No kidding. Americans for Tax Reform, the group that helped launch the 1994 Gingrich takeover of the House, just said this:
No kidding. Americans for Tax Reform, the group that helped launch the 1994 Gingrich takeover of the House, just said this:
"Today, Americans for Tax Reform, joined by strong coalition of organizations and individuals, released a joint letter calling on Republican leaders in Congress to consider all areas of the federal budget in their efforts to cut spending. The letter states that leadership on spending reform requires lawmakers to reject the sanctimonious pardoning of Department of Defense waste, and consider military spending cuts when confronting government profligacy. In part, the letter states"
Read more: http://www.atr.org/...
Don't knock this. Strange bedfellow coalitions can be some of the mosdt effective in politics.
(On a side note, the incredible story of Americans for Tax Reform's rise from fringe group to powerhouse is worth studying. They had a laser-like focus on one uniting issue, lower taxes, and refused to dilute their message with cultural issues for years. By doing so, they built a strong coalition.
This is a model we might want to duplicate on a progressive issue, but it has to be one accepted or acceptable to a wide coalition. Ideas?
But I digress)
To give you and idea of why any ally in reducing military spending is needed, take a look at the following:
From Waste Land: The Pentagon’s nearly unprecedented, wildly irrational spending binge. by Greg Easterbrook:
This year, the United States will spend at least $700 billion on defense and security. Adjusting for inflation, that’s more than America has spent on defense in any year since World War II—more than during the Korean war, the Vietnam war, or the Reagan military buildup. Much of that enormous sum results from spending increases under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Since 2001, military and security expenditures have soared by 119 percent.
<span>For most of that time, of course, the United States has been fighting two wars. Yet that’s not the cause of the defense-spending explosion. Even if the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are subtracted, the defense budget has swelled by 68 percent since 2001. (All money figures in this article are stated in 2010 dollars.) The U.S. defense budget is now about the same as military spending in all other countries combined.</span>
Discussion the binge, Easterbrook points out:
...Pressure-point lobbying has made it hard for the Department of Defense to render final acquisition decisions. Instead, programs are perennially “stretched,” becoming more and more expensive while less and less of value is produced (all emphasis by TGW).
Exhibit A for this phenomenon is the F-22 fighter jet. Lockheed Martin was chosen as the prime contractor in 1991. But the plane did not become operational for 14 years, as lawmakers scrapped over which congressional districts would receive the subcontracts. While deadlines kept passing, taxpayers paid billions. Through the years of wheel-spinning, F-22 costs more than doubled in inflationadjusted terms per plane. The Air Force’s entire B-58 project—which produced the world’s first long-range supersonic bomber—took six years, from when the prototype first flew in 1956 till the final B-58 left the assembly hangar. Back when Pentagon spending was much lower, there was discipline about completing programs on time.
Eventually, the original justification for the F-22 fighter—anticipated aerial duels above Europe against the Soviet Union’s best—faded away, as did the adversary. When the first operational F-22 finally entered an Air Force squadron in 2005, it was unclear what the plane would do, other than be something really cool for members of Congress to have their pictures taken next to. The F-22 has never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan: Either the plane is irrelevant to low-intensity war, or the Air Force fears one will get shot down by some cheap, old-fashioned weapon. The project was finally ended last year, but only after a nasty and protracted fight in Congress.
and
Although the Pentagon is “awash in reports” on its broken procurement process—as the military’s own news agency said in August—little meaningful internal reform has occurred. The latest jet fighter costs nine times as much as the top fighter that flew during the Vietnam war. The latest submarines cost $7 billion, the latest aircraft carriers $11 billion. In 2009, the Government Accountability Office estimated that Pentagon weapons projects were collectively $296 billion over budget.
and of course
There is a Joint Chiefs of Staff structure that, in theory, should resolve these sorts of squabbles. But the Joint Chiefs are like the board of directors at BP—they rubber-stamp whatever is put in front of them. Each member of the Joint Chiefs is a four-star officer in his final billet, soon to retire and accept a cushy job in private industry. The last thing he wants is to offend a powerful Pentagon interest group.
and, head-smackingly finally
Despite unprecedented spending,U.S. weapons are becoming antiquated. The Air Force consists mainly of aircraft designed 30 or more years ago. The Army’s primary tank, the M-1, went into the field when Jimmy Carter was president. Billions of dollars have been wasted on replacement projects, including a super-costly plan for a swarm of elaborate armored vehicles called Future Combat Systems, but the initiatives failed to produce a substitute. Under current plans, the M-1 will remain the Pentagon’s primary armor until 2050, when the tanks will be 70 years old.
So we're spending more than we should on outdated weapons that might not work to fight an enemy that no longer exists.
To put this into perspective acccording to In Context: US Military Spending Versus Rest Of The World:
• US military spending accounts for 46.5 percent, or almost half, of the world’s total military spending
• US military spending is 7 times more than China, 13 times more than Russia, and 73 times more than Iran (note from TWG: even without current war spending, our military budget is several times larger that those of Russia, China and Iran combined).
• US military spending is some 44 times the spending on the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) whose spending amounts to around $16 billion.• US spending is more than the next top 14 countries at least.
• The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend something in the region of $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined, representing 72 percent of the world’s total.
What does this mean to the average citizen? Here's one example: The combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is about $190 million per day Assume a few black of and round up to $200 million. Four days of the wars' cost could freeze tuition at every public institution in the country.
(Numbers taken from this excellent piece by Robert Weiner:)
Diverting a small portion of the federal budget — approximately $800 million (TGW's note: roughly 0.027% of the fed. budget) — could pay for a tuition freeze at every public institution across the nation, increase attendance and reduce student debt. It’s a reasonable shift if the U.S. wants to return to No. 1 in college graduations.
(He also points out that Maryland governor martin O'Malley campaigned hard on freezing tuition issue four years ago and won. He won again this year against a tax-cutting former Governor during a Republican wave).
But the Catfood Commission is the best we can do for the neediest in our society, including children?
National security is established by protecting the lives and property of the citizenry. So where is the focus on the oldest, youngest and poorest in our country? here is the protection for the property of anyone but the richest?
I am truly tired of a group that is interested in protecting our grandparents from imaginary death panels but is still wiling to let then starve; a group that is willing to protect children from conception until birth but says f*ck'em after that. This hypocrisy that needs to be put in their faces at every public venue,at every town hall, in every letter to the editor, and on every call in show possible.
***
Recommended reading for radicals:
The incomparable Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
by Robert Cialdini. This is the single most valuable book I have read on how to persuade and how to avoid being persuaded.
Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives
Frank Luntz: everything he’s written. You have to know the enemy. Remember the great scene in Patton, when the victorious general shouted: “Rommel! You magnificent son of a bitch! I READ YOUR BOOK!”
Making the News: A Guide for Activists and Nonprofits
The Campaign Manager: Running and Winning Local Elections
How To Win A Local Election, Revised: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide
Guerrilla Marketing
***
Build Infrastructure: Volunteer! List of State and Local Democratic Parties