Skip to comments.More Blank Checks to the Military Industrial Complex (Ron Paul)
Posted on 05/24/2010 10:02:37 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Congress, with its insatiable appetite for spending, is set to pass yet another supplemental appropriations bill in the next two weeks. So-called supplemental bills allow Congress to spend beyond even the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government. These are akin to a family that consistently outspends its budget, and therefore needs to use a credit card to make it through the end of the month.
If the American people want Congress to spend less, putting an end to supplemental appropriations bills would be a start. The 13 regular appropriations bills fund every branch, department, agency, and program of the federal government. Congress should place every dollar in plain view among those 13 bills. Instead, supplemental spending bills serve as a sneaky way for Congress to spend extra money that was not projected in budget forecasts. Once rare, they have become commonplace vehicles for deficit spending.
The latest supplemental bill is touted as an emergency war spending bill, needed to fund our ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. The emergencies never seem to end, however, and Congress passes one military supplemental bill after another as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on.
Many of my colleagues argue that Congress cannot put a price on our sacred national security, and I agree that the strong, unequivocal defense of our country is a top priority. There comes a time, however, when we must take stock of what our blank checks to the military industrial complex accomplish for us, and where the true threats to American citizens lie.
The smokescreen debate over earmarks demonstrates how we have lost perspective when it comes to military spending. Earmarks constitute about $11 billion of the latest budget. This sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $708 billion spent by the Pentagon this year to expand our worldwide military presence. The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually, which is roughly what the entire federal budget was in 1990!
We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and far more than we spent during the Cold War. These expenditures in many cases foment resentment that does not make us safer, but instead makes us a target. We referee and arm conflicts the world over, and have troops in some 140 countries with over 700 military bases.
With this enormous amount of money and energy spent on efforts that have nothing to do with the security of the United States, when the time comes to defend American soil, we will be too involved in other adventures to do so.
There is nothing conservative about spending money we dont have simply because that spending is for defense. No enemy can harm us in the way we are harming ourselves, namely bankrupting the nation and destroying our own currency. The former Soviet Union did not implode because it was attacked; it imploded because it was broke. We cannot improve our economy if we refuse to examine all major outlays, including so-called defense spending.
I am not anti self defense. I am anti Nation Building wars. A “pre-emptive war” to bring democracy to a country far from our own borders is an unAmerican idea. Pre-emptive Nation Building wars are unjust wars.
Obama seems to have adopted the neocon position since taking office. It is his war now and he will do what democrats have always done...outwar the Republicans.
Get an early start...join your new champion in chief Obama and embrace your obvious liberal bent.
"Would you repeat that pattern over and over simply allowing dictators to ruthlessly genocide people in other nations by the millions?"
It is amazing how many CodePink types there are here at FR under the guise of being Ron Paul supporters."
Your posts are a pathetic joke. Not fond of neocons, but yours are too exaggerated even as "a caricature of a neocon".
If you are a DNC troll, the jig is up. If by chance you aren't, I think that you made a wrong turn when you accidentally wandered in to FR some months ago, as what you were really looking for was "Fascists Central" .
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
If you think teh Paul is goofy, you must think that Paul “Blame America”
Wolfowitz (a key architect of Bush’s foreign policy) is a goofy since Wolfowitz agrees with Paul that they attacked primarily because we were over there.
It doesn’t bother you that Rue Paul is ALWAYS wanting to neuter the military?
I have no idea what RuePaul is doing these days -- I don't keep up with drag queens.
But if you are referring to Ron Paul, Ron Paul was an Airforce flight surgeon during Vietnam -- anything Ron Paul "wanted to neuter" would be singing soprano by now if that were his intention -- but it's not.
How come rab never comments on his own threads?
And weird, and kind of naive about the real world, and a huge hypocrite on his spending schtick.
Other than that, he's all right........
I had to stop here:
“The total expenditures to maintain our world empire...”
and wipe the puke off my computer.
“Ron Paul is my President.”
Be glad he isn’t America’s.
In an age where submarines off the coast can annihilate the USA in minutes, or a crude atomic weapon can kill millions in a flash, we cannot wait for an attack.
George Washington lived when muskets were advanced weapons, and crossing the oceans took months...and the arriving firepower could kill hundreds. George would have been smart enough to notice the changes. Ron Paul is not.
And no, the defense budget is NOT what is driving up our debt. We didn’t add $1,000 BILLION to our annual debt after Obama entered office by spending more on the military...
I think even he's embarrassed by RP. Or at least that'w what it appears as he sure can't defend the pos.
Yeah, we know you think he is “goofy:” The question is this: is Wolfowitz also goofy for advocating the exact position e.g. they attack us becuse we are over there?
You apparently don’t know that we have 160 bases in foreign lands e.g. a world empire. If you think that world polcing of that type has anything to do with the decentralized republic advocated by the founders, you don’t know much about American History.
You obviously A) have a strange definition of “base”, and B) don’t know we exercise no sovereignty over other countries.
We do, however, take pro-active steps to protect our interests. We don’t have the Founder’s luxury of hiding behind two oceans...
For the 2010 fiscal year, the base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on “overseas contingency operations” brings the sum to $663.8 billion.
Not quite 1,000 billion, and only a fraction of our 3,500 billion budget for 2010...19%.
The actual quote said
"The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually...."
Given the context, I think he was adding in foreign aid, plus potentially other elements like NATO participation, etc, not just the military budget.
Foreign aid would add about 50 billion, to a total of around 715 billion.
715 is still far below 1000.
Think ‘entitlement spending’....
Your inability to explain the hypocrisy of your "great constitutional hero" is obvious, so you bring in a canard like your Wolfie claim.
None of you has any moral authority here until you explain this problem of your candidate's record on earmarks and spending.
Biggest spending Republican? The National Taxpayers Union disagrees with you. I think I trust them more to make an objective assessment.