Defense contractors eye long-term profits from Ukraine war
A new proposal would slash protections against price gouging and ratchet up weapons production well past Kyiv’s needs.
A new proposal would slash protections against price gouging and ratchet up weapons production well past Kyiv’s needs.
There are now 900 amendments to the NDAA. We break down some of the most extravagant and expensive.
If history is any guide, politicians will take advantage of public opinion, which is pessimistic about America’s ‘superpower’ status.
The half-baked undersea military program is set to cost taxpayers more than $500 million over the next five years.
Lawmakers in the thrall of the defense lobby show their cards in proposed budget increases. This one’s a doozy.
Now begins Pentagon budget season and with it, a long wish list and efforts to justify massive increases.
For decades the Center for Defense Information was filled with former top military brass providing checks and shaping policies.
His proposal ‘would make Kyiv the largest yearly recipient of U.S. military aid of at least the past two decades.’
DC establishmentarian says we’ve allowed our military to atrophy, and need more than $1 trillion a year to restore its ‘reach and its punch.’
Given the current state of the economy, that would mean the DoD budget could increase by over $100 billion.
Boeing’s KC-46 flying fuel tanker was a boondoggle from the start, but now that it’s thrown aside human eyesight, it’s actually dangerous.
Defense contractors and program advocates have unusual control over what the public sees, leading to bad oversight, or worse.
What would happen if we tied a tax to each budget hike? Don’t ask, it won’t happen.
There can’t be the slightest doubt: America worships its Pentagod and the weapons and wars that feed it.
But whether our leaders continue to succumb to the power of the arms lobby is an open question.
It seems like whenever these committees get together the bottom line goes up — but not far enough for the military hawks.
A $23.9 billion addition to the NDAA would have a greater longterm impact than Congress wants to acknowledge.
A shift in spending toward urgent priorities like addressing the possibility of future pandemics would be a far better investment in “national security.”
Democratic Rep. Anthony Brown is disingenuous when he says the military will be cut to offset costs for bold plans at home.
Applying phony solutions to real problems — it seems the armed forces, in league with Congress, has this down.
Beware of another year in which politics wins over strategy and the security budget is bloated in all the wrong places.