Matthew Yglesias: The Coming Military Spending Surge

[marmar]

from the American Prospect:



The Coming Military Spending Surge

New Pentagon spending estimates for the next five years fly in the face of progressive priorities -- the likely incoming majority shouldn't stand for it.

Matthew Yglesias | October 16, 2008 | web only



A substantial progressive landslide -- involving the White House, over a dozen House seats, and at least half a dozen Senate seats -- now looks like an increasingly likely scenario for November. But to translate electoral victory into policy victory will require this new progressive majority to free itself from forces that are already gathering steam. Forces that will, if successful, prevent it from doing anything more than offering a term or two to clean up the most egregious aspects of the current mess in order to lay the groundwork for a new round of tax cuts and deregulation.

One of those forces is the burgeoning neo-Hooverite sentiment among members of the elite media and perhaps the House Blue Dog Caucus that the appropriate response to a looming economic downturn is to implement an austerity budget that will only make the downturn deeper. This drive, though important to beat back, has already attracted substantial attention. Less noted amidst the recent focus on the economy, though crucially important, is the fact that the uniformed military is preparing an ambush for the next president.

Josh Rogan of CQ reported on October 9 that "Pentagon officials have prepared a new estimate for defense spending that is $450 billion more over the next five years than previously announced figures." To be clear, that's not $450 billion over five years that they're asking for. Nor is it an additional $450 billion over the next five years on top of what they're currently getting. Rather, it's $450 billion over five years on top of currently scheduled increases. Currently, U.S. defense spending is scheduled to increase from $515 billion (not counting "emergency" spending on Iraq and Afghanistan) in 2009 to $527 billion in 2010. The new proposal would up that increase to $584 billion.

What's going on?

Rogan quotes one former senior budget official explaining the estimate as "a political document." Its purpose is to set up "the new administration immediately to have to make a decision of how to deal with the perception that they are either cutting defense or adding to it." In other words, anything less than a $69 billion nominal increase will be portrayed as a cut. And it would be understandable if a new president -- viewed skeptically by most of the officer corps and lacking a strong mandate on national security issues -- chose to shy away from opening his administration with such a fight. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_coming_military_spending_surge

[calmblueocean]

1. Holy fucking shit. This is insurrection.

If the military is actually plotting to undermine the power of the incoming Commander-in-Chief by manipulating the way the public perceives him, this is fucking insurrection.

Honestly, the whole fucking DoD needs a swift asskicking and housecleaning. I hope Obama is smart enough to figure out how to use a strategy of creative promotion, demotion, and termination to completely shake up the Department of Defense. They have been working against this country for so many years now, and have a culture of corruption as thick as the Republican Congress under DeLay. This needs to change.

[bemildred]

2. Being bankrupted by the Pentagon is bad for America's defense. nt