If you haven’t heard the word yet, Pr*sident Trump announced Monday that he will be proposing a 9.2 percent boost in Pentagon spending for fiscal 2018, which begins October 1. That’s $54 billion added to what is already the world's largest military budget. He wants to pay for this by taking big whacks at social programs, foreign aid, and government spending by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is a key Republican target for cuts. The entire EPA budget in 2017 is $8 billion.
U.S. foreign assistance totals significantly more—$25.6 billion for economic development and $16.8 billion for security (which includes military aid as well as programs to fight narcotics trafficking, among others). All told, that’s about 1 percent of the annual budget. Most Americans think far more is being spent on foreign assistance, as you can see from the chart below from the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Michael Rothschild at ATTN writes:
The National Priorities Project tracks federal spending, and the non-profit, non-partisan organization's data shows just how much money the U.S. already spends on its military. Indeed, the U.S. already spends more money on the military than the next seven biggest spenders combined.
"There is ample money within the Pentagon budget that could be put to better use," NPP Lindsay Koshgarian Research Director told ATTN:. "For example, The Washington Post recently broke a story about a Pentagon-commissioned report that identified $25 billion per year in wasteful bureaucratic spending."
The federal government currently has a budget of over $4 trillion in Fiscal Year 2017, the last year for which President Obama had control over spending. However, over 60 percent of that figure is mandated for Social Security and Medicare; Trump has vowed not to touch this money. Military spending makes up another 15 percent of the budget, at $632 billion, and 7 percent is spent on servicing the national debt.
One place Trump has vowed to spend some of that extra money is expanding the U.S. Navy fleet of warships by nearly 30 percent, to 350 ships. Trump has joined a chorus of war hawks who have complained that the fleet—now 274 ships—is smaller than it has been since 1916.
This ignores the fact that the United States now has 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and nine other conventionally powered ships that in any other of the world’s navies would be considered aircraft carriers. In 1916, the U.S. had zero carriers.
It also now has 75 nuclear-powered submarines. In 1917, it had 42 diesel- and diesel-electric submarines, but most of these were built for coastal defense only and had a range that would barely carry them to Europe. Only four U.S. subs in World War I were true ocean-going vessels that could be labeled attack submarines and they saw little action.
A House Armed Services subcommittee has asked the Congressional Budget Office to lay out costs and other matters for getting to 355 ships over the next 15-30 years. Experts say the cost for those could be as much as $165 billion over the next 30 years. Of course, cost overruns can be expected. And that big expenditure only includes the cost of building the ships. Operations, maintenance and staffing for 81 more vessels would add billions of dollars more to the annual budget.
QUOTATION OF THE DAY
“The small reform may become the enemy of the great one.
~ John Morley, On Compromise, 1874
TWEET OF THE DAY
BLAST FROM THE PAST
At Daily Kos on this date in 2006—Why the 45-Day Review of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States Is A Sham:
In an effort to save face and calm the public furor over the ports deal, Dubai Ports World (DPW) has agreed to "request" the 45-day investigation that should have been been conducted by [the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] initially. DPW has also said it's delaying taking control over U.S. ports. Yet, as Think Progress points out, the delay is just a sham, and barring any Congressional action, the deal will be finalized on March 2.
So, this deal will go back to the same committee that approved of it unanimously. Does anyone really believe that their conclusion will differ at all? More importantly, will the process of investigation be any better? In 2005, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office conducted a review of the Exon-Florio process and how CFIUS evaluates national security issues.
HIGH IMPACT STORIES • TOP COMMENTS
On today’s Kagro in the Morning show: The Oscars got to have a do-over, but we’re stuck. Greg Dworkin separates the normal from the abnormal. Congress is back. Tomorrow, Trump tells them how bigly he won. Happy Secret ISIS Plan Day! Yet another Trump pick might have rotten Russia ties.
YouTube | iTunes | LibSyn | Support the show via Patreon