Washington’s Deeper, Richer
& Murkier Swamp
Until the latest of our world conflicts,
the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares
could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer
risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to
create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three
and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense
establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net
income of all United States corporations. Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic,
political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office
of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this
development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our
toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of
our society.
In the councils of government, we must
guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight
of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should
take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel
the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense
with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper
together.
From Republican President (and former five star general) Dwight David
Eisenhower’s televised farewell speech to the nation, January 17, 1961.
It no secret how it works. Spread
your military bases and your military manufacturing contractors and
subcontractors into as many congressional districts as possible – Democrat and
Republican – knowing that all appropriations bills emanate from the House of
Representatives. Make sure that the military gets first crack at the money,
making sure that “national security” is embedded in the minds of every American
and their elected representatives. So what if the United States now accounts
for almost 40% of the global military budget, more than the next seven biggest
spenders combined? $719 billion!
Even as just about every major new
weapon system soars vastly beyond even the most inflated going-in budget, even
as military tactics and challenges change dramatically, we are saddled with
incumbent mega-powerful (campaign-contributing) military vendors who just want
to keep that military money flowing into their coffers. Playing close to the
bone with legal holdbacks on employing former senior military officers, the
ranks of the military industrial complex are filled with ex-admirals and
generals with consulting or better offered to former elected officials. It
stinks!
Donald “Swamp Thing” Trump
administers a much more sinister military industrial complex today. While there
certainly are more than enough plants and military bases to pepper a rather
dramatically large number of Congressional districts, what has changed is the
growing concentration of power in some of this nation’s largest defense
contractors. The rich are definitely richer. Trump loves giving money to those
who do not need it, taking it away from those who are desperate for it. It’s
gotten worse over the years:
“The year was 1989. The Pentagon was
under the command of President George H.W. Bush and Defense Secretary Dick
Cheney. And aviation giant McDonnell Douglas Corp. was riding high as the top
federal contractor, grabbing 4.6%, or $9.15 billion, of all federal contracting
dollars. The next two largest contractors, General Dynamics Corp. and General
Electric Co., raked in about 4% and 3.4%, respectively.
“Thirty years and many acquisitions
later, Pentagon spending has grown far more top-heavy… Today, Lockheed Martin
Corp. and Boeing — which bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997 — together reaped
almost 15% of total U.S. government contracting dollars in fiscal year 2017,
according to the most recent federal numbers. The two aerospace giants are the
only makers of fast combat jets in the U.S. and are the dominant players for
military transport aircraft.
“The concentrated power of big
defense companies became an issue two years ago when longtime Boeing executive
Patrick Shanahan was confirmed as deputy secretary of Defense. Then in
December, President Trump named him to serve as acting Defense secretary.
“After a monthlong ethics
investigation into allegations that Shanahan promoted Boeing while slamming
rival Lockheed Martin, particularly in discussions about its F-35 fighter jet
contract, the Pentagon’s office of inspector general concluded Thursday that
Shanahan ‘did not promote Boeing or disparage its competitors.”
“We did not substantiate any of the
allegations,” the report said. “We determined that Mr. Shanahan fully complied
with his ethics agreements and his ethical obligations regarding Boeing and its
competitors.’… Shanahan is considered a leading candidate for permanent Defense
secretary…
“The question of possible favoritism
toward Boeing had also been raised by some when the U.S. Air Force, in its 2020
budget, made a surprise request to purchase F-15X fighter jets, an update of
that company’s fourth-generation jet. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have
all made major commitments to the F-35, Lockheed Martin’s more advanced and
pricier fifth-generation fighter.
“The inspector general report said
the Pentagon’s mix of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft was a decision made
by former Defense Secretary James N. Mattis before Shanahan’s confirmation to
the department. A Defense official told trade publication Defense News that the
decision was bolstered by concerns about keeping ‘multiple providers in the
tactical aircraft portfolio.’
“But there was no contract
competition based on a set of defined requirements — the way business typically
works in the industry, said Richard Aboulafia, aviation analyst at market
analysis firm Teal Group…‘It’s a duopoly structure business with a lot at
stake,’ he said of fast combat jet manufacturing. ‘It’s amazing that no one
considered the optics here.’” Los Angeles Times, April 28th. That
Social Security and Medicare are running out of money or that the Trump
Administration is trying to use the courts to kill the Affordable Care Act with
nothing to replace it? Hey, those programs are for the little guys, and Donald
Trump doesn’t represent them!
I’m Peter Dekom, and history is rife with
failed governments (remember Sparta for starters the Soviet Union more
recently?) that overspent on their military and ignored their people; are we
next?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment