An Up-Side-Down Military Budget
Foreign Policy in Focus—Center for Defense Information Report
The following report on military spending points out in no-uncertain of terms where the priorities of Bush & Co are—war and war toys. This military budget has noting to do with national security and everything to do with the defense and high tech industries keeping their profits as high as possible…nothing else seems to matter to these people. When you study this report keep in mind that those in decision making positions around Bush, especially in terms of the military budget, have ALL been highly connected to the very companies being handed the contracts behind this “War is a Racket” cash cow that is called a “budget.” Also, while reading this report remember that people like Michael Ledeen who sat on the very same Pentagon “defense” board as did Richard Perle was at the time a board “advisor” for Northrup-Grumann which landed some huge multi-billion contracts. Everyone surrounding Bush/Cheney have and do represent those companies that this Bush & Co war of choice have made mega billions for. This, as far as I am concerned, is the biggest single criminal enterprise in history. This is the Newt Gringrich “Starve the Beast” in full operation-- Guns over butter and the people be damned. —Jack
A Unified Security Budget for the United States, 2006
References in the public debate to a U.S. budget wildly out of balance usually have to do with the wide gap between income and outlays. Here the Uniﬁed Security Budget Task Force draws attention to another imbalance: between military and nonmilitary means of achieving security. While the security debate has begun to shift in favor of a larger role for nonmilitary tools, the budget debate has failed to keep pace. In this document we seek to connect the security debate to the resource allocations that will make it real.
The attacks of 9/11 vaulted security concerns to the top of the national agenda, where they remain today. The Bush Administration’s response to the attacks sent an unmistakable message about its approach to securing the homeland. By going to war against two countries, and defining these wars as the centerpieces of a “global war on terrorism” (GWOT), it conveyed clearly that the problem was to be solved mainly by applications of military force. This message was underscored by budgetary reality. Between FY 01 and FY 05 the United States spent $1.9 trillion on its military forces – excluding what was spent to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – versus $163 billion on homeland security.1 Proposed military expenditures for FY 06 – again, excluding war spending – are $442 billion. (Full report and analysis here)