|
When
$8.5 Trillion is Chump Change
Three cheers for Reuters
pointing out that the Pentagon can't explain what it did with $8.5
trillion that taxpayers gave it between 1996 and 2013.
Three trillion
cheers for a
blogger who is pointing out that this fact renders many other
concerns ludicrous, and recommending that people bring it up at every
opportunity:
"What's that?
Body cameras for all cops will be too expensive? How about we find
1/10,000th of the money we sent to the Pentagon."
"Oh really?
There's 500 million in provable food stamp fraud going to poor people
how about the $8.5 TRILLION the pentagon can't account for?"
"Oh really? You
think
Obamacare is going to cost us almost a trillion dollars over 15 years?
How about the 8.5 Trillion that just disappeared into the ether at the
Pentagon? What's your take on that?"
"Oh really,
you're concerned about deficit spending and the debt? Fully 1/3 of the
national debt is money we sent the Pentagon and they can't tell us
where it went. It's just gone."
"College for
everyone will cost too much? You must be really pissed at the 8.5
Trillion, with a 't', dollars the pentagon's spent and can't tell us
where it went."
This is all very
good as far as it goes, whether you like the body cameras or corporate
health insurance or other items or not. We could add an unlimited
number of items including some expressing our concern for the other 96%
of humanity:
"You can end
starvation and unclean water for tens of billions of dollars; what
about that $8.5 trillion?"
Et cetera.
But here's my real
concern. The $8.5 trillion is just the bit that the Pentagon can't
account for. That's far from all the money it was given. U.S. military
spending, spread across several departments with the biggest chunk of
it to the Department of so-called Defense, is upwards of $1 trillion
every year. Over 17 years at the current rate, which rose sharply after
2001, that's upwards of $17 trillion.
Imagine that the
Pentagon accounted for every dime of that missing $8.5 trillion, named
every profiteer, documented the life history of every man, woman, and
child killed, and passed the strictest audit by an independent team of
1,000 accountants reporting to 35 Nobel Laureates -- if that happened,
I ask you, exactly what difference would it make?
Why is the $8.5
trillion that went to unknown purposes worse than the other trillions
that went to known and named weapons and dictators and militants and
recruitment campaigns? The documented and accounted for spending all
went to evil purposes. Presumably the unaccounted for "waste"
did the same. What's the difference between the two?
As World
Beyond War points out, war has a huge direct financial cost, the
vast majority of which is in funds spent on the preparation for war —
or what's thought of as ordinary, non-war military spending. Very
roughly, the world spends $2 trillion every year on militarism, of
which the United States spends about half, or $1 trillion. This U.S.
spending also accounts for roughly half of the U.S. government's
discretionary budget
each year and is distributed
through several departments and agencies. Much of the rest of world
spending is by members of NATO and other allies of the United States,
although China ranks second in the world.
Wars can cost even
an aggressor nation that fights wars far from its shores twice as much
in indirect expenses as in direct expenditures. The costs to the
aggressor, enormous as they are, can be small in comparison to those of
the nation attacked.
It is common to
think that, because many people have jobs in the war industry, spending
on war and preparations for war benefits an economy. In
reality, spending those same dollars on peaceful industries, on
education, on infrastructure, or even on tax cuts for working people
would produce more jobs and in most cases better paying jobs — with
enough savings to help everyone make the transition from war work to
peace work.
Military spending
diverts public funds into increasingly privatized industries through
the least accountable public enterprise and one that is hugely
profitable for the owners and directors of the corporations involved --
thus concentrating wealth.
While war
impoverishes the war making nation, can it nonetheless enrich that
nation more substantially by facilitating the exploitation of other
nations? Not in a manner that can be sustained.
Green energy and
infrastructure would surpass their advocates’ wildest fantasies if the
funds now invested in war were transferred
there.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment