The restored ‘Cold War’ could produce a much stronger
global tarnishing of America’s global reputation.
by ERIC ZUESSEMay
15, 2018, 10:18372 Views
The National Priorities Project headlines “U.S. Military Spending vs. the World” and reports:
“World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015.
The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total.” But
it can’t be believed, because, even if other nations aren’t under-reporting
their military expenditures, the U.S. certainly is —
under-reporting it by about 50%.
The reality is approximately twice the official
figure, so that America’s current annual military expenditures are around $1.5
trillion, which is to say, almost equal to that entire global estimate of “more
than $1.6 trillion in 2015.”
America’s actual annual military budget and
expenditures are unknown, because there has never been an audit of the ‘Defense’
Department, though an audit has routinely been promised but never delivered,
and Congresses and Presidents haven’t, for example, even so much as just
threatened to cut its budget every year by 10% until it is done — there has
been no accounatability for the Department, at all. Corruption is welcomed,
at the ‘Defense’ Department.
Furthermore, many of the military expenditures are
hidden. One way that this is done is by funding an unknown large proportion of
U.S. military functions at other federal Departments, so as for those
operations not to be officially “‘Defense’ Department” budget and
expenditures, at all.
This, for example, is the reason why Robert Higgs, of
The Independent Institute, was able to report, on 15 March 2007, “The
Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here”. He found that America’s
military expenditures, including the ones he could identify at other federal
agencies, were actually already nearly a trillion dollars ($934.9 billion) a
year:
“To estimate the size of the entire de facto defense
budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2006, the most recently completed fiscal
year, for which data on actual outlays are now available.
In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent
$499.4 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added
$16.6 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $69.1 billion.
The Department of State and international assistance
programs laid out $25.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense
purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had
outlays of $69.8 billion.
The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s
share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known
Military Retirement Fund, added $38.5 billion.
A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only
indirectly so.
When all of these other parts of the budget are added
to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2006 total by
nearly half again, to $728.2 billion.”
Furthermore,
“Much, if not all, of the budget for the
Department of State and for international assistance programs ought to be
classified as defense-related, too. In this case, the money serves to buy off
potential enemies and to reward friendly governments who assist U.S. efforts to
abate perceived threats. … [As regards] Department of Homeland
Security, many observers probably would agree that its budget ought to be
included in any complete accounting of defense costs. … The Federal Bureau of
Investigation … devotes substantial resources to an anti-terrorist program.
The Department of the Treasury informs us that it has
‘worked closely with the Departments of State and Justice and the intelligence
community to disrupt targets related to al Qaeda, Hizballah, Jemaah Islamiyah,
as well as to disrupt state sponsorship of terror.’”
But, almost everything there relied upon mere
estimates, because the Congress and the President always supply to the public
numbers that are sadly uninterpretable by anyone who wants to know what
percentage of the federal government is actually military.
For example, on April 3rd, the White House, as
required by law, sent to Congress “the Seven-Day-After report for the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141). The President signed this Act into law on March
23, 2018.”
That’s the current authorized spending for the entire
U.S. Federal Government. It was broken down there into twelve categories, some
of which were for multiple federal Departments, in order to make the reported
numbers as uninterpretable as possible — for example, nothing was shown for the
Treasury Department, but something was shown for “Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations” and it didn’t even mention the “Treasury”
Department.
And nothing was shown for the Justice Department, nor
for the Commerce Department, but something was shown for “Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies” (whatever those are). However, as bad as this
is, the military (or invasions) department is even less fathomable from the
publicly available reports than those other ones are. The ‘Defense’ Department
is the only one that’s still “unauditable”
so that in one of the attempts to audit it:
“The audits of the FY 1999 DoD financial statements
indicated that $7.6 trillion of accounting entries were made to compile them.
This startling number is perhaps the most graphic available indicator of just
how poor the existing systems are.
The magnitude of the problem is further demonstrated
by the fact that, of $5.8 trillion of those adjustments that we audited this
year, $2.3 trillion were unsupported by reliable explanatory information and
audit trails or were made to invalid general ledger accounts.”
Largely as a consequence of this, Wikipedia’s “Military budget of the United States” is a chaotic
mess, though useful for links to some sources (all of which are likewise
plagued as being uninterpretable).
On 1 March 2011, Chris Hellman headlined “The Real U.S.
National Security Budget: The Figure No One Wants You to See”, and he
estimated (using basically the same approach that Higgs had done in 2007,
except less accurate than Higgs, due to failing to base his numbers on “the
most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now
available” but instead using only the President’s budget request)
that at that time, the U.S. Government was spending annually on ‘Defense’,
“$1,219.2 billion. (That’s more than $1.2 trillion.)”
That amount was far less than the totals that the
Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Defense had been reporting, in some
of its periodic investigations (such as the one just cited), to have been
missed or undocumented or falsely ‘documented’ as having been spent, by that
Department; but, for some mysterious reason, the American people tolerate
and re-elect ‘representatives’ who ‘debate’ and rubber-stamp such
corruption, which is of enormous benefit to corporations such as Lockheed
Martin and Boeing, whose sales and profits depend upon the U.S. Government and
its allied governments.
Any such privatization of the ‘Defense’ industry, in
America or any other country — treating its military operations so as to
produce profits for investors (investors in mass-murder) — thus guarantees that
the national-security function will be heavily loaded with lobbying and graft,
because the military industry’s entire market is to one’s own government and to
its allied governments: it’s not a consumer market, but a government one.
Thus, privatized military suppliers grow virtually to
own their government; democracy consequently becomes impossible in such
nations. And, one outcome from that is the uninterpretable financial reports by
America’s government, regarding ‘Defense’.
For example, probably fewer than 1% of Americans have
even been informed by the press as to what the currently authorized annual
federal spending for the ‘Defense’ Department is.
When the Washington Post, on 23 March
2018, reported their main story about the FY 2018 federal spending
authorizations (“In late-night drama, Senate passes $1.3 trillion spending
bill, averting government shutdown”), the figure for the ‘Defense’
Department was buried inconspicuously in a 52-word passage within that
1,600-word ‘news’-report, which was otherwise loaded with distractive trivia.
This buried passage was: “The legislation funds the
federal government for the remainder of the 2018 budget year, through Sept. 30,
directing $700 billion toward the military and $591 billion to domestic agencies.
The military spending is a $66 billion increase over
the 2017 level, and the nondefense spending is $52 billion more than last
year.” That’s all. For readers interested in knowing more, it linked to their
2,200-word article, “Here’s
what Congress is stuffing into its $1.3 trillion spending bill”, and all
that it said about the military portion of the new budget was the 27-word
passage, “defense spending generally favored by Republicans is set to jump $80
billion over previously authorized spending levels, while domestic spending
favored by Democrats rises by $63 billion.”
Though 23 categories of federal spending were
sub-headed and summarized individually in that article, ‘Defense’ wasn’t one of
them. Nothing about the budget for the U.S. Department of ‘Defense’ — which
consumes more than half of the entire budget — was mentioned.
However, the reality was that, as Defense News reported it, on 7 February 2018 — and these figures
were unchanged in the bill that President Trump finally
signed on March 23rd — “Senate leaders have reached a two-year deal that would
set defense spending at $700 billion for 2018 and $716 billion for 2019.”
This year’s $700 billion Pentagon budget thus is 54%
of the entire $1.3 trillion FY 2018 U.S. federal budget. Another article in Defense News on
that same day, February 7th, noted that, “‘I’d rather we didn’t have to do as
much on non-defense, but this is an absolute necessity, that we’ve got these
numbers,’ said the Senate Armed Services Committee’s No. 2 Republican, Sen. Jim
Inhofe, of Oklahoma.”
So: 54% of the federal budget wasn’t high enough a
percentage to suit that Senator; he wanted yet more taken out of non-‘defense’.
How can people (other than stockholders in corporations such as Raytheon) vote
for such a person? Deceit has to be part of the answer.
Using similar percentages to those that were employed
by Higgs and by Hellman, the current U.S. annual military expenditure is in the
neighborhood of $1.5 trillion. But that’s more than the total authorized
federal spending for all departments. Where can the extra funds be coming from?
On 5 February 2018, CNBC bannered “The Treasury is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year”.
Then, charts were presented on 10 May 2018 by Dr.
Edward Yardeni, headlined “U.S.
Government Finance: Debt”, in which is shown that the U.S. federal debt is
soaring at around a trillion dollars annually; so, that extra money comes from
additions to the federal debt.
Future generations of U.S. taxpayers will be paying
the price for the profligacy of today’s U.S. aristocracy, who receive all the
benefits from this scam off the public, and especially off those future
generations.
But the far bigger losses are felt abroad, in
countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine,
where the targets will be suffering the consequences of America’s invasions and
coups.
Notwithstanding its pervasive corruption and enormous
uncounted waste, the U.S. military is, by far, the U.S. institution that is respected above all others
by the American people. A great deal of domestic propaganda is necessary in
order to keep it that way. With so many trillions of dollars that are
unaccounted for, it’s do-able.
All that’s needed is a tiny percentage of the
huge graft to be devoted to funding the operation’s
enormous PR for ‘patriotism’. And this treasonous operation has been
sustainable, and very successful (for its ultimate beneficiaries), that way, in
the U.S., at least for
decades.
I have previously explained why specifically military corruption has come to take
over the U.S. Government, but not certain other governments. And the result
of its having done so has by now become obvious to people all around the world, except in the United
States itself.
Furthermore, ever since the first poll was taken on that matter, in 2013, which showed
that globally the U.S. was viewed as the biggest national threat to peace in
the world, a subsequent poll, in 2017, which unfortunately was taken in
fewer countries, showed that this negative impression of the U.S.
Government, by the peoples in those fewer countries,
had actually increased there during the four intervening years. So: not
only is the situation in the U.S. terrible, but the trend in the U.S. appears
to be in the direction of even worse.
America’s military-industrial complex can buy a
glittering ‘patriotic’ image amongst its own public, but America’s image abroad
will only become uglier, because the world-at-large dislikes a country that’s
addicted to the perpetration of invasions and coups. Just as bullies are feared
and disliked, so too are bully-nations.
Even if the given bully-aristocracy becomes constantly
enriched by their operation, economies throughout the world suffer such an
aristocracy, as being an enormous burden; and, unfortunately, the American
public will get the blame, not America’s aristocracy — which is the real
beneficiary of the entire operation.
This deflection of blame, onto the suckered public,
precludes any effective response from the publics abroad, such as boycotts of
U.S.-branded products and services might be. Instead, American tourists abroad
become increasingly perceived as ‘the ugly
American’.
The restored ‘Cold War’ — this time with no
ideological excuse (such as communism) whatsoever — could produce a much
stronger global tarnishing of America’s global reputation. The beneficiaries,
apparently, just don’t care.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author,
most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic
Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S
VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.