[Craic] Fwd: [New post] America’s $1.3 Trillion National Security Budget Isn’t Making Us Safer

[Mr. Gillis]

Gentlemen,

I think with Biden having bombed Iraq and Syria this week as the new
smiling face of Empire we know where his priorities lie as a good church
going and devout Catholic.  Perhaps the churches he attends could exchange
the crucifix for a new bright red statue of Mars Victorious!  Meanwhile the
bishops debate his reception of communion over his support of abortion but
nary a word about the war budget!  Meanwhile Lockheed Martin, Northrup
Grumman, Honeywell, Boeing, General Dynamics, GE continue laughing all the
way to the bank!

Not even an unprecedented heat wave this early in the summer, the collapse
of a building in Florida now being linked to rising tides elicits any
response from this man or his administration.  Perhaps when crops fail,
water reserves in the US dry up, and the calamitous extreme effects of
climate change settle in there will be a response perhaps too late but a
response.  So very sad.

Trying to stay hopeful!


Greg


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: scheerpost.com <donotreply at wordpress.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:20 AM
Subject: [New post] America’s $1.3 Trillion National Security Budget Isn’t
Making Us Safer
To: <greg.j.gillis at gmail.com>


Moderator posted: " [Morning Calm Weekly Newspaper Installation Management
Command, U.S. Army / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0] By Mandy Smithberger and  William
Hartung / TomDispatch President Biden’s first Pentagon budget, released
late last month, is staggering by any reasonable "

New post on *scheerpost.com <http://scheerpost.com>*
<https://scheerpost.com/?author=14765177> America’s $1.3 Trillion National
Security Budget Isn’t Making Us Safer
<https://scheerpost.com/2021/06/30/americas-1-3-trillion-national-security-budget-isnt-making-us-safer/>
by
Moderator <https://scheerpost.com/?author=14765177>
[Morning Calm Weekly Newspaper Installation Management Command, U.S. Army
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/imcomkorea/> / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0]

By Mandy Smithberger <https://tomdispatch.com/authors/mandysmithberger/>
and  William Hartung <https://tomdispatch.com/authors/williamhartung/> /
TomDispatch <https://tomdispatch.com/what-price-defense/>

President Biden’s first Pentagon budget, released late last month, is
staggering by any reasonable standard.  At more than $750 billion
<https://armscontrolcenter.org/fiscal-year-2022-defense-budget-request-briefing-book/>
for
the Defense Department and related work on nuclear weapons at the
Department of Energy, it represents one of the highest levels of spending
since World War II — far higher
<https://3ba8a190-62da-4c98-86d2-893079d87083.usrfiles.com/ugd/3ba8a1_84180a1b3cdf478f8023d8ca96cb682a.pdf>
than
the peaks of the Korean or Vietnam wars or President Ronald Reagan’s
military buildup of the 1980s, and roughly three times
<https://www.sipri.org/publications/2021/sipri-fact-sheets/trends-world-military-expenditure-2020>
what
China spends on its military.

Developments of the past year and a half — an ongoing pandemic, an
intensifying mega-drought, white supremacy activities, and racial and
economic injustice among them — should have underscored that the greatest
threats to American lives are anything but military in nature. But no
matter, the Biden administration has decided to double down on military
spending as the primary pillar of what still passes for American security
policy. And don’t be fooled by that striking Pentagon budget figure either.
This year’s funding requests suggest that the total national security
budget will come closer to a breathtaking $1.3 trillion.

That mind-boggling figure underscores just how misguided Washington’s
current “security” — a word that should increasingly be put in quotation
marks — policies really are. No less concerning was the new
administration’s decision to go full-speed ahead on longstanding Pentagon
plans to build a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, submarines, and
missiles, including, of course, new nuclear warheads to go with them, at a
cost of at least $1.7 trillion
<https://thehill.com/policy/defense/555142-cbo-us-nuclear-arsenal-to-cost-634b-over-10-years>
over
the next three decades.

The Trump administration added to that plan projects like a new
submarine-launched, nuclear-armed cruise missile, all of which is fully
funded in Biden’s first budget. It hardly matters that a far smaller
arsenal would be more than adequate to dissuade any country from launching
a nuclear attack on the United States or its allies.  A rare glimmer of
hope came in a recent internal memo
<https://news.usni.org/2021/06/08/secnav-memo-new-destroyer-fighter-or-sub-you-can-only-pick-one-cut-nuclear-cruise-missile>
from
the Navy suggesting that it may ultimately scrap Trump’s sea-launched
cruise missile in next year’s budget submission — but that proposal is
already facing intense pushback
<https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2021/06/11/cruisemissile-senate-austin-milley/9041623432846/>
from
nuclear-weapons boosters in Congress.

In all, Biden’s first budget is a major win for key players
<https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2022/FY2022_Weapons.pdf>
in
the nuclear-industrial complex like Northrop Grumman, the prime contractor
on the new nuclear bomber and a new intercontinental ballistic missile
(ICBM); General Dynamics, the maker of the new ballistic-missile submarine;
Lockheed Martin, which produces sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs);
and firms like Honeywell that oversee key elements <https://kcnsc.doe.gov/> in
the Department of Energy’s nuclear-warhead complex.

The Biden budget does retire some older-generation weapons. The only
reason, however, is to fund even more expensive new systems like hypersonic
weapons and ones embedded with artificial intelligence, all with the goal
of supposedly putting the United States in a position to win a war with
China (if anyone could “win” such a war).

China’s military buildup remains, in fact, largely defensive, so ramping up
Pentagon spending supposedly in response represents both bad strategy and
bad budgeting.  If, sooner or later, cooler heads don’t prevail, the
obsession with China that’s gripped the White House, the Pentagon, and key
members of Congress could keep Pentagon budgets high for decades to come.

In reality, the principal challenges posed by China are diplomatic and
economic, not military, and seeking militarized answers to them will only
spark a new Cold War <https://tomdispatch.com/stumbling-into-war/> and a
risky arms race that could make a superpower nuclear conflict more likely.
While there’s much to criticize in China’s policies, from its crackdown on
the democracy movement in Hong Kong to its ethnic cleansing and severe
repression of its Uyghur population, in basic military capabilities, it
doesn’t come faintly close to the United States, nor will it any time
soon.  Washington’s military build-up, however, could undermine the biggest
opportunity in U.S.-China relations: finding a way to cooperate on issues
like climate change that threaten the future of the planet.

As noted, the three-quarters of a trillion dollars the United States spends
on the Pentagon budget is just a portion of a much larger figure for the
full range of activities of the national security state.  Let’s look,
category by category, at what the Biden budget proposes to spend on this
broader set of activities.

*The Pentagon’s “Base Budget”*

The Pentagon’s proposed “base” budget, which, in past years, has included
routine spending for fighting ongoing conflicts, was $715 billion for
fiscal year (FY) 2022, $10 billion more than last year’s request
<https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/fy2021_Press_Release.pdf>.
Despite complaints to the contrary by advocates of even higher Pentagon
spending, that represents no small addition.  It’s larger, for instance,
than the entire budget
<https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0528-fiscal-year-2022.html> of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No question about it, the
Pentagon remains by a long shot the agency with the largest discretionary
budget.

One piece of good news is that this year’s request marks the end of the
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account. That slush fund
<https://www.pogo.org/testimony/2021/03/pogo-testimony-on-the-need-to-end-the-overseas-contingency-operations-account/>
was
used to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also included tens of
billions of dollars for pet Pentagon projects that had nothing to do with
current conflicts.

While off-budget emergency spending has typically only been used in the
initial years of a conflict, OCO became a tool to evade caps on the
Pentagon’s regular budget imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011. That
legislation has now expired and the Biden administration has heeded the
advice of good-government and taxpayer-advocacy groups by eliminating the
slush fund entirely.

Unfortunately, its latest budget request still includes $42.1 billion for
direct and indirect war-spending costs, which means that, OCO or not, there
will be no net reduction in spending. Still, the end of that fund marks a
small but potentially significant step towards greater accountability and
transparency in the Pentagon budget. Moreover, congressional leaders
<https://lee.house.gov/news/press-releases/lee-pocan-urge-president-biden-to-reduce-defense-spending-following-withdrawal-from-afghanistan_>
are
urging the Biden administration to seize savings from the ongoing Afghan
withdrawal to sooner or later reduce the Pentagon’s top line.

As for what’s in the base budget, there are a number of particularly
troubling proposed expenditures that warrant attention and congressional
pushback. Spending on the Pentagon’s new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
— known formally as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent — has nearly
doubled
<https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2022/FY2022_Weapons.pdf>
in
the new proposal from $1.4 billion to $2.6 billion.

This may seem like small change in such a budget, but it’s just a down
payment on a system that could, in the end, cost more than $100 billion
<https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/GBSD-Fact-Sheet-Program-Flaws.pdf>
to
procure and another $164 billion to operate over its lifetime. More
importantly, as former secretary of defense William Perry noted
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/opinion/why-its-safe-to-scrap-americas-icbms.html>,
ICBMs are “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world” because a
president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch
them upon a warning of an attack, greatly increasing the risk of an
accidental nuclear war based on a false alarm.  In short, the new ICBM is
not just costly but exceedingly dangerous for the health of humanity. The
Biden budget should have eliminated it, not provided more funding for it.

Another eye-opener is the decision to spend more than $12 billion
<https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2022/FY2022_Weapons.pdf>
on
the F-35 combat aircraft, a troubled, immensely expensive weapons system
whose technical flaws suggest that it may never be fully ready for combat.
Such knowledge should, of course, have resulted in a decision to at least
pause production on the plane until testing is complete
<https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2021/04/f-35-changes-needed-while-still-in-infancy/>.
House Armed Services Committee chair Adam Smith (D-WA) has stated
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/05/adam-smith-f35/> that
he’s tired of pouring money down the F-35 “rathole,” while the Air Force’s
top officer, General Charles Brown, has compared it
<https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39316/air-force-boss-wants-clean-sheet-fighter-thats-less-advanced-than-f-35-to-replace-f-16>
to
a Ferrari that “you don’t drive to work every day” but “only drive it out
on Sundays.”

Consider that an embarrassing admission for a plane once publicized as a
future low-cost bulwark for the U.S. combat aircraft fleet. Whether the Air
Force, Navy, and Marines, the three services that utilize variants of the
F-35, will stay the course and buy more than 2,400 of these aircraft
remains to be seen. Count on one thing, though: the F-35 lobby,
including a special
F-35 caucus
<https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/joint-strike-fighter-caucus-announces-strong-bipartisan-support-f-35>
in
the House of Representatives and the Machinists Union
<https://breakingdefense.com/2021/06/machinists-union-presses-f-35-jobs-campaign-on-capitol-hill/>,
whose workers build the planes, will fight tooth and nail to keep the
program fully funded regardless of whether or not it serves our national
security needs.

And keep in mind that the F-35 is only one of many legacies of failed
Pentagon modernization
<https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2021/03/the-f-35-and-other-legacies-of-failure/>
efforts.
Even if the Pentagon were to acquire its new systems without delays or cost
overruns — something rare indeed <https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-222> —
its expensive spending plans have already earned this decade the moniker of
the “terrible twenties
<https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/2020s-tri-service-modernization-crunch/>
.”

Worse yet, there’s a distinct possibility that Congress will push that
budget even higher in response to “wish lists
<https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/congress-should-do-away-with-dod-unfunded-priorities-lists-a-multibillion-dollar-wish-list-boondoggle>”
being circulated by each of the military services. Items on them that have
yet to make it into the Biden Pentagon budget include things like —
surprise! — more F-35s. The Army’s wish list
<https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/06/01/us-armys-55-wish-list-to-congress-seeks-to-restore-tough-cuts-made-to-protect-force-modernization/>
even
includes systems it claimed it needed to cut. That the services are even
allowed to make such requests to Congress is symbolic of a breakdown in
budgetary discipline of the highest order.

The base budget also includes mandatory spending for items like military
retirement. This year’s request adds $12.8 billion to the Pentagon’s tab.

Running Tally: $727.9 billion

*The Nuclear Budget*

It would be reasonable for you to assume that the Department of Energy’s
budget would primarily be devoted to developing new energy sources and
combating climate change, but that assumption would, sadly enough, be
wildly off the mark.

In fact, more than half of the department’s budget goes to support the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages the
country’s nuclear weapons program. The NNSA does work on nuclear warheads
at eight major locations <https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/locations> —
California, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico (two facilities), South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Texas — across the country, along with subsidiary facilities
in several additional states. NNSA’s proposed FY 2022 budget for
nuclear-weapons activities is $15.5 billion
<https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/20210608%20NNSA%20Budget%20Overview.pdf>,
part of a budget for atomic-energy-related projects of $29.9 billion.

The NNSA is notorious for poor management of major projects. It has
routinely been behind schedule and over cost — to the tune of $28 billion
<https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/05/nuke-agency-needs-budget-accountability/>
in
the past two decades. Its future plans seem destined to hit the pocketbook
of the American taxpayer significantly, with projected long-term spending
on nuclear weapons activities rising by a proposed $113 billion in a single
year
<https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-04/news/us-nuclear-warhead-costs-surge>
.

Nuclear Budget $29.9 billion

Running tally: $757.8 billion

*Defense-Related Activities*

This is a catch-all category, totaling $10.5 billion in the FY 2022
request, including the international activities of the FBI and payments to
the CIA retirement fund, among other things.

Defense-Related Activities $10.5 billion

Running tally: $768.3 billion

*The Intelligence Budget*

There is very little public information available about how the nation’s —
count ’em! — 17 intelligence agencies
<https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic> spend our tax
dollars. The majority
<https://www.pogo.org/report/2020/02/a-primer-on-congressional-staff-clearances/>
of
congressional representatives don’t even have staff members capable of
accessing any kind of significant information on intelligence spending, a
huge obstacle to the ability of Congress to oversee these agencies and
their activities in any meaningful way. So far this year there is only
a top-line
figure available <https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/ic-budget> for
spending on national (but not military) intelligence activities of $62.3
billion.  Most of this money is already believed to be hidden away in the
Pentagon budget, so it’s not added to the running tally displayed below.

National Intelligence activities: $62.3 billion

Running tally: $768.3 billion

*The Military and Defense Department Retirement and Health Budget*

The Treasury Department covers military retirement and health expenditures
that should be in the Pentagon’s base budget. Net spending on these two
items — minus interest earned and payments into the two accounts — was a
negative $9.7 billion in FY 2022.

Military and Defense Department Retirement and Health Costs: -$9.7 billion

Running tally: $758.6 billion

*Veterans Affairs Budget*

The full costs of war go far beyond the expenditures contained in the
Pentagon budget, including the costs of taking care of the veterans of
America’s “forever wars.” Over 2.7 million U.S. military personnel
<https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/veterans> have cycled
through war zones in this century and hundreds of thousands of them have
suffered severe physical or psychological injuries, ratcheting up the costs
of veterans’ care accordingly. In addition, as we emerge from the Covid-19
disaster months, the Veterans Affairs Department anticipates a “bow wave
<https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/09/va-asks-billions-treat-bow-wave-of-veterans-needing-care-after-pandemic.html>”
of extra costs and demands for its services from veterans who deferred care
during the worst of the pandemic. The total FY2022 budget request for
Veterans Affairs is $284.5 billion.

Veterans Affairs Budget: $284.5 billion

Running tally: $1,043.1 billion

*International Affairs Budget*

The International Affairs budget includes funding for the State Department
and the Agency for International Development, integral parts of the U.S.
national security strategy. Here, investments in diplomacy and economic and
health activities overseas are supplemented by about $5.6 billion in
military aid to other countries.  The Biden administration has proposed
overall International Affairs funding for FY 2022 at $79 billion.

International Affairs Budget: $79 billion

Running tally: $1,122.1 billion

*The Homeland Security Budget*

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
was created by throwing together a wide range of agencies, including the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Transportation Security Agency,
the U.S. Secret Service, Customs and Border Protection, and the Coast
Guard. The proposed DHS budget for FY2022 is $52.2 billion, nearly
one-third of which goes to Customs and Border Protection.

Homeland Security Budget: $52.2 billion

Running tally: $1,174.3 billion

*Interest on the Debt*

The national security state, as outlined above, is responsible for about
20% of the interest due on the U.S. debt, a total of more than $93.8
billion.

Interest on the debt: $93.8 billion

Final tally: $1,268.1 billion

*Are You Feeling Safer Now?*

Theoretically, that nearly $1.3 trillion to be spent on national security
writ large is supposed to be devoted to activities that make America and
the world a safer place. That’s visibly not the case when it comes to so
many of the funds that will be expended in the name of national security —
from taxpayer dollars thrown away on weapons systems that don’t work to
those spent on an unnecessary and dangerous new generation of nuclear
weapons, to continuing to reinforce and extend the historically
unprecedented U.S. military presence on this planet by maintaining more
than 800
<https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321/>
overseas
military bases around the world.

If managed properly, President Biden’s initiatives on rebuilding domestic
infrastructure and combatting climate change would be far more central to
keeping people safe than throwing more money at the Pentagon and related
agencies. Unfortunately, unlike the proposed Pentagon budget, significant
Green New Deal-style infrastructure funding is far less likely to be passed
by a bitterly divided Congress.  Washington evidently doesn’t care that
such investments would also be significantly more effective
<https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2017/Job%20Opportunity%20Cost%20of%20War%20-%20HGP%20-%20FINAL.pdf>
job
creators.

A shift in spending toward these and other urgent priorities like
addressing the possibility of future pandemics would clearly be a far
better investment in “national security” than the present proposed Pentagon
budget. Sadly, though, too many of America’s political leaders have clearly
drawn the wrong lessons from the pandemic. If this country continues to
squander staggering sums on narrowly focused national-security activities
at a time when our greatest challenges are anything but military in nature,
this country (and the world) will be a far less safe place in the future.

Copyright 2021 William D. Hartung and Mandy Smithberger
<https://tomdispatch.com/authors/mandysmithberger/>

*Mandy Smithberger*, a *TomDispatch *regular
<https://tomdispatch.com/why-the-pentagon-budget-never-goes-down/>, is the
director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government
Oversight (POGO). <https://tomdispatch.com/authors/williamhartung/>

*William D. Hartung*, a *TomDispatch* regular
<https://tomdispatch.com/america-dominant-again-in-arms-sales/>, is the
director of the Arms and Security Program at the Center for International
Policy and the author, with Elias Yousif, of “U.S. Arms Sales Trends 2020
and Beyond: From Trump to Biden
<https://3ba8a190-62da-4c98-86d2-893079d87083.usrfiles.com/ugd/3ba8a1_2e4d4e9155664535a4a337fe4a91986b.pdf>
.”
*Moderator <https://scheerpost.com/?author=14765177>* | June 30, 2021 at
8:17 am | Tags: biden <https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=biden>,
biden military spending
<https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=biden-military-spending>,
featured <https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=featured>, mandy
smithberger
<https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=mandy-smithberger>, military
spending <https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=military-spending>,
national security
<https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=national-security>, national
security budget
<https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=national-security-budget>,
national
security threats
<https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=national-security-threats>,
nuclear
weapons <https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=nuclear-weapons>,
pentagon <https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=pentagon>, pentagon
spending <https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=pentagon-spending>,
william hartung
<https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=william-hartung> |
Categories: Mandy Smithberger
<https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=category&term=mandy-smithberger>, Military
<https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=category&term=military>, William D.
Hartung <https://scheerpost.com/?taxonomy=category&term=william-d-hartung>
| URL: https://wp.me/pbNvZt-2lL

Comment
<https://scheerpost.com/2021/06/30/americas-1-3-trillion-national-security-budget-isnt-making-us-safer/#respond>
   See all comments
<https://scheerpost.com/2021/06/30/americas-1-3-trillion-national-security-budget-isnt-making-us-safer/#comments>

Unsubscribe
<https://public-api.wordpress.com/bar/?stat=groovemails-events&bin=wpcom_email_click&redirect_to=https%3A%2F%2Fsubscribe.wordpress.com%2F%3Fkey%3Dd93ffbd8947e5099870bf641b60c9d51%26email%3Dgreg.j.gillis%2540gmail.com%26b%3D1bk2QWtPS_vJpox9XPiqg_R3TLXqUAXCnAIjpzW1Y9-CteUF8pGz447c_rZMk-HXGv6plhtcF5_gAeWufEBfdjeMD737XAwz8X4wZ4gfZH45t6Q%253D&sr=1&signature=17829bf080d2571b43f54310a405b0d5&user=a89b0dfd4372546dd00d3b4e455b37f9&_e=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&_z=z>
to no longer receive posts from scheerpost.com.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions
<https://public-api.wordpress.com/bar/?stat=groovemails-events&bin=wpcom_email_click&redirect_to=https%3A%2F%2Fsubscribe.wordpress.com%2F%3Fkey%3Dd93ffbd8947e5099870bf641b60c9d51%26email%3Dgreg.j.gillis%2540gmail.com&sr=1&signature=0937e987c6854572e2c450da47f33fc9&user=a89b0dfd4372546dd00d3b4e455b37f9&_e=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&_z=z>.


*Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
https://scheerpost.com/2021/06/30/americas-1-3-trillion-national-security-budget-isnt-making-us-safer/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.integralshift.ca/pipermail/craic-integralshift.ca/attachments/20210630/b6051821/attachment-0001.html>