[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Sing Praises to God

Sugar coating gone ... very bitter pill --- libs are sucking on now !

LP's TooConservative Digs Hole: "What is so new or unique about Vic's Hezbollah fantasy?"

Maine governor says quarantine talks with nurse failed

Reince Priebus And Amnesty–“There You Go Again!”

The Coming November Wars–Fighting Overseas, Amnesty And Possible Rioting At Home

Creepy Scary Halloween Music Thread

Eric Frein, suspect in Pennsylvania trooper ambush, arrested without incident

Rand Paul: ‘The Republican Party brand sucks’

NEW O'KEEFE VIDEO ALLEGEDLY SHOWS DEMOCRATIC POLL WORKERS ASSISTING ILLEGAL, NON-CITIZEN TO VOTE IN NC

A Virus Found In Lakes May Be Literally Changing The Way People Think

Maryland can’t verify vote flips helped Dems

'ATHEIST REPUBLIC' Now Up and Running!

Marine Veteran Complains About Pro-Islam Bias In Daughter's Schoolwork, Gets BANNED From School (Call School and Complain 301-934-1100)

GOP Surrendered On Minority Voter Fraud—In 1982!

Seven Reasons for Opposing Evolution

Should These Cops Be Tried And Executed

GOHMERT RIPS OBAMA ADMIN FOR PUSH TO TREAT EBOLA-INFECTED FOREIGNERS IN US

Ted Cruz Endorses 'Duck Dynasty' Star's Nephew for Congress

Romney, Jeb 'Loom Larger Than The Rest'

Ebola nurse says she'll fight Maine quarantine authority

Minnesota gym bans boys so Muslim girls can play basketball

Blackface Minstrel Show Sand Dance

Lindsey Graham "white men who are in male-only clubs are going to do great in my presidency"

Eric Holder To Ferguson Leakers: ‘Shut Up’ [VIDEO]

Guess How Many Bibles Have Arrived at Office of Houston Mayor After She Subpoenaed Pastors’ Sermons

Boo

GOP’s 2014 White Share: Only Fair So Far

Minnesota Somalis Leave to Join ISIS for Jihad

Father who disappeared in the middle of a Broncos game FOUND safe 112 miles away

Sen. Tom Udall Sponsors Bill 'to Regulate' First Amendment

Democrats Run From Harry Reid

Crowd Begins to File Out While Obama Speaks in Wisconsin

Poster girl for Kurdish freedom fighters in Kobane is 'captured and beheaded by ISIS (Rehana)

Orbital Sciences' Antares rocket explodes seconds after liftoff

Pope Francis says Big Bang theory and evolution 'compatible with divine Creator'

Australia shuts borders to Ebola-affected countries

Ebola can survive on surfaces for almost TWO MONTHS: Tests reveal certain strains survive for weeks when stored at low temperatures

Texas Pastor Issues Warning: American Christians Will Suffer Greatly in Coming Persecution

Criminalizing America – Cultivating a Felon

Terrorism And “THE TRUE BELIEVER”

"It is a faithful saying." — 2 Timothy 2:11

Libertarians May Co-Nominate Rand Paul in 2016

LP's Admitted Sodomy Expert (Meguro) Accuses Two Posters Of Being Homosexuals who "share same s**t-stained white sheets" -- Then Justifies Murder of White Marine

19 Very Surprising Facts About The Messed Up State Of The U.S. Economy

Police Infuriated About New “Cop Detecting” Device That Warns People When a Cop is Near

A Photograph of Your Face in a Jar Makes for a Creepy Halloween Prank

Do People Live Longer among Trees?

Cosmos: A Series Created to Counter Creation

Still Soft after 551 Million Years?


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: $1 Trillion for Defense
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.theamericanconservative. ... ticles/1-trillion-for-defense/
Published: May 22, 2012
Author: By Chris Hellman and Mattea Kramer
Post Date: 2012-05-24 00:20:15 by We The People
Keywords: None
Views: 116

F-22. Image by hornet72 / shutterstock

F-22. Image by hornet72 / shutterstock

Recent months have seen a flurry of headlines about cuts (often called “threats”) to the U.S. defense budget. Last week, lawmakers in the House of Representatives even passed a bill that was meant to spare national security spending from future cuts by reducing school-lunch funding and other social programs.

Here, then, is a simple question that, for some curious reason, no one bothers to ask, no less answer: How much are we spending on national security these days? With major wars winding down, has Washington already cut such spending so close to the bone that further reductions would be perilous to our safety?

In fact, with projected cuts added in, the national security budget in fiscal 2013 will be nearly $1 trillion — a staggering enough sum that it’s worth taking a walk through the maze of the national security budget to see just where that money’s lodged.

If you’ve heard a number for how much the U.S. spends on the military, it’s probably in the neighborhood of $530 billion. That’s the Pentagon’s base budget for fiscal 2013, and represents a 2.5 percent cut from 2012. But that $530 billion is merely the beginning of what the U.S. spends on national security. Let’s dig a little deeper.

The Pentagon’s base budget doesn’t include war funding, which in recent years has been well over $100 billion. With U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq and troop levels falling in Afghanistan, you might think that war funding would be plummeting as well.  In fact, it will drop to a mere $88 billion in fiscal 2013. By way of comparison, the federal government will spend around $64 billion on education that same year.

Add in war funding, and our national security total jumps to $618 billion. And we’re still just getting started.

The U.S. military maintains an arsenal of nuclear weapons. You might assume that we’ve already accounted for nukes in the Pentagon’s $530 billion base budget.  But you’d be wrong. Funding for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy (DOE), so it’s a number you rarely hear. In fiscal 2013, we’ll be spending $11.5 billion on weapons and related programs at the DOE. And disposal of nuclear waste is expensive, so add another $6.4 billion for weapons cleanup.

Now, we’re at $636 billion and counting.

How about homeland security? We’ve got to figure that in, too. There’s the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will run taxpayers $35.5 billion for its national security activities in fiscal 2013. But there’s funding for homeland security squirreled away in just about every other federal agency as well.  Think, for example, about programs to secure the food supply, funded through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. So add another $13.5 billion for homeland security at federal agencies other than DHS.

That brings our total to $685 billion.

Then there’s the international affairs budget, another obscure corner of the federal budget that just happens to be jammed with national security funds. For fiscal 2013, $8 billion in additional war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is hidden away there. There’s also $14 billion for what’s called “international security assistance” — that’s part of the weapons and training Washington offers foreign militaries around the world. Plus there’s $2 billion for “peacekeeping operations,” money U.S. taxpayers send overseas to help fund military operations handled by international organizations and our allies.

That brings our national security total up to $709 billion.

We can’t forget the cost of caring for our nation’s veterans, including those wounded in our recent wars. That’s an important as well as hefty share of national security funding. In 2013, veterans programs will cost the federal government $138 billion.

That brings us to $847 billion — and we’re not done yet.

Taxpayers also fund pensions and other retirement benefits for non-veteran military retirees, which will cost $55 billion next year. And then there are the retirement costs for civilians who worked at the Department of Defense and now draw pensions and benefits. The federal government doesn’t publish a number on this, but based on the share of the federal workforce employed at the Pentagon, we can estimate that its civilian retirees will cost taxpayers around $21 billion in 2013.

By now, we’ve made it to $923 billion — and we’re finally almost done.

Just one more thing to add in, a miscellaneous defense account that’s separate from the defense base budget. It’s called “defense-related activities,” and it’s got $8 billion in it for 2013.

That brings our grand total to an astonishing $931 billion.

And this will turn out to be a conservative figure. We won’t spend less than that, but among other things, it doesn’t include the interest we’re paying on money we borrowed to fund past military operations; nor does it include portions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that are dedicated to national security. And we don’t know if this number captures the entire intelligence budget or not, because parts of intelligence funding are classified.

For now, however, that whopping $931 billion for fiscal year 2013 will have to do. If our national security budget were its own economy, it would be the 19th largest in the world, roughly the size of Australia’s. Meanwhile, the country with the next largest military budget, China, spends a mere pittance by comparison. The most recent estimate puts China’s military funding at around $136 billion.

Or think of it this way: National security accounts for one quarter of every dollar the federal government is projected to spend in 2013. And if you pull trust funds for programs like Social Security out of the equation, that figure rises to more than one third of every dollar in the projected 2013 federal budget.

Yet the House recently passed legislation to spare the defense budget from cuts, arguing that the automatic spending reductions scheduled for January 2013 would compromise national security. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said such automatic cuts, which would total around $55 billion in 2013, would be “disastrous” for the defense budget. To avoid them, the House would instead pull money from the National School Lunch Program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, food stamps, and programs like the Social Services Block Grant, which funds Meals on Wheels, among other initiatives.

Yet it wouldn’t be difficult to find savings in that $931 billion.  There’s plenty of low-hanging fruit, starting with various costly weapons systems left over from the Cold War, like the Virginia class submarine, the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, the missile defense program, and the most expensive weapons system on the planet, the F-35 jet fighter. Cutting back or cancelling some of these programs would save billions of dollars annually.

In fact, Congress could find much deeper savings, but it would require fundamentally redefining national security in this country. On this issue, the American public is already several steps ahead of Washington. Americans overwhelmingly think that national security funding should be cut — deeply.

If lawmakers don’t pay closer attention to their constituents, we already know the alternative: pulling school-lunch funding.

(1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com