Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_732504547-scaled-e1648755059685

House military spending vote signals epic failure of leadership

Lawmakers in the thrall of the defense lobby show their cards in proposed budget increases. This one's a doozy.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

“The Pentagon budget is running amok!” charged Representative Barbara Lee during the recent floor debate on the National Defense Authorization Act. 

She and Rep. Mark Pocan were advocating an amendment to the massive spending bill that would roll back an earlier House Armed Services Committee decision to add $37 billion on top of the Biden Administration’s $813 billion military spending request. 

HASC Chairman Adam Smith, seeking to overrule his own committee, also rose to speak in favor of the Lee/Pocan amendment. It was, nonetheless, defeated, with the majority of House members falling all over themselves to shovel as much money to military contractors as they could.

How was this even possible? The July 13 vote was 277 to 151, and each of the 277 “nay” votes was an affront to common sense. Each one signaled an abdication of responsibility.

Some 140 million Americans are living in poverty or are scraping by with low-wage jobs. Many are struggling to put food on the table. Ordinary citizens are reeling from nine-percent inflation, dangerous new Covid mutations, inadequate health care and inequitable access to it. What’s more, we are counting on our government to address the climate crisis.

The rest of us must face the consequences of our choices, but these elected officials seem to operate in an alternate universe. Protected by their taxpayer-supported Cadillac healthcare plan, do our elected officials concern themselves with the 25 million Americans afflicted by “long Covid?” As Rep. Lee has said, “more guns and tanks are of no use to Americans without housing, education or health care.”   

Rhetoric aside, does anyone who voted “nay” honestly believe that the Department of Defense cannot adequately defend our country with the $813 billion that the Pentagon requested? That number is already higher, adjusted for inflation, than we were spending at the peaks of the Korean or Vietnam wars, or at the height of the Cold War. That amount exceeds the military spending of the next nine nations combined: China, Russia, India, the UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea. Even so, the House wants to add more. This is absolutely outrageous.

Somewhere along the way, 277 Representatives (you know who you are) forgot why their jobs exist. They are in thrall to military contractors, such as Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Northrup-Grumman. Mega-corporations have become addicted to a raging river of federal money that pumps up their obscene profits, provides for generous executive bonuses, and bankrolls their campaign war chests.  

Shine a spotlight on this money trail and you’ll see how so many members of Congress came to pay more attention to military contractors than their own constituents — or the good of the nation.

These 277 representatives have failed the test of leadership. Real leaders ensure that their decisions benefit the group, but the 277 fail to consider the dangerous risks posed by such astronomical military investments in terms of fueling a new arms race with our rivals. Real leaders demand accountability; yet the Pentagon has never successfully passed an audit. Real leaders do not put their personal interests above all else, or make inexplicable and dangerous decisions in order to keep the campaign cash flowing. 

Americans look to Congress for true leadership and real help, and they are getting neither. We, the taxpayers, are forced to delegate budget decisions to Congress — decisions that are infamously opaque. But this betrayal of public trust will not go unnoticed. Members of Congress need to step up to the plate, consider the future, and start voting as if they cared about the rest of us.  


Image: Artem Avetisyan via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Larijani's killing will destroy Iran war off-ramps for Trump
  • Mostafa Meraji / Wikimedia

Ali Larijani

Larijani's killing will destroy Iran war off-ramps for Trump

QiOSK

Why did Israel target Ali Larijani, and what are the implications if it is confirmed that he was killed? (Update: Iran has confirmed Larijani's killing, hours after Israel's announced that they had killed him in an airstrike).

I see three potential motivations behind the assassination attempt:

keep readingShow less
Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war
Shutterstock/Ben Von Klemperer

Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war

QiOSK

The intra-GOP debate over the Iran war has now reached inside the Trump administration, triggering the first senior-level resignation over the conflict.

Joe Kent, a former U.S. Army officer, resigned Tuesday from his position as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), saying in a letter that he could no longer “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.” Kent focused his blame on “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” for leading President Donald Trump down this dangerous path and deceiving him into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat and that a war could be won quickly and easily.

keep readingShow less
Trump bombing US-Arab relations back to the 70s
Top photo credit: OPEC imposed gas shortage, 1973. (National Archives)

Trump bombing US-Arab relations back to the 70s

Middle East

With oil selling for around $100 a barrel and the price in the United States of gasoline at the pump having increased 20% in two weeks, Americans have been thrust back into a 1970s-style mix of oil and insecurity in the Persian Gulf.

The crises of the 1970s began with an oil embargo resulting from Arab anger over heavy U.S. support to Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Then, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the United States proclaimed what became known as the Carter Doctrine, with President Jimmy Carter declaring that “vital interests” of the United States were at stake in the Persian Gulf region.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

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.