Graham Is Just Another GOP Liar

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) is upset about the "sequester" cuts that will soon become a reality if Congress doesn't find another way to reduce the budget deficit. It's not the cuts that will hurt American citizens that he's upset about. He's fine with cutting education, food stamps, school lunch programs, Headstart, environmental cleanup, unemployment compensation, and a variety of other programs that would further devastate already hurting Americans.

It's the defense budget he's worried about. He thinks the automatic cuts to the military budget (which would amount to about 7.5% according to some experts) "would destroy the military". And he has a solution to save the military -- restore all of the cuts and replace them with about $1.2 trillion in cuts to Obamacare (over a 10 year period). In short, he's willing to let many millions of Americans go without health insurance as long as the corporations in the military-industrial complex can continue selling overpriced and unnecessary weapons systems to the government.

The chart above shows how ridiculous his "destroy the military" statement really is. The United States spends over 45% of all the money spent on the military in the entire world. This chart shows the top five spenders on their military among all nations (in U.S. dollars). Note that the United States military budget could be chopped in half (reduced by 50%), and it would still be twice as large as the spending by any other nation.

The truth is that the military cuts included in the "sequester" are the only cuts that make sense. The other programs that make up discretionary spending have already been severely cut. It is time for the military, especially the military-industrial complex, to get its share of the budget-cutting -- and there is a lot of fat in the bloated military budget that could be cut without harming national defense at all.

Senator Graham doesn't really care about the budget or the American people. Like his Republican comrades, he is simply acting to try and put more government (taxpayer) money into corporate coffers. And he doesn't mind telling outrageous lies to accomplish that.

Panetta (& Obama) Wrong On Defense

Recently, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta sided with the Republicans on the issue of the sequestration cuts to defense (military) spending. Panetta said the cuts proposed would cause a crisis in troop readiness, and even said that "instead of being a first-rate power in the world, we'd turn into a second-rate power". And a couple of days ago, President Obama agreed with Panetta saying the two parties must get together to prevent the cuts "for all these men and women in uniform".

But is that really true? Would the proposed cuts in the sequestration really make the United States a second rate power? No! That is not even close to being true. The sequestration has mandated $1.2 trillion dollars in cuts to defense spending over the next 10 years (or about $120 billion a year). That sounds like a big cut -- until you examine the figures on what the United States spends.

As the chart above shows (from The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation), the United States spends nearly half of the world's entire spending on military and defense (44.3%). The next two largest spenders are Russia (at 5.47% of world spending) and China (at 5.31% of world spending). The United States could cut its spending in half and still be spending more than Russia and China combined (and a few other nations thrown in).

But how much of a cut is the sequestration to the military budget? The U.S. spends about $700 billion a year in defense spending. That means the cut from sequestration would be about a 17% cut to spending. The United States would still be spending at least $580 billion on the military each year. That would still be far more than any other nation spends, and actually would still be more than the next 16 biggest nations combined (whose combined total would be only about $546.1 billion).

Those numbers show that even after the sequestration cuts the United States would still be the biggest spender and have the most powerful military in the world -- by far. It is an outrageous lie to say those cuts would make the U.S. a second-rate power. Far larger cuts could be made before there is any danger of that happening.

Would it affect this nation's military readiness? Only if the government is too stupid to put those cuts in the right place. The cuts shouldn't affect the current military, since there are several areas that could be substantially cut without affecting readiness. Ending the Afghan War would be a good place to start, as would closing some of the 800 military bases the U.S. has around the world. That war does nothing for our national defense, and it is silly to think we really need 800 bases around the world to defend our nation.

But the biggest area where cuts could be made is in the military-industrial complex. We could start by cutting weapons systems that don't work, and systems that the military has said it doesn't need or want. Then other research and systems could be delayed until the economy is in better shape and they could be afforded. But don't expect any of that to happen. Congress is not about to cut the enormous amounts of money they are funneling into corporations in the military-industrial complex, because that might affect their corporate campaign contributions (and the pork they send back to their districts).

The truth, which no one in Congress (of either party) will admit, is that we are spending far more on defense than is necessary -- and most of it goes into corporate bank accounts, not military readiness. I agree that government spending must be cut. But it should not be on the backs of children, the poor, the unemployed, and the elderly. They have already borne too much of the government cuts. It is now time for cuts to come in corporate subsidies, and of course, in the huge amounts of government money funneled into the military-industrial complex.

The Real Reason For Our Deficit

The Republicans are whining again about our deficit and growing national debt, and they are right -- we are spending too much money on some things. But they want us to think that we are spending too much on education and social programs and health care -- the things that go to helping our own people have a decent standard of living and build a better future for themselves. I disagree. Those are the things we should be spending government money (taxpayer money) on.

The chart above shows an area, a big area, where we are spending way too much money. It is military spending. The chart shows the spending, both in actual dollars and as a part of GDP, of the 15 countries with the largest military budgets. The pink bar on the left represents the military spending of the United States. The multi-colored bar on the right represents the spending of the other 14 countries combined. Note that all of the other 14 countries combined still doesn't equal the military spending of the United States.

And it's actually even worse than that. The United States spends nearly half of all the money spent on the military in the entire world each year. Is this really necessary? Of course not. And don't get the idea that most of this money is being spent on our soldiers and their families. It's not. It's being spent to enrich fat cat defense contractors who are building weapon systems we can't afford, don't need, and most of which probably won't work anyway.

The truth is that we could reduce our military spending by 75%, and we'd still be spending more on our military than any other country in the world. There is currently a 10% cut in the military (spread out over the next 10 years) that will happen starting next year if no action is taken to stop it. Republicans are screaming that the extremely modest cut would damage our ability to defend this country (and they propose raising military spending). That's just campaign talk, and it's ludicrous. The 10% cut should be allowed to happen. In fact, a much, much bigger cut in military spending should be done.

No other country needs to spend this much to defend itself. And if we'd stop trying to be the world's biggest bully, we wouldn't need to spend nearly as much either.

NOTE -- While the Republicans want to spend even more money on the military, they recently blocked a bill to help veterans find good jobs. How stupid is that?

GOP Getting Ready To Raise Taxes ?

Ever since President Obama has been in office, the Republicans have absolutely refused to raise taxes -- even if it was just for the super-rich (most of whom are only paying about a 15% tax rate, because they earn their money off capital gains instead of working for it). That may be about to change. Much to Grover Norquist's displeasure, many of the congressional Republicans are abandoning his "no tax raise" pledge. The latest to do so is Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).

But don't get too excited about this prospect. They are still dead set against raising taxes to balance the budget, or to help the millions of Americans being hurt by the current recession (depression?). They still want to abolish Medicare, privatize Social Security, and slash every government program that doesn't directly give money to corporations or rich people.

So why would they be willing to raise taxes in some manner? Because they want to break their word and increase spending, but Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and the president won't let them do that unless there is new revenue to cover the increased spending -- and the Republicans are finally starting to realize that the majority leader and the president are serious about this.

Last August, the Republicans and Democrats agreed to an across-the-board cut in all discretionary spending if the bipartisan "super committee" could not agree on how to cut the deficit. That committee failed, and now these cuts are looming over Congress -- and will start in 2013. The Republicans don't mind the cuts to programs that help hurting Americans, but they don't want to keep their promise when it comes to military spending (which is by far the largest item in discretionary spending).

If the cuts are allowed to happen, the military will be cut by about $600 billion over the next 10 years, or about $60 billion in the next year. Pentagon officials have said the cut will not damage their ability to defend this country (which is not surprising since the United States spends nearly as much money on its military as all of the other countries in the world combined spend on theirs). But the Republicans don't care about facts (like we are already spending way too much on the military).

The Republicans have not only proposed adding all of the proposed cut back into the military budget, but they want to increase the spending on the military by at least another $8 billion. They wanted to pay for it by making even deeper cuts to the rest of the discretionary spending, but the Democrats are refusing to allow that. They say they will not allow changes to the agreed-upon cuts unless there is new revenue to cover it -- and the Democrats are operating from a position of power on this issue, since the cuts will take place automatically unless Congress agrees on any changes (and the president signs them).

This has put the Republicans between a rock and a hard place. They can't pose as "patriots" by increasing military spending (and keep funneling increasing amounts of government money to their corporate buddies in the military-industrial complex) unless they raise taxes. And if they raise taxes, they will anger their teabagger base.

It's starting to get interesting. Will they raise taxes, or will they let the cuts happen? Those are really the only choices they have if the Democrats stand firm.

Private Contractors Cost The Government More - Not Less

It has been a mantra of the Republican Party for decades now that private contractors can do the business of government cheaper and more efficiently. This has led to the federal government contracting out work to private companies for everything from computer services and human resources to war and prison services. That sounds great on the surface. The only problem is that it just hasn't worked out that way.

A non-profit Washington-based group, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), did a study on the private contracting of government services and found that it is almost always more expensive -- and usually as much as twice as expensive. Out of the 35 programs they studied, at least 33 of them cost the government more money than if the work had been done by federal employees.

For example, the government was billed by a private contractor $268,653 for computer engineering services. Government employees (at current salary and benefits) could have done the same work for $136,456. A human resources private contract cost the government $228,488, while government workers could have performed the same services for only $111,711.

POGO general counsel Scott Amey said, "That's a big difference. We compared the full compensation paid to federal government and private sector employees to the billable rates in federal service contracts. Across the board you see that it cost government more to pay for contractors."

Frankly, this doesn't come as any surprise to me. Most of the private contractors aren't interested in actually saving the government any money. They see the contracts as a way to make exorbitant profits on their services -- profits they could never get away with in the private sector.

But their Republican lackeys keep feeding them these contracts -- just look at the billions of dollars made by numerous companies off the two unnecessary wars we are fighting (contracts that have little or no oversight). And the Republicans will continue to do this as long as they can, because they get a hefty chunk of it back to fill their campaign chests (which should be considered as kickbacks, which is what they really are).

The Republicans would like for Americans to think the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, and children are draining our government coffers. In truth, it's the corporations -- the same corporations who refuse to pay their fair share of taxes.

Plenty Of Fat In Military Budget To Cut

We've been hearing lately from the Republicans that cuts can't be made to our military -- that cutting our military budget (which is several times larger than any other country on Earth) would put our nation in danger. That's simply not true. Not only are there many unneeded programs that could be cut, but there is rampant fraud in the system.

We've already heard about $700 hammers and $30 screws, and the military promised to get rid of that kind of fraud. But now we learn that it is still going on. The U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, has released a review showing the military is still overpaying for items provided by private contractors.

A private contractor named Anham has a $3.9 billion contract with the military, and it looks like they're trying to squeeze out every dime they can from that contract by overcharging the military. The IG's review shows that company has been charging the military $900 for a control switch that can be bought for $7. They are also charging the military $3000 for a $100 circuit breaker and $80 for a plumbing item that sells for $1.41.

This company is not the first to be found overcharging the military for items or services provided in Iraq (and Afghanistan), and I'm sure they won't be the last. It's starting to look like fraud is rampant among the private contractors working for the military.

This started when George Bush and Dick Cheney decided that private contractors, being businessmen, could provide services and supplies in a more cost-effective way than the military could. But it hasn't worked out that way. Instead of tapping into good cost-effective business practices, the government has tapped into old-fashioned corporate greed. These private contractors are using Iraq and Afghanistan as their golden key to the United States Treasury.

There are just some things that should be done by government rather than private business (such as police, fire protection, prisons, etc.), and one of those things is supplying and supporting the military in time of war. If we had used private contractors in World War II the way we use then in Iraq and Afghanistan, we'd still be paying today for the fraud and overcharging.

Just eliminating the fraud and overcharging by private contractors would cut an enormous amount off the military budget. Then eliminating unneeded weapons systems, duplicative systems, and pie-in-the-sky experimental systems would cut another huge chunk out of that budget. I think the military budget could be cut severely without touching soldiers' pay and benefits or the weapons they need to do their job efficiently.

By treating the military budget as a sacred cow and giving more of the load to private contractors, we have let the budget get way out of control. It's time to change the way things are done. We simply can't afford the inefficiency and fraud anymore.

Army Repeats A Bad Mistake

It looks like the United States Army is incapable of learning from past mistakes. On Tuesday, the Army awarded defense giant KBR (once an affiliate of Halliburton) a new contract for support work in Iraq. The contract could be worth as much as $2.8 billion for the Houston-based company.

KBR was quick to jump on the new contract saying, "The award demonstrates that the government recognizes KBR's ability and expertise in delivering high quality service in challenging contingency environments." Despite their bragging, the record shows that KBR has definitely NOT shown "ability and expertise" in its Iraqi operations. Let me remind you of just a few of KBR's screw-ups in Iraq.

First, consider the death of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a 24 year-old Green Beret. Maseth was electrocuted while taking a shower in 2008. It turned out that his death was due to faulty electrical work done by KBR. An investigation then found 17 other deaths due to faulty electrical work, most of it done by KBR. The company was denied $25 million in awards for this shoddy work.

But this was not all. Earlier, it had been discovered that KBR had been selling the Army contaminated water. The water caused our soldiers to experience skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, diarrhea and other illnesses. Instead of fixing the problem, KBR covered it up and continued selling the contaminated water to the Army for THREE YEARS (from January 2004 thru December 2006).

And it goes on. In 2005, a young woman named Jamie Leigh Jones was working for KBR in Iraq when she was raped by several male employees of KBR. Did KBR report this to the proper authorities? Of course not! When the young woman tried to go to authorities, they had her kidnapped and held in a shipping container with no food, water or medical help.

Thank goodness for a single KBR employee with a shred of a conscience, who allowed her to use his cell phone. She called her father in the United States, who then called Rep. Ted Poe. Poe contacted the State Department and demanded her release. The State Department sent investigators, who rescued Ms. Jones and got her medical help.

Ms. Jones sued KBR, and instead of doing the right thing, the company is fighting the case tooth-and-nail. They even tried to get the case thrown out of court, claiming that her contract with the company denied her the right to file suit. Fortunately, the court did not buy this feeble argument and ruled she had the right to sue.

These are just some of the more well-known examples of KBR demonstrating its "ability and expertise" in Iraq. I'm sure there are more. KBR has not only not shown a level of excellence, it has not even shown a basic level of competence in Iraq. They have also shown they care little about our soldiers or even their own employees.

But the company did make billions of dollars from the Iraqi war, and now it stands to make billions more. How can the Army reward this incompetence with a new multi-billion dollar contract? Even the dumbest individuals know better than to touch a stove a second time, after being burned the first time. Why can't the Army learn from its past mistakes?

There are those who think our government is broken. Things like this make me think they could be right.

Army Major Arrested For Taking Bribes

This story is just plain sickening. While many of our brave soldiers are being killed and wounded in Iraq's never-ending conflict, it seems like some are using the war as an opportunity to get rich by taking bribes.

Army Major John Cockerham and his wife Melissa have been arrested for taking around $11.7 million in bribes from companies seeking military contracts. Cockerham worked as a contracting officer for the military in Kuwait in 2004 and 2005. If the bribes amounted to $11.7 million, imagine the total value of the illegally-awarded contracts.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Pamela Mathy ordered the couple held without bond because of the flight risk they posed. As far as I'm concerned they can throw away the key on this couple

Whatever happened to bidding on contracts, or even better, purchasing the best equipment and services available for our soldiers? This major didn't just sell out his country, he sold out his own Army comrades. Despicable!

And yet I wonder, is this very different from the no-bid contracts worth billions that were awarded by Bush and Cheney to Halliburton (the very company Cheney headed before becoming vice-president)? When will we find out how much was given or promised to get those contracts?

Let's get our soldiers out of this mess. They shouldn't have to give their lives so the corrupt and the rich can reap windfall profits.