October 29, 2009

The High Costs of Today's U.S. Defense Budget

by Arn Specter, Phila.

(Twitter, http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarymanage.php)

Here is the text (see below) and link for Video

http://www.cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/10/28/HP/A/24831/Pres+Obama+Signs+National+Defense+Authorization+Act+for+Fiscal+2010.aspx of today's event at the Whitehouse,

the signing of the NDAA for 2010, Defense Budget. The President seems

well intentioned although we need to understand and appreciate that this

budget of over $600 Billion is the largest in U.S. history, and -by far- in

the world. It measures about all the other defense budgets in the world

of over 200 countries - combined! In other words the U.S. spends -

and intends to spend- about a half of all the budgeted monies in the entire

world on it's own national defense. Besides the attack on Pearl Harbor in

1941 the only other time the U.S. was attacked was in 2001, causing the

U.S. to 'defend' itself. All other wars and incursions have been on foreign

soil...Let's put the question, What is our national defense? on the table.

Other spending by the U.S. recently included $3.5 Billion for 'Energy'

improvement, something we do need. Since unemployment is now approaching 10% the U.S. is not spending enough on creating more jobs for the millions

of people now out of work. Over 20 million Senior Citizens will not be given any

increase at allnext year. Even the poultry 2% of so usually given will be missed however as the cost of living has probably dramatically risen to well over 5% each year in recent times.

One of the cantankerous complaints by Congress is that real Health Care Reform for ALL AMERICANS will cost too much. What started out as an attempt for single-payer, changed to government option, and now ???, to

possibly mandating - forcing- everyone to buy health insurance. If upwards to 50 million people cannot afford health insurance now how will they afford to buy it after this legislation is passed.The insurance companies may actually raise the premiums, as suggested by Rep. Dennis Kucinich is a recent statement blasting his own Democratic Party for their inaction onhealth care reform

Money for social services have been cut; sorry I don't have a list of them.

It's probably rather lengthy though and really hurts low and middle income

families. We still have thousands of homeless people living on the street - and with the cold and dangerous winter coming on soon. Many just die in the streets and are buried as 'John or Mary Doe'. Who even says a prayer for them? Where is the resolve, commitment and the Money to help these unfortunate citizens who have been discarded by the U.S. government, from the city, state, and national levels?

How much would it really cost in each city - perhaps a military airplane or two- to set up good shelters with adequate medical care as well as food, clothing and shelter. I wonder how many of the homeless just yearn at the idea of some clean clothes, a decent bathroom to use, and a home cooked meal to eat with others to talk to a little.And, oh, could you please spare a little shampoo?

The last years or so thousands of people have lost their homes due to foreclosures.

That is, the banks and mortgage companies have taken the homes from them because they couldn't pay the monthly mortgage anymore. When I was growing up in the 1950's I remember my Dad writing out a check, for the same amount every month, to pay the mortgage and keep our home in tack, 'fixed rate' it was called.

When and why has our government allowed the banks and mortgage companies to raise the mortgage rates whenever they want to make more money? Isn't the government supposed to protect us, the American people, from harm?

Perhaps we need what is called 'regulation' on these companies to prevent them from taking the homes of thousands of more people and their families: men, women and children. Too, sometimes grandparents or others who live withus - often out of economic necessity. Too, if someone is not working and is not paying a mortgage the government is missing out on taxes from those earnings and property assessments. Thus, losing out on income it could use to shelter the homeless or some other noble social service sorely needed.

The 'problem' of money seems to come up a lot in government when there is a bill that would offer services to the poor or working class. Not too long ago though there were billions of dollars 'available' for companies - called corporations- that went broke due to faulty management, greed and corruption. Some of those people are in jail now. Others wonder if they will go to jail soon. Most of them however has smiles on their faces when the government decided to give them back all the money that they lost.

Over 700 billion dollars was given in 'Bailout Monies' to Banks, Investment and Mortgage companies. Imagine all the social services and other things all that money could do, if spent wisely, for the American public.

And, by the way, if the U.S. government can give back fortunes to those companies who fail why doesn't it also give back lots of moneyto people who

go broke and have to declare bankruptcy? And even more money to those people who try to declare but are rejected and left even more broke and sometimes destitute. Is this a country and a government that serves the wealthy but not the poor?

I suppose I'm a little off track here, having brought up the subject of the 'defense' budget for 2010. However, we are speaking of over $600 billion dollars! How many zeros would that be, let's see..$600,000,000,000.00.Is that right?

Getting out pen and envelope back cover I figure that if we have around

300 million people in the U.S. (300,000,000) each of us - man, woman and child- would have to give $2,000.00 to make the grand total of $600 Billion dollars for

our Defense Budget, monies the government, military, military industrial industrial complex, and congresspeople say we need to keep America (and our Allies) safe and secure. In a family of four that would add up to $2,000 times 4 or $8,000.

Wow, $8,000 from just one (1) family. Recently someone figured out that in the Afghan War the U.S. was spending $400.00 per gallon of gasoline. And using thousands of gallons each and every day. You figure it out.

In today's remarks by President Obama he points out that "The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has looked into 96 major defense projects from the last year, and found cost overruns that totaled $296 billion, an amount of money that would have paid our troops' salaries and provided benefits for their families for more than a year."

What is a 'cost overrun' I wonder. And whatever it is where was the government

or military 'oversight' that would have prevented those cost overruns from taking place? And if they were 'overruns' shouldn't they (the contractors) by told to give the monies back to the government (us) ? To figure this enormous sum let's just cut the $600 billion in half and it comes out to around $4,000.00 for each family of four in America. So, perhaps, these companies owe each of us $1,000 or $4,000 per family and need to send us checks for those amounts which it took by 'overruns.

Since the American public has been gouged to the sum of $296 billion from our government's 'oversight' of these 'overruns' are we to just trust another $600 plus billion to be given for the military defense budget?

The President, in his address, points out military 'programs' and specific weapons that have been eliminated and those which have been added onto the budget.

Perhaps they come out about even, who knows? To say though that this is a grand step forward is overstretching it a lot. To say it is a start of accountability and reasonableness too is overstating the choices and decisions made by the military, congress and the administration on this budget.

To be fair, since it is the money of the American people why don't we ask them (us) is we want to spend such sums for the military/national defense? I suppose

we could do so with all the sophisticated technology available to us. If we can vote for candidates we could vote for money to be spent (called appropriations). It would take some doing but might not it be worth it?

Oh, but one might say that we do that already through our representatives in Congress. They vote of the budget for us. Yes, that is so but look, my friends, what they have done with that responsibility now and over the years!

Perhaps if we asked ourselves if we trust those representatives now or in the upcoming elections next year they might not be the people we really want to decide for us how to spend that $8,000 per family of four for the military budget.

Do I sense change in the wind?

When I listen to or read about the news I often hear the argument by politicians

that they must vote according to their party or for the benefit of the next election results. And then there's those special interests, behind the scenes,

that capture their attention along with campaign contributions from those companies who court the favor of our representatives in Washington.

In a recent video clip someone estimated that there are 3 lobbyists for every1 Congressperson. Three to one mind you. Can you imagine what it looks like in

the Capital building, in it's hallways and offices with over 1500 lobbyists milling around on any particular day. If we don't have any laws to prevent this pervasive influence wouldn't it best serve the interests of the American people to have such laws made?

Today President Obama signed the Defense Authorization Actbut that decision

and those monies can still be challenged. America is already the largest military

power in the world, but it's future strength needs to be concerned with other

ways of doing things. Diplomacy and disarmament are keynotes for a truly

progressive society; types of perspectives and actions taken much more frequently

by the European Union, 27 Nations bond together for peaceful purposes, for the most part.

Most, if not all of those countries believe in disarmament evidenced in the signing

of International Treaties; i.e. the Land Mine Ban Treaty, the Cluster Munitions Ban Treaty and the Arms Trade Treaty.The United States has falled to sign onto any

of them.These treaties greatly help to restore damaged property from previous

wars, help victim's needs, prevent the manufacture, sale and transfer of those

weapons, and do things that maintain and insure that communication between

countries is necessary before any conflict is seriously considered. In other

words it is peace first and war making last...

If we can budget $600 billion for national defense surely we can join with the peaceminded International Community and sign onto those International Treaties that save lives and limbs now and in the future. We, the activists, must insist

that our representatives disregard the cries of the military industrial complex

who may be faced with the need to stop producing certain weapons.

Disarmament needs to be seen as the way forward, along with diplomacy and negotiations in settling disputes and conflicts. More military funding and war fighting will not win us - or anyone- peace in the long-run. We must win over

the hearts and minds of our Administration and Congress.

We need a new progressive vision for America that sees peacemaking

as much more valuable than warmaking!

Too, a new vision of peacemaking will help engender a reputation that is seen by millions in other countries as positive and progressive. Now the U.S. is seen

without honor by many due to our aggressive incursions and war making efforts overseas over many years past. Today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, destruction

occurs daily with more people and property beingharmed and damaged.

The causes for these U.S. involvements go back in our recent history and our motivationshave beenfocused more on business and power concerns rather than human needs and welfare. This needs to change for the U.S. to become a

progressive nation.

Today President Obama said, "I have often said that meeting our greatest challenges would require not only changing policies in Washington but changing

the way business is done in Washington; that it would require a government that's more efficient and effective and less influenced by lobbyists and parochial politics."

It is up to us, the activists, to hold the President to these ideals and progressive

agendas, to live up to his word with deeds that foster more peacemaking here

at home and in the world. Reducing the military budget while increasing the

use of our Department of State would be in keeping with creating a new vision

of the U.S. as a honorable world power. Let us too invest much more of taxpayer

monies into social services and the restoration of a vibrant economy without catering to special interests or mismanaged businesses or institutions. Let us continue to challenge the U.S. militerization in the world, pull back on military bases, weapons in space and the plans for worldwide missile defense systems.

The high cost of today's U.S. Defense budget is too high in terms of human lives and expenditures. Let's greatly alter and reduce it while establishing a new-

progressive vision as a world's peacemaker and a nation of goodwilltowards

people of all nationalities and levels of development.

Arn Specter, Phila. (Twitter, http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarymanage.php)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 28, 2009

Remarks by the President at the Signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010

East Room

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please, everybody be seated.

Good afternoon. I have often said that meeting our greatest challenges would require not only changing policies in Washington but changing the way business is done in Washington; that it would require a government that's more efficient and effective and less influenced by lobbyists and parochial politics. And I'm pleased to say that when it comes to the defense bill I'm about to sign into law, we've taken some important steps towards that goal.

I want to acknowledge my outstanding Vice President, Joe Biden. (Applause.) Attorney General Eric Holder is here. (Applause.) And all members of Congress who are joining us here today, thank you very much for your outstanding work. You can give members of Congress a round of applause. (Applause.)

As Commander-in-Chief, I will always do whatever it takes to keep the American people safe, to defend this nation. And that's why this bill provides for the best military in the history of the world. It reaffirms our commitment to our brave men and women in uniform and our wounded warriors. It expands family leave rights for the family members of our troops and veterans. And it makes investments in the capabilities necessary to meet 21st century challenges.

But I have always rejected the notion that we have to waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money to keep this nation secure. In fact, I think that wasting these dollars makes us less secure. And that's why we have passed a defense bill that eliminates some of the waste and inefficiency in our defense process -- reforms that will better protect our nation, better protect our troops, and save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

Now, at the outset, let me just say that this effort would not have been possible without an extraordinary Secretary of Defense. And so I want to thank publicly Bob Gates for his service to our nation. (Applause.)

Having served under eight Presidents of both parties, this is a man who understands that our defense budget isn't about politics, it's about the security of our country, and who knows that every dollar wasted is a dollar we can't spend to care for our troops or protect the homeland.

And over the last several months, he took that fight to Congress. He challenged conventional thinking, and he emerged with several critical victories. So on behalf of the American people, I want to thank you, Bob, for your extraordinary efforts. (Applause.)

Now, Bob couldn't have been successful had it not been for the next person I want to introduce -- Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He provided wise counsel and stood with us in our efforts to initiate reform, even though it probably occasionally caused some heartburn inside of the Pentagon as well, because change is hard. And so I'm very grateful for his leadership and excellent work. Please give -- (applause.)

And finally, I want to thank the members of Congress, particularly Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, and Congressmen Ike Skelton and Buck McKeon. As the chairmen and ranking members of their respective committees, they did an outstanding job.

Now, this bill isn't perfect. This bill is an important step forward, but it's just a first step. There's still more waste we need to cut. There are still more fights that we need to win. Changing the culture in Washington will take time and sustained effort. And that's why Secretary Gates and I will continue waging these battles in the months and years ahead.

But I will say that when Secretary Gates and I first proposed going after some of these wasteful projects, there were a lot of people in this town who didn't think it was possible, who were certain we were going to lose, who were certain that we would get steamrolled, who argued that the special interests were too entrenched, and that Washington was simply too set in its ways.

And so I think it's important to note today we have proven them wrong. Today we're putting an end to some wasteful projects that lawmakers have tried to kill for years. And we're doing this because Secretary Gates and I both know that we can't build the 21st century military we need unless we fundamentally reform the way our defense establishment does business. The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has looked into 96 major defense projects from the last year, and found cost overruns that totaled $296 billion, an amount of money that would have paid our troops' salaries and provided benefits for their families for more than a year.

And we all know where this kind of waste comes from -- indefensible, no-bid contracts that cost taxpayers billions and make contractors rich; special interests and their exotic projects that are years behind schedule and billions over budget; entrenched lobbyists pushing weapons that even our military says it doesn't want and doesn't need -- the impulse in Washington to win political points back home by building things that we don't need at costs we can't afford. This waste would be unacceptable at any time, but at a time when we're fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, it's inexcusable. It's unconscionable. It's an affront to the American people and to our troops, and it has to stop.

And already I've put an end to unnecessary no-bid contracts. I signed bipartisan legislation to reform defense procurement so weapons systems don't spin out of control. And even as we made critical investments in the equipment and weapons our troops do need, we're eliminating tens of billions of dollars in waste we don't need. So no longer will we be spending nearly $2 billion to buy more F-22 fighter jets that the Pentagon says they don't need. This bill also terminates troubled and massively over budget programs such as the Future Combat Systems, the Airborne Lasers, the Combat Search and Rescue helicopter, and a new presidential helicopter that costs nearly as much as Air Force One. I won't be flying on that.

At the same time, we accelerated or increased weapons programs needed to confront real and growing threats -- the Joint Strike Fighter, the Littoral Combat Ship, and more helicopters and reconnaissance support for our troops at the front.

And this bill also reduces waste and fraud in our contracting system, as well as our reliance on private contractors for jobs that federal employees have the expertise and the training to do.

So today I'm pleased to say that we have proved that change is possible. It may not come quickly, or all at once, but if you push hard enough, it does come eventually.

Now, speaking of that, there is one more long-awaited change contained within this legislation that I'll be talking about a little more later today. After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray, or who they are. (Applause.)

I promised Judy Shepard, when she saw me in the Oval Office, that this day would come, and I'm glad that she and her husband Dennis could join us for this event. I'm also honored to have the family of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought so hard for this legislation. And Vicki and Patrick, Kara, everybody who's here, I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help this day -- make this day possible. So -- and thank you for joining us here today. (Applause.)

So, with that, I'm going to sign this piece of legislation. Thank you all for doing a great job. All right.

(The Act is signed.) (Applause.) END , 2:52 P.M. EDT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------