‘Reckless Misuse of Resources’: US House Approves $778 Billion Military Budget
ANGLO AMERICA, 13 Dec 2021
“There was no CBO score needed. No concern about the deficit. No mention of inflation,” said Rep. Jamaal Bowman.
8 Dec 2021 – In bipartisan fashion, the U.S. House of Representatives late Tuesday [7 Dec] passed a sprawling military policy bill that contains nearly twice as much funding on an annual basis as Democrats’ flagship social spending and climate bill.
That reality led Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War, to slam the $778 billion National Defense Authorization Act as “a reckless misuse of resources, a windfall for war profiteers, and proof positive that most in Congress have little concern for the actual security of people in the United States or around the world.”
“Cutting the Pentagon’s budget could help fight threats like Covid, climate change, and more.”
“Little could be more revealing of our nation’s broken budget priorities,” Miles added, “than the fact that this rubberstamp of three-quarters of a trillion dollars for warmaking was prioritized and will soon pass with bipartisan support, while the Build Back Better Act—which would invest in meeting real human needs—has been watered down and pushed to the back burner.”
The House passed the NDAA Tuesday night by a vote of 363-70, with the measure ultimately receiving more votes from Republicans than Democrats even though the latter control the chamber and led negotiations over the bill. Of the 70 no votes, 51 were Democrats.
In a tweet explaining his vote against the NDAA, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) wrote that “it is astounding how quickly Congress moves weapons but we can’t ensure housing, care, and justice for our veterans, nor invest in robust jobs programs for districts like mine.”
“There was no CBO score needed,” Bowman added, a jab at conservative Democrats who have complained incessantly about the size of the Build Back Better Act without raising similar concerns about the bloated military budget.
“No concern about the deficit,” Bowman continued. “No mention of inflation.”
The House-passed NDAA includes $25 billion more in spending than President Joe Biden requested in his budget blueprint earlier this year. As Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.) pointed out, it would cost the federal government roughly $22.5 billion to fund 12 weeks of paid family leave for a year.
According to Defense News, the legislation in its current form contains “12 F/A-18 Super Hornets that were not requested; five more Boeing F-15EX jets than the request for 17 total; and 13 ships total—including two attack submarines and two destroyers―for five more than the request.”
Additionally, as Miles noted, the bill “fails to end U.S. complicity in the war in Yemen, excludes critical measures to rein in out-of-control executive war powers, and doubles down on a dangerous Cold War mindset towards China” with $7.1 billion for the so-called Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which progressives have deemed an “anti-China slush fund.”
The House just passed a $778 billion Pentagon budget during a pandemic. It’s $37 billion higher than last year’s military budget, which they passed during the same pandemic.
So much “national security” spending, so little security to show for it. pic.twitter.com/YB0SO8BI2l
— Stephen Semler (@stephensemler) December 8, 2021
Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement that “as the national debate centers around how much is ‘too much’ to be spending on the true needs of the American people, it is unconscionable to approve three-quarters of a trillion dollars for war-making.”
“What possible justification is there for throwing $768 billion at the Pentagon at the very same moment that we’re being told there isn’t enough money to provide dental care to seniors, establish a paid family leave, or provide free community college?” Weissman asked. “Why is there more money for the military-industrial complex—providing no additional protection for our national security and arguably diminishing it—at the same time the U.S. is refusing to spend the $25 billion needed to make enough additional vaccines to vaccinate the world?”
The NDAA now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to pass over the objections of progressives such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who have introduced amendments aimed at bringing the bill’s spending levels back into line with Biden’s request and redirecting 1% of Pentagon spending to global climate programs.
“Cutting the Pentagon’s budget could help fight threats like Covid, climate change, and more,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said following his no vote on the NDAA. “Our work to cut the Pentagon’s budget and reallocate funds to help communities across the country is just beginning. The fight doesn’t end tonight.”
Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Tags: Anglo America, Cultural violence, Culture of Violence, Direct violence, Military Industrial Complex, Military Supremacy, Pentagon, Space Command, US Military, USA, War Economy, Warfare
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article: