A new defense bill crammed with political pork smashes records, but you likely didn't hear the news, because War is Good again

Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 9 months ago to Politics
13 comments | Share | Flag


Congrats, Americans! You've been $%^&ed again.

Excerpt:
"As January 6th hearings, a presidential fist-bump, and a Kardashian spawn’s gender reveal gobbled attention, the House quietly passed a monster $839 billion defense package. It was “the definition of a bipartisan bill,” chirped Alabama’s Mike Rogers, as 180 Democrats and 149 Republicans joined to smash by tens of billions previous records for military spending. With this already underreported story, just one news outlet, Roll Call, described a “first of its kind” report published by the Department of Defense Comptroller’s office, which revealed at least $58 billion of “congressional additions” above Joe Biden’s budget request.

As former Senate aide and defense budget analyst Winslow Wheeler puts it, these “additions” are “not (all) earmarks under either the House’s or Senate’s shriveled definition of them, but they are all earmarks… under the classic understanding.” What’s in those requests? As Roll Call’s Donnelly explains, the $58 billion included “money to respond to disasters and the war in Ukraine,” but also:

Billions of dollars in weapons the military did not seek, such as more than $4 billion worth of unrequested warships, many of them built by the constituents of senior appropriators.

This felt like Duke Cunningham days, back with a vengeance. The $58 billion revealed by the Department of Defense only pertained to “congressional increases” larger than $20 million. I asked the DoD to ask if they also counted smaller appropriations. So far, they’ve declined to comment, but according to several sources (and Roll Call), the actual amount of “additions” is almost surely far higher than $58 billion.


Duke Cunningham’s bribe menu. Note the price change at $20 million
Both the triumphant return of the earmark and the enormous defense hike should have been big stories. To put $58 billion (at least) in defense “increases” in context, the amount of overall federal earmarks in 2006, the infamous year that prompted so much outrage, was said to be $26 billion. Meanwhile Biden’s one-year arms increase exceeds the pace of Donald Trump’s infamous $200 billion collective defense hike between 2017-2019. These are major surges past the levels of both pork and weapons spending that had progressives roaring for “change,” yet there’s almost zero outcry now. Why?"
SOURCE URL: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-great-american-military-rebrand


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by mhubb 1 year, 9 months ago
    yet we cannot defend our own borders and no one that swore an Oath has moved to stop the usurper biden and his cabal or traitors
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Aeronca 1 year, 9 months ago
    Did we pull out of Afghanistan so we could go in to Ukraine? We had Afghanistan buttoned up so tight the Pentagon couldn't make any more money there. That's why we left our hardware there, to create a need for more!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 9 months ago
    I wonder how much is being spent on "woking" the military.

    Right on cue, it seems, I watched a video of Laura Ingraham "The Angle" this morning about how recruitment for the military is off by more than 30% and of those in the military today only 23% are qualified to do their jobs (she showed a video of a senior military officer testifying to congress saying this). She contrasted two recruitment ads put out by the army, the first is a Reagan era "be all you can be" with real military training footage, the second is a contemporary made up cartoon that begins by explaining the possible recruit is a girl with two mommies. This is what the military is now spending taxpayer dollars on? If identity politic policies are now running the military, who in their right mind would want to join up, except those who use identity to loot?

    If 77% of military personnel are not qualified, according to testimony, we are in deep do-do. If large swaths of the qualified population aren't even bothering to sign up because our military is being converted to a social experiment that craps on the qualified it gets deeper yet. Could politicians usual fix it strategy of throw more money at the problem be what we are seeing here? The do-do gets deeper yet, IMHO.

    I am not a military person as I waited to get drafted in the early '70s and never got called, but even I can see serious problems building in our military. If the left's plan to bring America to heal and part of that is to weaken the military from within, it's working... or is that woking?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 year, 9 months ago
      Upside: If 77% are not qualified, then secession may be possible if the rest are more than half patriots.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Aeronca 1 year, 9 months ago
        I'm curious about secession. For the Civil War, there was an easy North-South line. But today what's blue and red is not easily arranged into two territories. How would a secession work? Who gets the military? Who gets Fort Knox, etc...How could a secession work without mass murder?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 1 year, 9 months ago
          It won't be an amicable divorce.
          Maybe Trump and Putin can represent the patriots and Hitlery and Xi can represent the socialists to determine division of spoils.
          The most important thing is control of the petro-dollar, imo. It's the only thing that supports the central bank evil empire of lies.

          The socialists know how to cheat and steal using the financial system. Without the petro-dollar, whatever reals goods they get they will squander in 50 years.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Aeronca 1 year, 9 months ago
      I have a friend in the Navy, he's an Officer. A noob female Blackhawk pilot came in for sea landing at night trials. As she hovered at tower level, she came on the radio and said "Would you turn off those lights?" She was referring to the navigation lights. The green and red navigation lights that every boat everywhere military and civilian has. She refused to land. My friend told her to flip her night-vision ocular and use it. She refused. She said "Those lights are unsuitable. I can't land." Because they needed to pass sea-trials, they had to climb up the tower and turn the navigation lights off manually, because there's no switch! He wanted to tell her to figure out how to land or go drink seawater. But in this Navy, women rise fast up the ranks, because men are scared of being accused of bias or harassment. Men stand aside and let the women climb the ladder, and promote them high and out of the Navy. Then the men who are left do the real job. Not all the women. But many.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 9 months ago
        I'm now wondering how all her predecessors landed. I'm also wondering if she would have tried landing if she was under fire. Special rules for special people. I suppose there will be switches installed on those lights so the ladies can land. I wonder if trans-pilots will or will not leave the lights on.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo