Why It's So Hard to Slash the Bloated Pentagon Budgets

[unhappycamper]

Why It's So Hard to Slash the Bloated Pentagon Budgets
AlterNet / By David Sirota

October 14, 2010 | Beware the sophistry of budget talking points -- especially those seeking to deter any criticism of defense spending.

That's the lesson of these last few weeks, as Establishment Republicans desperately try to thwart both progressives and tea party conservatives who are pressuring Congress to reduce Pentagon bloat.

~snip~

Herein lies the truly "dangerous" part of the GDP mantra. If Republicans in Washington believe American economic growth should be based on the United States militarily subjugating and exploiting foreign countries, then those Republicans can logically (if abhorrently) insist that Pentagon spending must remain a constant percentage of GDP.

Most elites in the GOP Establishment, of course, would never openly admit to believing that our economy should be based on hegemonic conquest. We know this because the GOP Establishment expressed unanimous outrage at anyone even vaguely suggesting that America wages war for energy resources.

But maybe that's the unspoken admission in the GDP-themed push for more military expenditures. Perhaps for all of the GOP's outrage at war-for-oil allegations, the Republicans' defense spending rhetoric exposes their truly imperial vision -- one that even the slickest talking points can no longer hide.

[tavalon]

1. Because the MIC and Corporations own this country

Every other budget cut is on the table but the MIC won't be.

[lunatica]

2. One reason is the ties to industry and people's jobs

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/contracts-leaderboard.asp

Look closely. The dollar amounts are in Billions, not Millions

The Military-Industrial Complex Leaderboard Since 10/30/06

A Running Leaderboard of the Top Grossing Names in the Business based on their currently running MilitaryIndustrialComplex.com Total.


1. Lockheed Martin Corporation $98,605,349,543
2. Boeing Company, The $59,676,920,490
3. Northrop Grumman Corporation $56,043,628,211
4. Raytheon Company, The $37,112,408,451
5. General Dynamics $32,412,893,812
6. BAe Systems $26,157,602,181
7. McDonnell Douglas (a subsidiary of Boeing) $24,305,859,649
8. Science Applications Intl Corporation $14,835,240,241
9. Oshkosh Corporation $12,979,719,869
10. AM General LLC $9,248,776,038
11. General Electric Corporation $8,869,046,867
12. L-3 Communications $7,826,606,167
13. Harris Corporation $5,310,635,503
14. Booz Allen Hamilton, Incorporated $4,926,981,906
15. International Military & Government $4,504,607,503

Lots and lots more at the link

[Toots]

3. Clinton did it and the military he left behind took Iraq in hundred hours.

The military the Republicans left behind though is in pretty sad shape even with spending doubled.

[Statistical]

4. Far simpler reason.... the Pentagon is smart projects are spread across multiple states.

For example final construction of new aircraft carrier is in VA but parts comes from 42 of the 50 states. The aircraft that go on those aircraft come from other states and the parts for the aircraft come from dozen states.

Senators voting against Pentagon projects are voting against jobs in their own district. Opponents can say "Senator X voted leaving us defenseless against foreign enemies and also killed 10,000 high paying jobs here in VA".

It isn't a Republican thing. Vast majority of pentagon spending gets approved w/ overwhelming 70%, 80%, 90% support from both parties. Each project means tangible jobs, profits, and revenue for that Congressman's district.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Like Foreign Aid...Most Defense Spending Never Leaves The US

Since the outset of lend/lease and World War II (some could say it goes back further), the US has been the "Arsenal"...the largest arms manufacturer in the world. Death is a major export and generates millions of jobs in the US. The MIC has become so institutionalized its an economic sector unto itself that is rarely scrutinized. These wars for profit have been a bonanza for the corporates that feed the war machine and ending our military adventures means these companies will have to scale back their operations (not go out of business) or look for customers elsewhere. The money is spread far and wide...there's probably not a single district in the country that doesn't have some military contractor and with it the jobs, money and votes.

[Blue_Tires]

6. 5th rec

[Scuba]

7. Yes, it would greatly damage the economy...

...if that money was spent for nurses, teachers, social workers, road and bridge-builders, libraries and other "liberal causes".

Huh?

[msongs]

8. President Petraeus and his bush cronies like sec def wouldnt like that nt

[ThomWV]

9. Because the Pentagon budget supports a huge number of jobs all across the country