Monday, December 21, 2009

Military Spending Sucking Money from Domestic Programs without Making Soldiers or Americans Safer

The U.S. Senate recently passed a $626 billion defense bill that does not include Obama's $100 million request to close GTMO. The Senate measure also includes $2.5 billion to fund 10 C-17 cargo planes assembled in Long Beach, Calif., which were not requested, and money for nine more F-18 Navy fighters than Obama requested.

Since America is running massive deficits, neither you nor I will be paying the $626 billion to expand the military-industrial complex. The bill will be paid by your children and their children--if we're lucky. Also, every single dollar that goes into military equipment programs is either printed (thereby weakening the American dollar) or diverted from domestic federal programs like education, transportation, civilian jobs, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Where is Eisenhower when you need him? What happened to all the honest, fiscally-conservative Republicans? One Ron Paul isn't enough to save this country from itself. At least we have Senator Feingold, who said, "I strongly oppose this fiscally irresponsible and misguided bill. While the bill includes many good provisions, it will also fund a massive troop surge in Afghanistan that will overburden our troops and will likely hurt, not help, our efforts to eliminate the global threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates. And it is stuffed with earmarks and wasteful spending, such as $2.5 billion for 10 C-17s that the Defense Department does not want and $130 million for a Presidential helicopter program that has been canceled."

Below are two excellent links explaining federal budget expenditures in 2008: [This link is titled, "Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?".] [This link is titled: "Federal Spending, 2001-2008: Defense Is a Rapidly Growing Share of the Budget, While Domestic Appropriations Have Shrunk"]

No comments: