to be ending, but renewed under new, scaled-down U.S.-Afghan terms.

[alarimer]

11. Except the budget deal shafted veterans and retirees.

Yet, there's plenty of money for bloated weapons contracts and even an 11th aircraft carrier (no country in the world has more than 2-3). I guess we are in charge of the planet or something.

Except for the people who do those jobs in the military; they get screwed. Gotta keep the contractors happy, though.

[bossy22]

13. because we aren't really increasing military spending

IIRC correctly the highest amount we ever spent on the military was in 2010 at about $725 billion. FY 2014 budget is going to be around $620 Billion. The reason for this drop is that we are winding down the wars. Now the budget is divided into two main catagories, the base budget (the "military budget" as many people speak) and the Overseas Contingencies account (the "war budget&quot . The war budget has been significantly decreased since its highs in 2010 with the base budget having small or no increases. The reason there is reluctance to cut the base budget so drastically is that there is a large amount of equipment "reset" that needs to be done after every major operation. This is stuff like repair of war damaged equipment, replacement, maintenance, etc...all costs that are associated with "repairing" the armed forces after combat.

Its too easy for people to make 30 second soundbites about military spending, the truth is alot more complicated.

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. When the "war reset" involves trashing $7 billion worth of MRAPs in Afghanistan...

...the Pentagon has too damned much money.

The truth about military spending isn't that complicated: We spend way more than anybody else, and we spend way too much. And there is a criminal amount of waste.

[bossy22]

21. the "trashing" of the MRAP fleet is actually to save money

The pentagon feels that they will be of little use in the future and the amount of money spent on resetting them isn't worth it. In reality that is a frugal mindset (if what the pentagon says is true). the MRAP is a niche capability, it really can't be converted to do anything else. If you aren't going to need it in the future then why keep paying to have them?

yes, there is a lot of waste in military spending.

and yes, we spend alot more in NOMINAL value then anyone else, but relative to our economy we aren't that far off from our peers. Bigger countries have bigger militaries because they have bigger interests. A military that is suitable for Denmark is not suitable for the U.S.

IMHO the military budget needs a fundamental restructuring that will only come with a major change in strategic thinking. I think the army should be smaller (about 350-400,000 troops compared to its 550,000 troop level now) and the Navy enlarged with the air force staying where it is now. With a smaller army we will be less anxious to fight ground wars but still be able to provide strategic power projection through our navy. We will save american lives this way.

[Comrade Grumpy]

38. Something is seriously fucked up when trashing $7 billion of equipment is seen as a money-saver.

Something is seriously fucked up when we spend $7 billion on shit we're going to trash in a couple of years.

I'd say it's our values that are seriously fucked up.

[bossy22]

41. it served its purpose, if it is not needed anymore why spend the money to keep it?

There is nothing fucked up about it. the fact is the MRAP was a single purpose piece of equipment- to protect troops from IEDs and roadside bombs. The MRAP came into existence for this specific issue only. There was no piece of equipment in our arsenal at the time that could protect troops adequately. Now that this threat is significantly decreased, it is no longer needed. Why should we keep equipment we don't need?

Getting rid of it is a money saver because there is no other option. they can't really perform any other task and the military can't afford to keep all of them (they are keeping a few thousand of them) without getting rid of some other piece of equipment.

It was purchased as a War necessity. Just look out how much military hardware we scrapped after WWII. I mean within 6 months of the war ending they were dumping perfectly usable munitions into the ocean.

[Vattel]

64. it is more complicated.

It is important to recognize, for example, that we spend far more on national security than the money we give directly to DOD.

[Igel]

14. Don't know that I have a full answer.

Don't much care. Just read the article.

1. The "increase" is an increase over post-sequestration levels. In other words, there may still be a reduction in the budget. Reduce by 10%, increase by 2%, and it's a cut. Don't know about the 10% number. But this is how they do things in DC. They often don't speak of cuts or increases compared to the current budget but compared to a fictional, un-implemented budget.

It works the other way, too. If there's an automatic tax increase of 10% and somebody wants a reduction of 2% to take affect after the increase it can be billed as a tax decrease. Even if, when all's done, your taxes go up.

2. The COLA cut is one I can't be all that outraged about. You go into the military at 22. You retire at age 42, with full pension. Now, that's nice, but not all that many places let you retire that early. A lot of them go into industry, and while they're "retired" cram in another career. Then they retire at 65 with two full pensions. That used to be called "double dipping" because when you retire you typically are expected to retire.

In any event, when you hit 63 your pension goes up as all the COLAs that were "cut" magically reappear. You don't get arrears. But you lose nothing going forward. After you actually retire.

3. Redeployment and resupply is expensive. You have to pay to move all the stuff back out that you moved in. Then you have to pay to refurbish or repair it. That's not going to happen. Since wars diminish readiness, after a war is over you tend to rebuild stockpiles of stuff so that if there's another war you have the materiel sitting around, ready for use. And usually the new materiel is more expensive than the old stuff was. Much better than saying, "We declare war. So we're putting out a RFP on munitions, proposals due in 60 days, we'll review bids and decide within 60 days, and then you'll have 90 days to deliver." In other words, "We declare war, but it'll take us 7 months to actually do anything." Perhaps a good thing. On the other hand, if war's declared against us, pretty sucky.

4. Most of the money goes to Americans. Soldiers get paid. Manufacturers get paid. Contractors pay their engineers and buy computers (which, sadly, are probably not US-made). With their salaries they buy houses and dishwashers and cars.

[bossy22]

22. A very thoughtful answer

and I believe you are pretty much accurate.

The only think I'd add is on top of all that you have your regular replacement procurement. Military equipment doesn't last forever, even if you keep it locked in a depot for most of its life. It becomes obsolete and unreliable. Warships have a 30-40 year lifespan (except for carriers which are 50 years), after that they need to be replaced. Similar to aircraft- flying an older aircraft increases the likelihood of catastrophic failures happening. Remember a few years ago a F-15 fell apart in mid-air and the cause was attributed to airframe stress (essentially, an too old an aircraft).

This was one of my complaints about the military procurement strategy of Bush I and Clinton. Instead of quickly reducing active equipment (left over from cold war build-ups) and going to a steady level of procurement, they essentially went on a procurement holiday, replacing equipment with "surplus" equipment that was just as old (mainly because they felt that they "had enough" already). This leads us to where we are now, with alot of our equipment having to be replaced all at once. This is especially true when it comes to the navy.

[RobertEarl]

24. It is simple then

Reduce the amount of equipment.

Figure that all the stuff we do have is enough to kill everyone about 100 times over, and that all we need is enough junk to kill everyone just once.

Then reduce the manpower by 50%. Get rid of the bloated generals and admirals.

[bossy22]

31. we are reducing equipment

it still doesnt change the fact that we require a large nominal sum to replace all our remaining equipment

any further reductions requires a change in strategic thinking. Just cutting for the sake of cutting is stupid and dangerous ie sequestration

[RobertEarl]

66. Require?

There is require. It's just made up BS meant to cheat people out of Peace.

I see you, in all your glorious wisdom, have neglected to remark about how much crap we have that can kill everyone 100 times over. What is it you want? Enough junk to kill everyone a 150 times over?

[on point]

16. There is one lagging expense, to replace all the equip used up in war. Charge to Bush

Makes Bush wars cost trillions in unfunded expense between war execution, replacing equipment and paying for veterans care for a lifetime

[sibelian]

17. Because entire states are dependent on the MIC for economic viability and votes count.

The whole thing's become a colossal positive feedback loop. There's no actual policy behind it anymore, it's not even a conspiracy, it's just a great big money hole getting bigger and bigger cos that's what it does.

[Egalitarian Thug]

76. You win! Connecticut, is a good example of a state with no economy except for

that big old military trough we keep filled with everybody else's dollars.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Its a jobs program, with contractors and all, and I wish I were kidding

[NuclearDem]

23. Defense contractors give a lot of money to Congress to keep it like that.

[bvar22]

25. I don't mind Government Jobs Programs,

but the money spent on The Military is Dead End Money
in that the Military "produces" NO useful products.

If this spending could be redirected toward JOBS that produce something useful for the American Public, then it would increase the overall WEALTH of our nation.

If the Billions poured down the Military Black Hole
was instead used to build a National, State of the Art, High Speed Rail System
using ONLY American manufactured parts and American LABOR,
can you imagine the multiplier effect that would have on our country,

AND, we would have something useful to show after the money is spent.

My .02

[bossy22]

34. no useful products?

Tell that to all the shipbuilders in the U.S. Its pretty much the only way the shipbuilding industry survives in this country

[bvar22]

54. Oh?

And how useful are Aircraft Carriers, Aegis Middle Destroyers,
or Multi-Billion Dollar Nuclear Subs to the American Public?

How many "useful" ships could we build that could serve the American Public for the BILLIONS thrown down THAT toilet?

Like I said above, I'm not opposed to Government Spending IF
it is used to produce or buy something useful to Americans.

How many times have YOU been given a ride on a Boomer?
vs.
How many times have you driven on an Interstate Highway?

THAT is what I'm talking about.

[bossy22]

62. I don't have to ride a boomer for it to realize it has value for me

Just because you don't get to ride a fire truck does spending on firefighting useless to you?

[bvar22]

70. Actually, I DO ride Fire Trucks.

In fact, I drive and operate a 1000 gallon pumper for our rural Fire Department.


Whether our FLEET of multi-Billion Dollar Nuclear Submarines has served any useful purpose after the collapse of the Soviet Union is debatable,
with the "we need them" side losing the debate.

I would prefer to have a of State of the Art nationwide Rapid Rail system built and maintained by American LABOR using American manufactured products.

THAT would go a great way toward ending the current depression STILL being felt by Main Street.

Building MORE Boomers..... more of the same.

[valerief]

27. That's where the most money is siphoned to the very wealthy. nt

[Scuba]

30. If we can't afford to educate our children, to heal our sick or care for our elderly ...

... just what is it the defense budget is defending??

[solarhydrocan]

57. Empire.is what it's for

http://empire.is

[Scuba]

58. Ask Mother England how that worked out.

[jmowreader]

36. Because every single major end item that went to the sandbox needs to be replaced

[Savannahmann]

39. They are giving away MRAP's to the cops.

Because they're not needed is the excuse.

[bossy22]

42. I don't necessarily think its an "excuse"

I think in this case the military is correct. Unless the U.S. is planning to into another major ground conflict and battle a prolonged insurgency within the next 10-20 years there is really no use for them.

it should be noted though that the military isn't getting rid of all their MRAPs.

[NutmegYankee]

72. That was a special purpose vehicle made for Iraq.

Once the war is over, they have no use. The other equipment is being replaced.

[Savannahmann]

73. Then why do the police want/need them?

If they have no use? I mean we are talking about a vehicle that is designed to stop .50 caliber rounds, be proof from explosive devices, in essence a tank.

[NutmegYankee]

75. Police love excess military hardware.

It's all part of that militarization that's been going on for decades. There was a time where a warrant was served by knocking on the door, talking with the occupants, and making an arrest. Now they use SWAT teams.

[davekriss]

50. Why? To feed the cabal of oligarchs, of course

They profit immensely from the war machine. The rest of us are here to serve.

[Cal Carpenter]

51. Capitalism in the belly of the beast n/t

[grasswire]

52. how about we nationalize the defense industries?

Take private profit out of it. Wars would decrease. Costs would shrink.

[jmowreader]

55. Makes sense to me

Run the defense industries like we run Unicor (Federal Prison Industries) or Skilcraft (National Institutes for the Blind).

[grasswire]

65. Yes!

With defense profiteering incentive gone, our whole society would change.

[bossy22]

61. not as cost effective as you think

[SummerSnow]

53. To one day replace...

our troops


http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/health-care-vacation.html

Our active troops have families they support. $18,000-$35,000(Private to Staff Sergeant)
They need Healthcare
Service members' Group Life Insurance is a program of low-cost group life insurance for active duty and Army Reserve Soldiers. SGLI coverage is available in $10,000 increments up to the maximum of $400,000. SGLI premiums are currently $.065 per $1,000 of insurance, regardless of the member's age.

As a Soldier, you and your family are entitled to service members group life insurance automatically covered by a comprehensive HMO-type military health-care plan called TRICARE that provides medical and dental care at little or no cost.

TRICARE enrollees receive most health care at a Military Treatment Facility, where a primary care manager supervises their care. The Army health-care team is one of the biggest health-care networks in the world, utilizing state-of-the-art technology in world-renowned facilities.Separate programs are available for Soldiers and their families who are on remote assignment or overseas.

30 days vacation earned annually
Weekends free
National holidays
Sick days as needed


with these guys...



No need for food, sleeping, vacation, medical care, etc


whats your thoughts on this?

[Savannahmann]

59. A decade ago, I would have written it off as science fiction

Now, I wonder if it's a decade away.

[Enthusiast]

67. The US military mission is far too ambitious.

There is simply no justification for it.

[sammythecat]

68. At the risk of sounding bitter and simplistic,

I think it's because fortunes are being made on military spending and the 1% want America to be a gated country. They've bought the government, they've bought the media (and thus the majority of the populace), they've got everything here under control and they want to make sure (control) that no outside characters will be able to upset the way things are. Our military can change the course of history to whatever they want.

This does sound bitter and simplistic, but in one paragraph that's what I think about our obsession with all things military.

[L0oniX]

69. I stand against people who make money from killing, from the sick and elderly!

If you sign up ...I am against you. If you can send your kids to college because you make bombs ...I am against you! We are not having WW3 yet. WTF I am free to speak because of our constitution not because you fought in WW2.

[CFLDem]

71. Because of TERRA, TERRA, TEERA!

[rusty fender]

79. and because of North Korea

Iran Syria and every country whose name ends in 'stan'