By Nick Mangiaracina, Kansas City Star Contributing Writer
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the more than 700 U.S. military bases in more than 125 countries have pushed the military budget to levels not scene since WWII (with inflation).
By the Department of Defense’s calculation, the U.S. defense budget for 2009 is $515 billion. This doesn’t include the actual cost of the war in Iraq & Afghanistan, maintaining the nuclear arsenal or paying veteran’s benefits.
Including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the cost of maintaining the nuclear arsenal, the total for next year reaches to $706 billion.
Include veteran's benefits and the military debt being paid, and a more realistic estimate of the cost of the War on Terror, and the total reaches $1.4 trillion or about half the budget.
With no foreseeable end to the War in Iraq or to oil prices dropping significantly any time soon, the military budget is likely only to continue to increase—as it did from the 2008 to 2009 budget by 7 percent (by the D.O.D. figures). Although as America’s military continues to lead the world with its equipment and technology, the domestic front is crumbling.
Since Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans a few years ago, the city has lost half its population and its neighborhoods still lie in ruin. The situation in New Orleans is not unique though.
Earlier this month, The Economist reported that much of the rest of the country’s infrastructure is also in a dilapidated state. In the article the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates the cost of repairs to American’s infrastructure to be $1.6 trillion, or a little more than the high estimate of what we’ll spend on military-related expenses next year.
A certain amount of military spending is necessary for any country, but the U.S. budget is so extreme that it makes no sense.
Last year, even at the government estimate, we spent more than $1,500 per person on the military. Contrast this to the Chinese, who spent about $50 a person last year.
Even using the $515 billion figure, America is still No.1 in military spending by more than $400 billion. France ranks No. 2 at almost $75 billion. Likewise, we could cut military spending in half and still be far ahead every country in the world.
Cutting the number of countries we’re occupying should be the first step. If we’re going to decrease terrorism, giving potential terrorists less reasons to hate us would be a good idea.
Also, we could stop investing in ridiculous and expensive vehicles that don’t work—like helicopters that turn into airplanes and explode shortly thereafter. What’s that, they were only a billion plus each?
Is there nothing else we should be spending money on? How about a comprehensive healthcare program? What about alternative energy initiatives? Or, we could take care of the infrastructure literally crumbling at our feet
Further, no one knows exactly how much we’ll spend on the military next year because it depends on how you define “military spending.” Whether it’s $515 billion, $706 billion, $1.4 trillion or somewhere in between, the military budget is bloated.
The solution has been to increase the budget, further making the problem worse. This comes at a time when the economy is in a recession due to skyrocketing food and energy prices, the collapse of the housing market and the erosion of real wages. People are hurting, but hey, you only get what you pay for.









Delicious
Digg
Let's not be naive
Come now, Ross, the oil companies are not lobbying furiously to open drilling for the benefit of the U.S. of A.
What you're calling for is opening up our valuable national natural resources to be exploited by multinational oil companies who will sell our resources to the highest bidder, be it China or India or the U.S. market -- the influx of oil from our untapped fields will have absolutely no impact on the price at the pump (unless you're arguing, as I don't think you are, that they be nationalized and doled out by the government at a below-market price). What it will do is increase profits of the big oil companies as the prices stay high.
What's truly naive is us, Americans, the owners of these natural resources, not getting adequate compensation from the profitmaking corporations who are taking those resources and selling them back to us at billions of dollars profit.
Corporations don't give two shakes about America -- they care about one thing and one thing only, their bottom line. If you think anything else, you're the one being naive.
Let's not be naive
I doubt that there are many people out there naive enough to think that there won’t be large corporations making a profit on any new alternative forms of energy that do get developed. Do you doubt that T. Boone Pickens is invested heavily in wind farms and natural gas? The incentive to make a profit and the freedom to do so are what makes this country thrive. Without that incentive the probability of new forms of energy being developed is about zero.
If we don’t start drilling now and we do need that oil in the future as you suggest, we’ll need that oil right then, not ten years from then. If we don’t drill now, ten years from now we’ll wish we had.
Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008
I can't help but be suspicious
about an initiative that's being driven by the oil industry above all, because that's the sector that's going to benefit. It reminds me of the tobacco industry expert witnesses back in the 1980s claiming that smoking is not a health hazard.
Let's face it: prices aren't going to go down significantly in the future (unless we restrict the oil from the free market), because worldwide demand is going to outstrip supply until there's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Opening up drilling simply means that our reserves in the ground are going to be drained all the more quickly, and for what? The profit of Big Oil.
I say it's to our national benefit to keep those reserves untapped for now. Either we're really going to need them down the road and having that reserve will give us a strategic advantage, or we will have made the necessary infrastructure shift away from fossil fuels.
I don't see the point to giving ExxonMobil and BP and the rest of Big Oil a boondoggle at our expense at this juncture.
Nobody denies that the
Nobody denies that the amount of oil is finite, Nick. That's why I said, "also finite" in my post. But I do believe there's more out there than some would like us to believe.
The actual amount of oil in ANWR is a matter of dispute. I've heard all kinds of numbers. However, when combined with off shore and shale most estimates are many hundreds of billions of barrels in reserves.
Now, that rational about how it would take ten years to get the oil out of the ground is a poor argument. First of all, that's in dispute as well. Some experts are saying we could be bringing in oil from new off shore drilling in under two years.
And second, what if it does take ten years? We should have started 10 years ago and we would be getting oil now. Furthermore, using your logic, it's pointless to go to high school and college because it will take at least 8 years before you realize any benefit from it.
The left has wake up to the reality that we have to pull out all stops. Do everything! Conserve, invest in alternates, wind, solar, nuclear AND drill for as much oil as possible. Why can't we do all of that?
Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008
Finite
Yeah, it's not like oil is a finite resource, right Ross? Also, there's only enough oil in ANWR for a bit more than six months, not to mention if we opened the region up for drilling tomorrow it would take 10 years to get any oil out of the ground.
Yeah, pretty much
"Gas prices ARE down 20 cents since President Bush lifted the executive order prohibiting off shore drilling."
I agree with Nick. Consumption fell, so prices fell. Duh. Basic economics. (not one of Balano's strong points, any more than it is McCain's)
The prospect of possible offshore drilling ten years from now has no effect on gas prices now, and given the ever-increasing demand across the globe, will have no effect on gas prices ten years down the road unless we nationalize it and ration gas to the U.S. only at a set price, rather than allowing it to be sold to the highest bidder. Somehow I don't think that's what you and that dimwit Rouge are arguing for.
Here's a video that pretty effectively debunks the oil industry driven plan to open up offshore drilling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlEt86dMFTE
Coincidence?
So it is just a coincidence that the price of oil started to fall right after the Bush announcement? You do realize that oil has fallen over $20.00 per barrel since that announcement don't you? Have Americans cut back driving that much so as to affect the world market to that extent? I don't buy that. The only way we'll know for sure is if congress would lift its ban.
Your second paragraph only enhances the argument that we should be drilling for our own oil. Those experts you quote aren't counting what would be coming in if we start drilling in ANWR, off shore or new shale deposit finds.
As I've said many times, conservation is great but it is also finite. We can only cut back usage to a certain point. We still have to get to work and goods still have to get to the marketplace right? We have no idea how long, if ever, it will take to develop new alternatives. So for now, like it or not, it's oil we need.
Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008
Ten Years!?
Come on Nicky, as much as you and yours want to see all of us driving "cab-over roller skates" the DOE estimates there is enough oil off shore and in the Artic to power 60 million cars for 60 years. Yesterday, they estimated there is enough oil in the Artic alone to equal ALL of Russia's capacity.
Dammit, don't you just hate it, it looks like those EVEEL SUVS will still be around for awhile!
We are going to DRILL BABY, screw you moonbat tree-hugging losers! Let's see some big dammed OIL DERRICKS going up, the sooner the better!!
Yeah, I forgot...
You can continue to delude yourself that that's the reason gas prices are down, but in actuality gas prices are down because Americans have cut consumption of oil by driving fewer miles. This time it ironically has nothing to do with politics, but everything to do with conservation.
Also, even if you open up the whole planet to drilling, there will be no signifcant drop in the price of oil, as China and India continue to industrialize, further straining the demand. This is ignoring that even oil experts agree that we've reached peak oil or will reach it within the next 10 years.
I was deleted so I will try again
Ever hear of millions for defense, but not one dime for tribute Nicky? The next time we are attacked it will be little weenies like you whinning because we "did not connect the dots", Why don't you spend a little time as a human shield for the Taliban.