{"id":27206,"date":"2016-06-09T19:37:53","date_gmt":"2016-06-10T03:37:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=27206"},"modified":"2016-06-09T19:37:53","modified_gmt":"2016-06-10T03:37:53","slug":"got-milked-us-defense-spending-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2016\/06\/09\/got-milked-us-defense-spending-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Got Milked? US &#8216;Defense&#8217; Spending 2017"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;The White House said Tuesday [June 7] that President Barack Obama will veto the Senate&#8217;s version of the annual defense policy bill,&#8221; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.chron.com\/news\/politics\/article\/White-House-threatens-veto-of-Senate-s-defense-7968660.php\">Richard Lardner of the Associated Press reports<\/a>. Why? Lardner cites provisions that would prevent Obama from shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay and limit the number of &#8220;national security&#8221; functionaries he can put on the White House payroll.<\/p>\n<p>Deeper in the story, however, we find meatier objections: The $600 billion bill &#8220;denies the Defense Department&#8217;s request for a new round of military base closings&#8221; and Senate Armed Service Committee chairman John McCain (R-AZ) &#8220;plans to propose an amendment that would add nearly $18 billion to the defense budget to pay for additional ships, jet fighters, helicopters and more that the Pentagon didn&#8217;t request.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>If Obama, who doesn&#8217;t face re-election, follows through on his veto threat House and Senate Democrats will likely join Republicans in overriding that veto so long as they get their share of that $18 billion and the bases in their districts remain open. What gives? Nothing. It&#8217;s politics as usual.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson asserted that the purpose of government is to secure the rights of the governed to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.<\/p>\n<p>Jefferson, to put the best face possible on things, was hopelessly naive. The purpose of government is &#8211; and always has been &#8211; to transfer wealth and power from the ruled to the rulers. Politicians crave unearned power; plutocrats crave unearned profit. The two groups, broadly constituting the &#8220;political class,&#8221; prop each other up and assist each other in milking the rest of us.<\/p>\n<p>Since World War 2, the premier American political milking operation of this type has been what President Dwight D. Eisenhower labeled &#8220;the military-industrial complex.&#8221; Politicians receive campaign contributions and golden parachutes as corporate directors. In return, &#8220;defense&#8221; contractors knock down billions in arms sales, base maintenance contracts, etc. All at your expense, and none of it related to any reasonable conception of &#8220;national defense.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s not just treasure the political class takes from the productive class. It&#8217;s blood as well. Justifying insane levels of military spending requires the occasional war. Not to worry. The political class considers your sons&#8217; and daughters&#8217; lives a reasonable price to pay to keep their gravy trains running on time.<\/p>\n<p>Don&#8217;t expect anything different from this year&#8217;s crop of presidential candidates. Donald Trump believes the bloated US military needs to be &#8220;rebuilt.&#8221; Hillary Clinton hasn&#8217;t met a war she didn&#8217;t love since Vietnam. Even &#8220;libertarian&#8221; vice-presidential candidate William Weld, running on a second Republican ticket, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.chron.com\/news\/politics\/article\/White-House-threatens-veto-of-Senate-s-defense-7968660.php\">avers<\/a> that he and running mate Gary Johnson believe &#8220;a bedrock responsibility of the US government is to maintain the most powerful military in the world, by a wide margin.&#8221; Given that the US is separated from all credible military threats by two oceans, Weld&#8217;s line is clearly the usual political class pandering.<\/p>\n<p>If voting won&#8217;t fix the problem this November, what next? Well, the <a href=\"http:\/\/nwtrcc.org\/\">National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee<\/a> has some ideas for next April.<\/p>\n<p><i>Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: <a href=\"http:\/\/twitter\/thomaslknapp\">@thomaslknapp<\/a>) is director and senior news analyst at the <a href=\"http:\/\/thegarrisoncenter.org\">William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism<\/a>. He lives and works in north central Florida.<\/i><\/p>\n<p><i>Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the <a href=\"http:\/\/thegarrisoncenter.org\/\">William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism<\/a>. He lives and works in north central Florida. <\/i><i>This article is reprinted with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;The White House said Tuesday [June 7] that President Barack Obama will veto the Senate&#8217;s version of the annual defense policy bill,&#8221; Richard Lardner of the Associated Press reports. Why? Lardner cites provisions that would prevent Obama from shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay and limit the number of &#8220;national security&#8221; functionaries he can [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":80,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-27206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/80"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27206"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27206\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27208,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27206\/revisions\/27208"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27206"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=27206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}