Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bush's Mammoth Defense Budget is Another Bridge to Nowhere

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation. Posted February 6, 2008.


One built on the backs of ordinary Americans.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Katrina vanden Heuvel

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

As the poor and middle-class continue to bear the brunt of these hard economic times, struggling to pay for housing, food, heating and health care, the Pentagon today announced its request of $515.4 billion for its 2009 budget. (The Bush budget later revealed a correction -- the request is actually $518.3 billion -- the Pentagon "forgot" $2.9 billion of "permanent appropriations.")

According to the New York Times, this seven percent increase would make annual military spending, when adjusted for inflation, its highest level since World War II. Further, the budget request doesn't even include war funding, nuclear weapons programs, taking care of returning veterans, or covering the interest on defense spending's share of the debt. The Bush Administration has already increased "baseline military spending" by 30 percent since taking office, and the $70 billion Iraq supplemental alone was more than China's entire defense budget.

Meanwhile, the Bush Budget fails to address -- and even exacerbates -- real threats to security that Americans are experiencing every day. More people are going hungry, and the President proposes eliminating food stamp coverage for more than 300,000 people in low-income working families with children. More people can't pay their bills, and he would cut 22 percent from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The Community Services Block Grant, "a $654 million program that provides housing, nutrition, education and job services to low-income people," would be eliminated. The Hope VI housing program would also be killed. Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama, one of 53 House Republicans who voted to support the program, told the Times, "The program has been a success. It has eliminated some of the most dangerous and distressed public housing in the country and created livable, mixed-income communities."

Also proposed are $170 billion in cuts to Medicare and $14 billion to Medicaid. Of course, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans who are eating, sleeping, and generally living just fine, thanks, are preserved. As Frances Fox Piven, author of The War at Home: The Domestic Costs of Bush's Militarism, said today, "American wealth is being redirected toward the military and the rich. Meanwhile, the growing needs of Americans, especially the poor and the old, are being ignored. The instabilities in the US economy now becoming evident are more and more worrisome."

Joseph Cirincione, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and author of Bomb Scare, told me, "The president's plan shows that the military-industrial complex has firm control of a budget now out of control. Given the growing financial crisis gripping this country, no one believes that these numbers are sustainable. But rather than make smart choices and begin a process that restores fiscal discipline, President Bush is spending like -- well -- like he's not going to be here next year when the bills come due." Cirincione points to Bush's missile defense requests to indicate the absurdity of the proposed budget: "Take just one number that illustrates the unreality of this unaffordable plan -- $720 million for a Rube Goldberg anti-missile weapon system in eastern Europe. Intelligence assessments show that Iran does not have now -- nor is it likely to have in the next ten years -- a missile that could threaten Europe, let alone the United States.

Nevertheless the president is rushing to pour money that we don't have, on technology that doesn't work, to counter a threat that doesn't exist. Not only that, Bush wants to spend $4.5 billion over the next five years on a European anti-missile system that hasn't passed even basic tests, and which many experts believe will never work. The citizens in Poland and the Czech Republic, where Bush would house these weapons, don't want the bases. But Bush is still trying to force it down their throats, even as real domestic needs at home go unfunded. The Alaskan 'bridge to nowhere' achieved political infamy for being a $1 billion budget item. This 'weapon for nothing' has four times the cost and even less justification."

For Americans whose lives are threatened daily by how hard it is to make ends meet, the Bush defense budget is indeed just another Bridge to Nowhere.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: national priorities, defense budget, bush

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The US spends more on our military and arms than the rest of the world combined.
Posted by: thekidde on Feb 7, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is obscene. We also sell more arms to the rest of the world than other "suppliers". Talk about a vicious circle (circle jerk?). Why are we building missiles in Europe? Why are we arming both the Saudis and Israelis? Why are we occupying a country that never threatened us but the occupation of which threatens us daily and kills our own and their innocents (but profits the BushCo scumbag)? Why, oh why, oh why - greed, hubris, "end-of-times" religious bullshit - all of the above and more.

Time for global pitchforks and torches to throw out the oligarchs, monarchs, despots and dictators - eat a banker, fry a multinational CEO and parboil a religious fundamentalist - get on with gettin' on and fuck the power brokers. If all the true "workers" of the world took a couple of days off, the wheels would come off the world economy because those in charge are incapable of actually doing anything productive. Organize and then sit it out until the poobahs starve to death.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr.Bush cannot help any more He is out
Posted by: flymulla on Feb 7, 2008 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Infighting in NATO is not helping Afghanistan
Informal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers (IDM 1-2008)
Vilnius, Lithuania, 7-8 February 2008
NATO Defence Ministers gathering in Vilnius
This is only the top of the pudding that is not there. Why?
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate hearing he would step up pressure on NATO countries that were not pulling their weight in the conflict.
"I worry a great deal about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance in which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's security, and others who are not," he said.
Mr. Gates then flew to Lithuania to meet counterparts from nations with troops in Afghanistan at a summit to work out a strategy to break the hold of Taliban insurgents in the south.
Australia believes it is doing more than its share and is not prepared to risk its soldiers to take territory that is later lost through political incompetence. Twenty-six nations have 43,000 troops in Afghanistan but key NATO nations including Germany, France, Spain, Turkey and Italy have resisted sending their troops to the south. "The risk of losing Afghanistan is very real,"The Dutch called in the US ambassador for a dressing down after Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said the Europeans were no good at counter-insurgency. Gates climbed down, partly, but then fired off a letter to Berlin demanding the Germans put their lives on the line in combat in the south rather than enjoying the relatively cushy conditions of the north. A furious German response followed. Canada, meanwhile, warned it may pull out unless other countries stepped up to the plate.
"Events in Afghanistan have become a motor for the transformation of the alliance," said a senior Nato diplomat.” With the above big dispute between the insiders, and TV Al Jazeera’s, note on 7th February 2008, it is clearer that the NATO troops were deployed in Afghanistan against many not in the optimum manner. It sort of was/is skewed on one side. The era of Mr. Bush thought that the troops could do multiple tasks, like watching Pakistan, India, Russia, Iran and the nuke growth in the Middle East. The idea is hocus-pocus. The troops need one mission, like Rambo, and not diverse missions as I state. One directive solves many problems. In Afghanistan, The troops have to fight the Taliban, about eight tribes, quench the education system and cut the crop of poppy. Mr. Bush put the president Mr. Hamid Karzai on the throne. Corruption, drugs and a galloping insurgency have strained relations, particularly with Britain. The UN estimates the Taliban have just 3,000 active fighters and about 7,000 part-timers, in contrast with more than 50,000 US and NATO troops. While 3.3 million Afghans are involved in opium cultivation, the authorities made just 760 arrests last year. The problem is linked to the weak judicial system. Only one major figure has been arrested since 2001, during a trip to New York.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, have joined Afghanistan's president in stepping up calls for Nato allies to provide more troops to the country.
As he called for more troops he said that he would leave "the decision [for troop enhancements] to the military men within Nato".
So Mr. Karzai what exactly are you doing for your country? You are the president. You have the task of protecting the people. Now you shirk and ask the outsiders to take the command. The outsiders individually and cumulatively had enough deaths, are fed up and cannot carry on cleaning your dirty linen, sir.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We wil starve before the oligarchs.
Posted by: nightgaunt on Feb 7, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who do you think will be hoarding the food ,water and be well armed with shoot-to-kill Blackwater stormtroops? We won't. We will be eating each other long before they will have any trouble. Count on it. They will have planned well ahead with the kind of leasuier the ultra-rich can afford. While we are starved for everything they have no thoughts about. Full bellies seldom think about starvation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]