Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1755637343-scaled

Tax burden from the Pentagon budget authorized by the NDAA wipes out COVID stimulus payments

Despite widespread calls to modestly reduce the Pentagon's overflowing coffers to confront other priorities during a pandemic, Congress carries on with business as usual.

Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics

Bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate this week approved a $740 billion national defense authorization bill (NDAA), setting up negotiations for a final version, which will almost certainly pose a major boon for defense contractors, passing along a tax bill that by comparison more than wipes out the average tax filer’s COVID-19 stimulus check.

The extent of the NDAA’s historical financial benefit to defense contractors is staggering, with, for example, over half of the 2019 total defense-related discretionary spending — $370 billion of $676 billion — going to contractors, according to Brown University’s Costs of War Project. 

Assuming this pace continues, the 2021 NDAA could pass along more than $370 billion to defense contractors, many of whom have contributed generously to politicians, like Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), the top recipient of defense contractor campaign contributions in 2018, who authored a recent op-ed making “The Case for Robust Defense Spending.”

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats who voted against an amendment to cut the military budget by 10 percent received 3.4 times as much in campaign contributions from the defense industry than those who voted for the amendment.

The NDAA and its windfall for defense contractors is particularly troubling amid the COVID-19 pandemic which has, in addition to the public health crisis, caused economic turmoil, record unemployment levels, and federal efforts to inject liquidity into financial markets.

In March, the government sought to buoy the economy and blunt the economic impact of the pandemic with “Economic Impact Payments,” more commonly known as “coronavirus stimulus payments.” According to CNBC, the average payment was $1,809 per tax filer, which could be individuals or married couples filing jointly.

The long-term benefits of that payment to tax filers are dwarfed by the costs imposed on taxpayers by the defense budget and payments to defense contractors that Congress authorized in this year’s NDAA.

The IRS anticipates 155.1 million tax returns to be filed in 2020, meaning the cost of the upcoming NDAA will be, on average, $4,711.11 per tax filer, completely wiping out the stimulus payment and imposing an additional $2,902.11 burden per filer.

Just the portion of the NDAA destined for defense contractors, $370 billion or $2,385.55 per average tax filer, wipes out the average stimulus payment and imposes a $576.55 tax burden per filer.

Even the potential Senate Republican-led second stimulus proposal won’t fully unburden taxpayers from the NDAA’s massive discretionary spending on the military and defense contractors. The proposed legislation would include a $1,200 stimulus check to some Americans. That payment, combined with the average $1,809 payment from the March stimulus, would cover the average tax filer’s portion of the NDAA costs benefiting defense contractors but would still leave them with a $1,702.11 financial burden from overall annual defense spending.

Of course, the immediate cost per-tax filer might be deferred via deficit spending, but the national debt currently exceeding $26 trillion — over $167,000 per anticipated 2020 tax filer and over $80,000 per U.S. citizen — should raise questions about the role of the defense budget, which is the second largest category of federal spending after social security, and represents more than half of the discretionary budget. Moreover, U.S. defense expenditures exceed the annual combined defense spending of China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, the U.K., Japan, South Korea, and Brazil.

That levies a large bill on taxpayers, either in immediate taxes or assumed portion of the national debt, but Lockheed Martin President James D. Taiclet was decidedly upbeat on a July 21 earnings call, in which he beamed that “our portfolio was supported” in the NDAA. He said:

"[There are] encouraging elements for our portfolio is [sic] the Senate version confirmed that the national defense strategy remains the roadmap for the armed services. And the bill was passed with strong bipartisan support. Our portfolio was well supported in the Senate version for the recommended increase of 16 F-35 aircraft above the President's request, additional funding for missile defense priorities including an 8 THAAD battery and increased funding for the Homeland Defense Radar Hawaii program. Congress will continue with the authorization and appropriation spaces. We look forward to the finalization of the process in supporting our warfighters needs."

While the “warfighters needs” are arguably not supported from a combination of endless wars in the Middle East, a ballooning national debt burden at home, and a pandemic that’s spurring unemployment levels to rise over 10 percent, there are at least two beneficiaries from the NDAA: politicians who rely on defense contractor campaign contributions and defense contractors who see “encouraging elements” for their “portfolio” from the industry’s $2,385.55 annual burden on each tax filer.

Photo: bgrocker/Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics
Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaking wit… | Flickr

Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten

Media


Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

keep readingShow less
Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

Peter Thiel attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 6, 2022. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

QiOSK

The trouble with doing business with Israel — or any foreign government — is you can't really say anything when they do terrible things with technology that you may or may not have sold to them, or hope to sell to them, or hope to sell in your own country.

Such was the case with Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies, in this recently surfaced video, talking to the Cambridge Union back in May. See him stumble and stutter and buy time when asked what he thought about the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Israeli military in a targeting program called "Lavender" — which we now know has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of innocent Palestinians since Oct 7. (See investigation here).

keep readingShow less
Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Committee chairman Jack Reed (D-RI), left, looks on as co-chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President Biden's proposed budget request for the Department of Defense on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Military Industrial Complex

Now that both political parties have seemingly settled upon their respective candidates for the 2024 presidential election, we have an opportune moment to ask a rather fundamental question about our nation’s defense spending: how much is enough?

Back in May, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, penned an op-ed in the New York Times insisting the answer was not enough at all. Wicker claimed that the nation wasn’t prepared for war — or peace, for that matter — that our ships and fighter-jet fleets were “dangerously small” and our military infrastructure “outdated.” So weak our defense establishment and so dangerous the world right now, Wicker pressed, the nation ought to “spend an additional $55 billion on the military in the 2025 fiscal year.”

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.