Warren Would Stop Military-Industrial Complex Corruption

No portion of the federal budget is as large as the military budget. In fact, it is larger than all other portions of the discretionary budget combined. That much money is not needed to defend the United States and its allies. Far too much is spent in a corrupt way -- on systems that are not needed, and just to fund the bottom line of corporations. Elizabeth Warren wants to stop this. She writes:

It’s past time to cut our bloated defense budget. Defense contractor influence is a big part of how we ended up with a Pentagon budget that will cost more this year than Ronald Reagan spent at the height of the Cold War. That’s more than the federal government spends on education, medical research, border security, housing, the FBI, disaster relief, the State Department, foreign aid — everything else in the discretionary budget put together. What’s worse, it’s how we end up spending money on the wrong things — too much investment in the technologies of the past, and not enough focus on the needs of the future.

It’s wrong. It’s wasteful. It’s unsustainable. And it’s bad for our national security. If more money for the Pentagon could solve our security challenges, we would have solved them by now. It is time to identify which programs actually benefit American security in the 21st century, and which programs merely line the pockets of defense contractors — then pull out a sharp knife and make some cuts. And while the defense industry will inevitably have a seat at the table, they shouldn’t get to own the table itself.

We have to call this what it is: corruption, plain and simple.

The latest example came last week, when President Trump nominatedPatrick Shanahan, a former top Boeing executive, to be Secretary of Defense.

I opposed Shanahan’s prior nomination to work as Trump’s #2 at DOD because of his lack of foreign policy experience and my concerns about his ability to separate himself from Boeing’s financial interests after a lifetime spent working for the company. More recently, I asked the DOD watchdog to investigate after receiving reports that he had used his official position as Deputy Secretary to promote Boeing’s interests within the Pentagon. The IG cleared Secretary Shanahan of breaking existing ethics rules — but his obvious potential conflicts of interest remain. The truth is that our existing laws are far too weak to effectively limit the undue influence of giant military contractors at the Department of Defense. The response of Congress shouldn’t be to confirm Shanahan. It should be to change the rules.

I’ve already introduced the most sweeping and ambitious anti-corruption legislation since Watergate. My proposal would fundamentally change the way Washington does business, taking power in Washington away from the powerful and the well-connected and putting it back in the hands of the American people. But the stakes are higher when it comes to our national security. That’s why today, I introduced the Department of Defense Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act. Here’s my plan:

Slam Shut the Revolving Door Between Giant Contractors and the Pentagon. My plan would ban giant defense contractors from hiring senior DOD officials and general and flag officers for four years after they leave the Department. It would also require contractors to identify the former DOD officials who work for them and what they’re working on. In order to fully eliminate the opportunity for conflicts of interest, a former employee or executive of a defense contractor who joins the government would be totally banned from working on anything that could influence their former bosses. No more questions about whether the Acting Secretary of Defense is putting the financial interests of Boeing ahead of the national security interests of the United States.

Ban DOD Officials from Owning Contractor Stock. This one is a no-brainer. My plan would ban all senior DOD officials from owning or trading any stock of giant defense contractors. And it would ban all DOD employees from owning or trading stock if they’re in a position to influence that contractor’s bottom line.

Limit Foreign Government Hiring of American National Security Officials. A former National Security Council staffer now lobbies for Chinese telecom company Huawei, whose executives are currently facing criminal charges in the United States. A former general who helped craft U.S. Middle East policy decamped to run Lockheed Martin’s operations in Saudi Arabia. Foreign governments are hiring U.S.-trained hackers and mercenaries to target their political enemies. It’s ridiculous. Former senior national security officials shouldn’t get paid big bucks to work for foreign governments — especially when that work undermines U.S. interests. My plan would make it illegal.

Expose Defense Contractor Lobbying. Defense contractors should be required to disclose the true scope of their lobbying activities — including who they’re meeting with at the DOD, what they’re lobbying about, and what (unclassified) information they’re sharing. And federal open records laws should apply to private defense contractors so the public can understand what they’re doing.

In 2017, Lockheed alone received more than $35 billion in taxpayer dollars from defense contracts. That’s more than the federal government spent on the entire budget for NASA. Many of these private companies are under pressure to show year over year revenue to their shareholders and investors on Wall Street. That means they are constantly pressuring the federal government for more spending — regardless of our national security needs. It’s long past time for real reform.

All three of my brothers went off to join the military because, like tens of thousands of uniformed and civilian employees and officers at the Defense Department, they wanted to serve their country. We should all be grateful for that kind of service and sacrifice. If we want to demonstrate that gratitude, we can start by making sure that national security decisions are driven only by what best keeps Americans safe.

Military/Defense Spending Should NOT Be Increased

While watching the Senate debate on the continuing resolution to keep from shutting down the government, I heard many senators (from both parties) talking about how we need to "rebuild" our military. For that purpose, they want to once again increase the military budget. I disagree.

Look at the chart above showing military spending in billions of dollars. Note that the United States already spends far more than any other nation does on defense/military spending. In fact, you can combine the spending of the next 11 biggest spenders (both friends and enemies) and you would still not quite equal the spending of the United States.

How can it be that we spend so much more than any other country and still have a military that needs to be rebuilt? That makes no sense. We are spending enough to have the readiest and most capable military in the world -- and if we don't have that, then it is obvious that money for defense is being spent poorly (or wasted).

And that is exactly what is happening. Money is being wasted on things that do not contribute to our national defense. A prime example is that the U.S. is operating about 900 military bases around the world.Do we need 900 military bases around the world to defend our country? Of course not. We could cut that number by half (or even three-quarters) without affecting our national defense at all.

If we really need to rebuilt our military (or increase its readiness), we could easily close many (if not most) of those bases, and redirect those funds to rebuilding the military or its readiness.

We also waste money by pumping billions into the military-industrial complex for weapons that do not work and for weapons the military has said it doesn't want or need. Too much of this money doesn't help the military or national defense, but just goes to fatten the bank accounts of corporations.

We already spend enough to have the best military and national defense in the world. We do NOT need to spend more. We just need to stop funneling unnecessary money into the military-industrial complex and operating bases that are not needed for our defense. We need to spend smarter -- not spend more!

GOP Is Out-Of Step With Country On Military Spending

The United States spends around 45% of the military spending for the entire world -- more than the next 10-14 largest military spending countries combined. In fact, the United States could cut its military spending in half, and still be spending more than any other country (friend or foe). In addition, the military spending of the U.S. eats up more than half of the country's discretionary budget (the budget paid for with income and other taxes (Social Security and most of Medicare are paid for by a special payroll tax dedicated only for those purposes, and are not paid for from income or other taxes).

This huge bloated military budget does not go straight to support our soldiers and their families. The bulk of it goes to support the military-industrial complex (including weapons and system that don't work, or that our military leaders have said they don't need or want). It also goes to support over 800 to 900 military bases we keep around the world -- far more than is needed for self-defense.

Any reasonable person would admit that we are either spending too much on our military, or at least don't need to spend any more on it -- and that is the opinion of most Americans. Only 35% of Americans think we should increase military spending (including 31% of Independents, 25% of moderate Democrats, and 12% of liberal Democrats). A majority of those groups think we are already spending enough (or too much).

But the Republicans (and their officials) want to increase military spending. About 61% of Republicans (including 45% of moderate Republicans and 67% of conservative Republicans) want to spend more on the military -- and that includes their presidential candidate (Donald Trump) and their other elected officials.

They also want to cut taxes for the rich and the corporations. So, where is the money for this extra military spending going to come from? It's going to come from cuts to all other government programs (education, food stamps, environment, housing aid, agriculture, unemployment, and all the other programs that help Americans to better themselves and this country). They also want to cut Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age -- although that's just out of being mean (since cutting it would provide no more money for the general budget and more military spending).

We can't afford to further cut our spending on programs that actually help Americans. We can't afford more tax cuts for the rich and the corporations. And we certainly don't need to pump more of our hard-earned money into military spending. That's why it is imperative to vote the Republicans out of power in November.

The chart above was made with information from a recent Pew Research Center survey -- done between April 12th and 19th of a random national sample of 2,008 adults, with a 2.5 point margin of error.

President Throws GOP A Bone To Fix Some Of Our Problems

The chart above shows some of the things President Obama included in his budget proposal for 2016. I totally agree with the first four -- all of them need to be done. They would help pay down the budget deficit and national debt, improve education in this country, fix the funding problem of Social Security (which will show up in about 20 years), and make a start on helping to solve the problem of global climate change.

Of course the Republicans will oppose all of those four proposals. They will oppose them because they would cost the rich and the corporations a bit more money (money they should have been paying all along) -- and taxing the rich or the corporations is not something the Republicans can support. After all, the rich and the corporations are the true constituents represented by the Republican Party. They may tell lies during an election campaign about how they want to help all Americans, but once they get elected they act only to protect their rich buddies.

And that's where number five on the above list comes in. It is a political bone the president tossed into his budget proposal to please the Republicans (in the hope of getting them to agree to at least some of his other proposals). If they want more money to fatten the bank accounts of their buddies in the military-industrial complex (those corporations getting rich off providing products for the military -- most of which are overpriced, and many of which are not needed or wanted by the military), then they're going to have to negotiate on some other things.

The military budget doesn't need to be expanded. We already provide enough money to make up around 45% of the entire world's military spending. It should really be cut instead of expanded, and that could easily be done without hurting our national defense or short-changing our military on anything it really needs. We could accomplish a lot by closing many of our more than 800 military bases around the world, and by eliminating the spending for systems and products that the military neither needs nor wants.

But I understand why the president is throwing the GOP this bone, and it would probably be worth it (in the short-term) if it can get them to agree with some of the other things the president wants -- things that are really needed to get this country back on track.

Budget Cutting Is Not A Bad Idea (If It's Done Right)

The chart above was made from information in a new Rasmussen Poll. That survey was taken on September 11th and 12th of a random sample of 1,000 likely voters nationwide, and has a margin of error of 3 points. It shows the American people want the budget cut, and 52% say they are afraid the budget won't be cut enough (while only 38% are afraid it will be cut too much). It seems that a lot of people are buying the Republican argument that the federal government is spending too much.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think we have a bigger problem with the reduction in tax revenues instituted by the Republicans (mainly for the rich and the corporations) than in government spending. The spending has been cut, but the revenues remain inadequate -- because many of the rich pay a smaller percentage in taxes than the middle class, and many corporations pay no taxes at all (even though they make billions in profits).

I may surprise some regular readers with my next statement. I agree that government spending could be cut, and those cuts could be drastic cuts.

I have railed against the cuts proposed (and passed too many times) by Republicans. But my opposition was not against spending cuts -- it was against where those cuts were being made. The GOP wants to cut everything that helps ordinary Americans (education, unemployment benefits, poverty programs, environmental programs, clean energy research, job creation, infrastructure repair & rebuilding, etc.). The only thing they don't want to cut is defense spending. They want to increase that (to funnel even more money to their corporate buddies.

The Republicans claim cutting domestic programs would cure our faltering economy, but they are wrong. Cutting domestic programs would take money out of the economy -- which would decrease demand (since there would be less money to spend), and that would depress business profits and job creation and worker wages. In fact, it could push our already faltering economy back into another recession.

So, where could cuts be made if not in domestic programs? The two charts below show where those cuts could be made. Note that more than half (52.74%) of the discretionary budget (that part of the budget that Congress controls each year) goes to defense spending (military spending) -- and that does not include spending for Veterans Affairs or Homeland Security or Intelligence.

And according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), that military spending is 39% of the entire world's military spending -- and that's a conservative estimate (since it doesn't include the spending for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). It would take the next 11 biggest spending countries to equal the percentage spent by the United States (and more than that if you count the war spending).

That makes it pretty clear where the U.S. federal budget could be cut. The defense budget could be drastically cut without affecting this nation's ability to defend itself. Much of that money is spent to intimidate other countries -- not to defend this country.

You may be asking at this point -- wouldn't defense cuts also take money out of the economy? No, not if it is done right. We have more than 800 military bases in other countries around the world. Do we really need those bases? Do they exist to defend this country or to intimidate other countries? We could close many, if not most, of those bases without hurting the economy (or hurting our national defense).

We could also cut a lot of the money going to the military-industrial complex -- particularly those programs producing items that either don't work or that our military leaders say they don't want (and are not needed). These cuts would take some money out of the U.S. economy, but most of it is just sitting in corporate bank accounts rather than being used to purchase goods/services. And the bit that is spent in the economy could easily be replaced by using some of the money saved by the defense cuts to invest in other domestic programs (the ones the GOP is trying to cut).

We could make drastic cuts in defense spending, and none of it would have to come at the expense of our troops, our military readiness, or our defense capability. We are spending too much for the military budget and most of it goes into corporate pockets via the military-industrial complex. A significant portion of that money should be spent to help hurting Americans, and to reduce the budget. That kind of budget-cutting would make sense.

Green Party Links Police Militarization To Federal Policies

The Green Party abhors the militarization of police in the United States, but doesn't think that will change until federal policies change -- policies that militarize everything the federal government does, from the budget to foreign policy. I think they have a good point. The following article was written by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member David Swanson (pictured) on August 14th:

“Groups on the ground in St. Louis are calling for nationwide solidarity actions in support of Justice for Mike Brown and the end of police and extrajudicial killings everywhere.”

As they should. And we should all join in.

But “nationwide” and “everywhere” are odd terms to equate when discussing police militarization. Are we against extrajudicial killings (otherwise known as murder) by U.S. government employees and U.S. weapons in Pakistan? Yemen? Iraq? Gaza? And literally everywhere they occur? The militarization of local police in the United States is related to the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, which has now reached the point that bombing and “doing nothing” are generally conceived as the only two choices available. Local police are being militarized as a result of these factors:

• A culture glorifying militarization and justifying it as global policing.
• A federal government that directs roughly $1 trillion every year into the U.S. military, depriving virtually everything else of needed resources.
• A federal government that still manages to find resources to offer free military weapons to local police in the U.S. and elsewhere.
• Weapons profiteers that eat up local subsidies as well as federal contracts while funding election campaigns, threatening job elimination in Congressional districts, and pushing for the unloading of weapons by the U.S. military on local police as one means of creating the demand for more.
• The use of permanent wartime fears to justify the removal of citizens’ rights, gradually allowing local police to begin viewing the people they were supposed to protect as low-level threats, potential terrorists, and enemies of law and order in particular when they exercise their former rights to speech and assembly. Police “excesses” like war “excesses” are not apologized for, as one does not apologize to an enemy.
• The further funding of abusive policing through asset forfeitures and SWAT raids.
• The further conflation of military and police through the militarization of borders, especially the Mexican border, the combined efforts of federal and local forces in fusion centers, the military’s engagement in “exercises” in the U.S., and the growth of the drone industry with the military, among others, flying drones in U.S. skies and piloting drones abroad from U.S. land.
• The growth of the profit-driven prison industry and mass incarceration, which dehumanize people in the minds of participants just as boot camp and the nightly news do to war targets.
• Economically driven disproportionate participation in, and therefore identification with, the military by the very communities most suffering from its destruction of resources, rights, and lives.

But policing is not the only thing militarized by what President Eisenhower called the “total influence — economic, political, even spiritual” of the military industrial complex. Our morality is militarized, our entertainment is militarized, our natural world is militarized, and our education system is militarized. “Unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex” is not easily opposed while maintaining the military industrial complex. When Congress Members lend their support to a new war in Iraq while proposing that the U.S. Post Office and a dozen other decent things not be defunded, they are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. The United States cannot live like other wealthy nations while dumping $1 trillion a year into a killing machine.

The way out of this cycle of madness in which we spend more just on recruiting someone into the military or on locking them up behind bars than we spend on educating them is to confront in a unified and coherent manner what Martin Luther King Jr. called the evils of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism. Not racism, extreme materialism, and what the military does to the local police. Not racism, extreme materialism, and what the military does to weapons testing sites. Not racism, extreme materialism, and what the military does to the people of Honduras causing them to flee to a land that then welcomes them with an attitude of militarism. Not any of these partial steps alone, but the whole package of interlocking evils of attitude and mindset.

There is a no-fly-zone over Ferguson, Missouri, because people in the U.S. government view the people of the United States increasingly as they view the people of other countries: as best controlled from the air. Notes the War Resister League,

“Vigils and protests in Ferguson – a community facing persistent racist profiling and police brutality – have been attacked by tear gas, rubber bullets, police in fully-armored SWAT gear, and tank-like personnel carriers. This underscores not only the dangers of being young, Black, and male in the US, but also the fear of mobilization and rebellion from within racialized communities facing the violence of austerity and criminalization.

“The parallels between the Israeli Defense Forces in Palestine, the Military Police of Rio de Janeiro, the Indian police in Kashmir, the array of oppressive armed forces in Iraq, and the LAPD in Skid Row could not be any clearer. . . .

“This is not happening by accident. What is growing the capacity of local police agencies to exercise this force are police militarization programs explicitly designed to do so. As St. Louis writer Jamala Rogers wrote in an article on the militarization of St. Louis Police this past April, ‘It became clear that SWAT was designed as a response to the social unrest of the 1960s, particularly the anti-war and black liberation movements.’ Federal programs such as DoD 1033 and 1122, and the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), in which St. Louis Police are active participants, provide weapons and training to police departments across the country, directly from the Pentagon. Commenting on the ominous growth of the phenomenon, Rogers continues: ‘and now, Police Chief [of St. Louis Police] Sam Dotson wants to add drones to his arsenal.’

“The events in Ferguson over these last few days demonstrate that the violence of policing and militarism are inextricably bound. To realize justice and freedom as a condition for peace, we must work together to end police militarization and violence.”

The War Resisters League is organizing against Urban Shield, an expo of military weapons for police and training event planned for Oakland, Calif., this September 4-8. The Week of Education and Action will take place in Oakland from August 30-September 5. Read all about it here.

Why Isn't The Corporate Media Reporting This Story ?

This image is of the mushroom cloud produced by the nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki at the end of World War II. It is also the image that Republican neo-cons are using to drum up support for a war with Iran.

For a couple of years now, they have been trying to scare Americans with the image of Iran with nuclear weapons. They want us to believe that Iran is in the process of building nuclear weapons, and when they succeed, they will pose a danger to the United States -- even though they have no way of delivering such a weapon that far.

They have used this fear of a nuclear weapon- possessing Iran to build up the military budget even more (although we were already spending 45% of the total money spent on military budgets worldwide, and more than the next 15 biggest spenders combined). They want us to believe we have to spend this money and attack Iran, or we will face nuclear devastation.

But if Iran was really such a threat in the recent past, enough to make many Republicans (and some deluded Democrats) call for a new war, then I have to wonder why the following story hasn't been widely reported by the U.S. media. The BBC considered it important enough to be front page news. Here is what they reported:

Iran has turned all of its enriched uranium closest to the level needed to make nuclear arms into more harmless forms, the UN nuclear agency says.

The conversion of its stock of 20%-enriched uranium was part of a deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme.

The US said last week it would unblock $2.8bn in frozen Iranian funds in return for Iran's compliance.

A four-month extension to talks on Iran's nuclear ambitions was agreed on Friday between Iran and world powers.

The talks are aimed at persuading Iran to limit its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

The six world powers involved in the talks - the US, France, China, Russia, Germany and the UK - suspect Iran seeks atomic weapons, which Iran denies.

The country insists that it is enriching uranium for use in nuclear power stations and for medical purposes.

Correspondents say Iran's completion of eliminating its most worrying uranium stockpile is a promising sign that its leaders do not want to derail the diplomatic process.

A new report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran is observing all of its other commitments as well.

Iran had more than 200kg of 20%-enriched uranium when the preliminary agreement to convert it was reached last November.

At 20%, enriched uranium can be converted quickly to arm a nuclear weapon and experts said 200kg was enough to make one nuclear warhead.

But while the story was widely reported in Europe and Australia, it has been ignored by the corporate media in the United States. Why? Doesn't it seem like the prospect of peace, of avoiding a costly war with Iran, should be big news -- especially considering all the coverage of the possible nuclear weapons program in Iran?

Could it be that the corporations in the military-industrial complex don't want the story reported (because Americans might come to their senses and demand the bloated military budget be cut)? Could it be because it doesn't fit the narrative being proposed by the Republicans (and their corporate backers), and might hurt their chances in the upcoming election?

This is a prime example of what's wrong with our major media outlets. They only give us the stories approved by their corporate owners. Truth in reporting and good investigative reporting are things of the past -- things that are not tolerated in a media owned by only a few giant corporations (who are only interested in protecting their own interests (and the politicians they have bought).

Military Cuts Proposed Are Not Nearly Enough

(The cartoon image above is by Stuart Carlson at carlsontoons.com.)

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has announced some cuts to defense spending. The cuts will include a reduction in the number of standing military forces (from the current 520,000 to about 420,000), and will phase out the A-10 Warthog plane.

These are actually fairly moor cuts in military spending -- cuts that don't affect the areas with the biggest spending (the corporations in the military-industrial complex making duplicative, unneeded military systems or systems that just don't work or are outdated -- and the massive number of military bases around the world, which numbers between 800 and 900). Do we really need that many military bases -- nearly 8 bases on average for every country in the world? Of course we don't.

And we don't need to keep on spending money on things the military has said it doesn't want (or that don't work). A prime example is the engine for the new jet fighter. The military chose the engine it wanted, but Congress overrode them and voted to keep making two different engines for the new fighter. That is just one of many examples of wasteful spending. But Congress doesn't want to stop that spending, because that goes into the pockets of their corporate masters.

The truth is that the United States spends far more than any other nation on its military -- and far more than is needed to adequately defend this country. In fact, the U.S. spends about 45% of the military spending for the entire world, and more than the next fifteen biggest spenders combined. The American military budget could be cut in half, and we would still be spending far more than any other nation (friend or foe). Considering how much we actually spend on our military, the small cuts proposed by Hagel will not affect our ability to defend this country at all.

But you won't be able to find a Republican that will publicly admit that. They, with the help of Fox News, are acting like Hagel's cuts will devastate our ability to defend ourselves and will leave us helpless in the face of our enemies. They know it is not true But they also know that scaring the American people, and painting the Democrats as weak on defense, can get them votes -- especially among the ignorant and ill-informed.

Note that in the past the American people were starting to realize that the military spending was too high in this country. But then we had the first Gulf War, and then the terrorist attack in New York. And the Republicans began to beat the fear drum loudly, telling Americans we must have a strong military to fight terrorism. This is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. First, we could cut our military spending drastically and still have the most powerful military in the world. And second, military power (while superb in a conventional war) is not suited for fighting terrorism (since terrorists have no country or borders, and can easily disappear when confronting military forces). The FBI and the CIA are much better suited for that task.

Currently only 37% of Americans think we spend too much on the military, and amazingly, 28% think we don't spend enough. Obviously the Republican fear propaganda has been pretty effective, and that's sad because it means we will continue to spend far too much on the military -- to the detriment of all other government programs (programs needed to help hurting Americans).

NOTE -- The above charts were made with information from the Gallup Poll -- the latest being done between February 6th and 9th of 1,023 nationwide adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Values And Spending

The humorous chart above shows a very serious flaw in our government. We spend far too much on our military (especially the corporations that form the military-industrial complex). More than half of all our discretionary spending is spent on the military budget, leaving far too little for everything else. No other countries (whether they are our friends or our enemies) spends anywhere near this big a part of their budget on their military, and there is no reason for the United States to spend that much either (except for corporate greed).

We need to make deep cuts in that spending, and even if we cut that spending in half, we would still be spending more than any other nation. We could then use part of those savings to balance the budget and the rest to shore up those programs that help hurting Americans. We simply don't need to spend anywhere near this much to defend ourselves. Shouldn't we value helping our own citizens more than making war on others?

Our Outrageous Military Budget

This chart is from the Wonkblog at the Washington Post. It shows the ridiculously bloated military budget of the United States (2011) compared to the military budgets of the next 13 biggest spenders. It takes all 13 of those countries put together to come close to equalling the military spending of the United States -- and still falls a few billion dollars short. You could cut the U.S. military budget in half, and it would still far exceed that of any other country (and would be significantly more than the spending of China and Russia combined).

Do we really need to spend that much money to defend this nation? Of course not. Nobody wants to mess with China and Russia -- and the spend hundreds of billions less than the United States. And don't think this huge budget goes mainly toward pay and housing for our soldiers -- because it doesn't. The expenditure for that has remained relatively flat since the 1960's (at around $100 billion, or slightly more).

So where does the real money go? A big hunk of it goes to fighting the illegal and unnecessary "nation-building" effort in Afghanistan (and Iraq). Much of the rest of it goes into corporate bank accounts to pay for developing and building weapons systems -- many of which are not needed or wanted by the military, and some don't even work, or are duplicates of other programs. This money is not spent to defend our nation, but to fulfill the pork barrel spending for senators & representatives, so they can brag to their constituents and get re-elected.

I have said it many times before, and I will keep repeating it -- we need to significantly cut our military budget. We need to cut it by at least 25%, if not more. That kind of cut could go a long way toward helping hurting Americans and getting this economy back on track. Americans have been fooled into thinking that social programs make up the bulk of discretionary spending, but the truth is that about a third of the military spending could pay for all the social programs put together.

Republicans would like you to think that our social program spending is bloated, and much too large. Not true. It is the military budget that is bloated, and much too large. But the GOP won't cut that, because that might take some dollars out of corporate pockets -- and many Democrats won't cut it, because they are afraid of being accused of putting the national defense at risk. Neither party will touch this "sacred cow", because they are more concerned with their own political careers than doing what is good for the economy, the budget, and the country.

The best thing we could do for this country fiscally would be to cut the military budget -- not just a little, but a lot.

House Passes Bloated Defense Spending Bill

Last Monday, the House and Senate armed services committees announced they had finally reached an agreement on funding for military spending for 2014. The figure they agreed on was $625.5 billion. And on Thursday, the House of Representatives passed that bill and sent it on to the Senate (who will no doubt also pass it -- after they finish arguing about judicial nominations). There were 350 House members voting for the bill (142 Democrats and 208 Republicans), and 69 members voting against it (50 Democrats and 19 Republicans).

The $625.5 billion funding does represent a small cut in military funding from the 2012 figure of $682 billion (about 8.28%), but it still represents more than half of all federal government discretionary spending. That means if you add up all the other government programs paid for with discretionary spending (education, food stamps, environmental protection, welfare, unemployment insurance, job training, housing assistance, foreign aid, law enforcement, and many other programs), they would not equal the spending on the military (most of which goes to the corporations in the military-industrial complex, not our soldiers). Is it any wonder that we don't have the money to help hurting Americans?

And there is no reason to keep putting that kind of money into the obviously bloated military budget. We certainly don't need to spend that much just to defend this nation. Note (in the chart above) that no other nation anywhere in the world spends anywhere near that much on their military. The nation spending the second largest amount is China, which only spends about $166 billion (or about 26.5% of what the United States spends). In fact, you would have to add together the total spending of the next 10 biggest spenders to equal the spending of the United States.

The Republicans will tell you that nothing can be cut from that huge military spending bill without putting this nation in danger of not being able to defend itself (and too many Democrats will vote with them, because they are afraid of being accused of hurting national defense). But that is just a lie they tell so they can continue funneling tax dollars to their corporate friends (for pie-in-the-sky systems -- many of which don't work or aren't needed or wanted by the military).

The truth is that we could cut our military budget by 25% (or even 50%) and still be spending far more than any other nation in the world -- and we could do it without hurting our ability to defend this country. We could do it by eliminating programs that don't work and are not wanted by the military, by closing a significant amount of the more than 800 military bases we have around the world, and by stopping the ridiculous wars around the world in "nation-building" efforts (which our incursions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan should have shown us simply don't work).

Just think of all the good that could be done in this country with that money -- in fixing the economy, creating new jobs, educating our youth, protecting our environment, and helping the poor & disadvantaged.

Americans Are Clueless On Budget Matters

I have believed for a while now that most Americans, while they say they want the budget to be cut, don't really understand that budget. Perhaps the best example is foreign aid. The huge majority of Americans want foreign aid to be cut, and seem to think that cutting foreign aid would make a significant difference to the budget. It would not. The truth is that foreign aid makes up less than 1% of the federal government's budget, and completely eliminating it would not make a real difference in the budget deficit.

Now a poll has come out which shows that most Americans are just as clueless about military spending. It is the Rasmussen Poll (taken on November 25th and 26th of 1,000 likely nationwide voters, with a 3 point margin of error). It shows that about 37% of voters think the United States doesn't spend enough on the military, while 27% think the spending is about right, and only 29% think the U.S. spends too much on its military budget.

Obviously, too many Americans have bought into the Republican scare tactics -- their lies that say the recent tiny cuts to the military budget has put our country at risk. The truth is that those minuscule cuts have made no difference at all in this country's ability to defend itself. In fact, the United States spends nearly half of the military spending of the entire world (all countries combined) -- and the next 15 countries combined spending still does not equal the spending of the United States.

And most of that military spending, which makes up well more than half of this country's discretionary spending, doesn't go to pay for soldier's salaries or benefits or arms. It goes to pad the profits of the corporations in the military-industrial complex -- many of them making systems that either don't work or are not needed, and some going to produce items that the military leaders say they don't even want.

The military budget could easily be cut another 25% without damaging this country's ability to defend itself, and personally, I think far more than that could and should be cut. Instead of creating pie-in-the-sky weapons systems that won't work and aren't needed, we should be spending that money to help hurting Americans, create jobs, and fix our economy.

Green Party Says Military Budget Should Be Slashed by 25% To 50%

The Republicans whine a lot about cutting the budget. They say our government spends too much money -- and they are right about that. But they are wrong about what needs to be cut. They would cut programs that help  the poor, children, seniors, the unemployed, and clean our environment. Unfortunately, cutting those areas would just hurt this country. But there is an area that could be cut, and cut substantially -- the military budget.

This country spends between 40% and 50% of the entire world's military spending -- more than the next 16 biggest spending nations combined. There is no need for the United States to spend this much just to defend itself -- and there is no need for this nation to assume the position of being the world's policeman (a job that should be shouldered by the United Nations, and shared among all countries). The truth is that far too much of this money is spent to enrich corporate moguls -- not to take care of our troops or to defend the nation.

The Green Party thinks this is wrong (and I agree). They propose cutting our military spending by between 25% and 50%, and they have laid out a plan to do that -- a plan that would cut the deficit and the national debt without hurting our ability to defend ourselves. Here is that proposal (written by the Green Party Shadow Cabinet on November 20th):

10 Ways to Cut the Military Budget by 25 to 50%

US military spending is somewhere from $700 billion annually (a 100% increase in the last decade) to over a trillion dollars when you add in interest payments from past wars, nuclear power weapons, intelligence gathering, Veteran benefits, Homeland Security and more. It represents more than half of the discretionary spending in the federal budget and half of the world military spending.

The first step in making cuts in the 25 to 50% range it to refocus our military spending from being the world's policemen to the traditional approach of nonintervention and defending against  invasion. The US present strategic doctrine is "full spectrum dominance - air, land, sea, space, cyberspace. " This neocon strategy advanced by the Bush administration and  continued under Obama is to protect "our" corporate and strategic interests abroad. This doctrine  is inherently opposed to cooperative security doctrines that rely on building mutual trust, joint security for sea lanes, etc., and progressive disarmament.

1. Audit the Pentagon – Up to 33% unjustified = $100s of billions per year potential savings.

The military budget is so out of control and government oversight is so lax that the federal government has given up trying to audit it. There was an effort late in the Clinton administration to start reconciling transactions with documentation in the Department of Defense. They audited $7 trillion in transactions and found that they could not justify $2.3 trillion of it.   In 2011, the General Accounting Office reported "serious financial-management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements unauditable". See Audit the Pentagon Act of 2013, Cong. Lee (HR 559).

2.  Focus on defending U.S. rather than policing the world – up to $100 billion per year.

National security means defending our nation from invasion or true military aggression. With oceans being two of our borders, and two allies (Canada and Mexico) being the other borders, US is one of the safest countries in the world in terms of external military threats. We do not need to militarize our borders against nonexistent military threats or in violation of the human right to seek refuge from economic or political oppression. The annual cost of our 1,100 overseas bases in over 130 countries is over $100 billion. Stop using our military to protect oil companies and multinational corporations.

3. Use government employees rather than outside contractors – up to $100 billion per year.

Outside military contractors cost on average nearly twice as much as the federal workers who do the same job. The Defense Department employs 900,000 civilians - more than twice as many as the next-largest agency (Veterans Affairs) and equal to the remaining federal agencies combined. There are also 560,000 active-duty military personnel who "never deploy," and an estimated 700,000 "ghost" civil servants—contractors doing government jobs. Sen. Coburn (R-OK) has called for staffing a quarter of these jobs -- handling supply chain, transportation, human resources, communications —with cheaper civilian employees, saving $5 billion annually. Four think tanks have recommended reducing the Pentagon’s civilian workforce by between 10 and 27 percent. Add to that outright contractor fraud, which some critics contend runs as high as $100 billion a year.

There were numerous examples of war profiteering involving billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghani station by firms such as Halliburton and Blackwater/XE/KBR.

Reducing reliance on service contractors in the DoD was a priority of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The annual cost of DoD service contracts has nearly tripled since 2000; many service contractors are performing inherently governmental functions. Cutting these contracts by 15% would save $37 billion annually.

A 15 percent reduction in non-DoD national security agency spending on all service contracts would save $33 billion over the year, while leaving service contract spending at these agencies at a higher level than it was in 2007. 

4. Bring all our troops and military contractors home from Iraq and Afghanistan - $96 billion per year.

Every hour, US taxpayers paid $11.26 million for Total Cost of Wars Since 2001. http://costofwar.com

5. Reduce the size and cost of military's back office bureaucracy - $80 billion per year.

Cutting Pentagon overhead for its back-office bureaucracy from the private industry average of 25%  would save roughly $80 billion a year. A RAND study of overhead and administration costs among defense contractors found them to be “tremendous drivers” of weapon costs at 35 percent. The largest government domestic programs—Social Security and Medicare—get by with overhead costs in the single-digits.

6. Reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal - $35 billion per year.

We spend $60 a year on nuclear weapons. We could save $35 billion by reducing our nuclear weapons arsenal - which Russia says it would match. The Project on Government Oversight has recommend nearly $40 billion in savings in 10 years through redesigning or ending various nuclear weapons facilities. Sen. Markey when in the House introduced the SANE bill (HR 1506) to cut $100 billion over 10 years in nuclear weapon costs. 

7. Stop spending 10s of billions of dollars on weapon systems that don’t work - $13 billion per year

A Government Accountability Office study found that the effectiveness of spending oversight was limited by not being able to require that weapon be proven to work before going to production or use in the field. A 2008 report noted recent examples that didn’t, such as the Hellfire missiles on the MH-60S Armed Helicopter Weapons System.  The missiles were designed to hang from external launchers on the chopper’s side, but when fired during a training incident the force of the launch caused the launchers to break loose and pierce the copter’s fuselage.

Taxpayers for Common Sense have proposed eliminating various weapon systems that would save more than $130 billion over ten years. For instance, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system consists of 30 interceptors designed to destroy ballistic missiles in mid-flight; This Missile Defense Agency program has been plagued by cost increases, test failures, and delays. Freezing its development would save $6 billion. 

8. The military should stop duplicating existing government and private programs like health care, recreation centers and grocery stores - $9 billion per year

Ten percent of the Pentagon’s non-war budget—$53 billion—goes to health care. It would be much cheaper to cover all Americans with Medicare. The cost of TRICARE, DoD’s health care system, has more than doubled in the last decade. Many military retirees who are fully employed and have health insurance available still opt for TRICARE, which amounts to a government subsidy for employers. Congress has prevented attempts to halt this spending trajectory in the past.

9.  Stop spending American tax dollars to defend Japan, Europe and S. Korea – over $3 billion per year.

There are more than 80,000 U.S. troops stationed in Europe. The U.S. has built the capacity to deploy rapidly from offshore bases as needed.  Removing just half of our troops in Europe—40,000 troops— would save at least $32 billion over the next ten years. Japan has 50,000 American soldiers on 90 US military facilities, particularly in Okinawa. Their presence is a constant source of tension with local populations due to crimes (e.g., sexual attacks) committed by the servicemen, military flights and land use. While Japan does pay for much of the costs, the US will spend $3 billion to transfer troops to Guam. The United States has 28,500 soldiers in South Korea, which pays about 40% of their costs.

10. Stop spending 10s of billions of dollars on weapon systems that are not needed a form of corporate welfare. Many immediately mothballed upon completion.

The U.S. has so many tanks – which they don’t use – that they mothball thousands in the deserts across the U.S., as the government continues to build new ones, despite objections from the leaders of the Armed Forces.  Tanks were needed to fight a land war in Europe in the 1950s. A classic example of spending money to fight the last wa rather than prepare for current military needs.

The NY Post recently  that $567 million was wasted by the Air Force for a dozen new cargo planes (C-27J) that were delivered directly to a storage unit in the Arizona desert since there is no use for the planes. The desert complex is home to an estimated $35 billion in planes which there is no use for. The Pentagon could save billions by canceling the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, which breaks down on average after eight hours of use and is ten years behind schedule. Marines haven't stormed a beach in nearly half a century.

Another unwanted system is the next-generation” Long-Range Strike Bombers to augment the Air Force’s fleet of B-52, B-1B, and B-2 planes, which drop both nuclear and conventional bombs. The Pentagon says there no need for the 100 planes being built. Savings would be $6 billion.

Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan, notes that the US "fields 11 aircraft carriers, while no other country has even one of comparable size and power." New carrier construction costs $15 billion. And while aircraft carriers were important in WWII, they are just sitting expensive ducks in the age of missiles. Korb details myriad examples of how the various armed services waste tens of billions arming themselves with competing and duplicative copies of the same weapons (e.g., Joint Striker Fighter jets). The Pentagon gets rid of tens of billions of "surplus equipment", often in new condition, for pennies on the dollar, while spending enormous amount to replace the equipment. They were selling chemical protective suits for $3 while other units were buying the same exact one for $200. (R. Nader, The 17  Solutions)

If you support cutting military spending 25-50%, go here to sign the petition for a Budget for People, Peace and the Planet.

Green Party Says Eisenhower Was Right

In the years after World War II, the United States had an immense amount of world respect. At that time, this country had a choice -- we could use that respect to peacefully join other nations and lobby for human rights, or we could build up our military power and try to intimidate other nations to go along with our policies and priorities.

President Eisenhower warned us of building up the "military-industrial complex". He thought we should take the path of peaceful lobbying. But our government chose the other path -- creating a huge military-industrial complex that eats up most of our budget and demands an almost constant state of military action to sustain itself.

The Green Party believes President Eisenhower was right, and that this country has chosen the wrong path. But they say it is not too late to change. Here is how Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Leah Bolger (pictured above) puts it in an October 28th post:

When the democratically elected government of Egypt was overthrown by its army on July 3rd 2013, the Obama administration was faced with a serious foreign policy dilemma. On the one hand, U.S. law forbids sending aid to countries where a democratic government has been deposed by a military coup. On the other hand, Egypt is an important regional ally, whose assistance we rely upon. Should the Obama administration adhere to the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) and cut off military aid to Egypt, thereby demonstrating its respect for the principle of civilian-controlled government, but risking damage to the relationship? Or should they disregard the law and continue giving aid so that Egypt will continue following policies which are in the ‘best interests’ of the United States?

The Obama administration’s response to this situation has been to try to have it both ways. In Orwellian fashion, the administration refused to label the coup as a coup, instead taking care to refer to it as a “popular uprising.” Refusal to use the “c-word” is an attempt to create a legal loophole in the Foreign Assistance Act, which requires a total cessation of aid in the case of a coup. Public discontent has put pressure on Obama to do something, so while still not acknowledging the coup, the State department announced it will cut $250 million of the $1.7 billion military aid package and suspend delivery of some aircraft and tanks. The Obama administration downplayed the significance of the cuts and went to pains to let the media know they were not considered “punitive.” Even so, the Egyptian government now describes relations between the two countries as “in turmoil.”

The situation in Egypt illustrates two major flaws in our foreign policy, which in the long run paint us into corners and alienate us from the global community:

1. U.S. foreign policy is driven by the Military Industrial Complex.

2. Inconsistency and double standards with respect to the adherence to law and international treaties.

The first flaw - Just what Eisenhower warned us about

During World War II, this nation converted its civilian manufacturing base into the creation of weapons and military equipment. However, the arms industry did not revert back to its original functions upon the war’s end; instead, it continued to grow and expand. The Cold War did much to precipitate the amount of money our government was spending on the arms race and to counter the Soviet threat. Today, the U.S. spends fifty cents out of every discretionary tax dollar on war and militarism. We spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, and we are by far the largest arms exporter in the world, accounting for 78% of such sales. Russia is in second place with 5.6%.

The term “Military Industrial Complex” was first coined by President Eisenhower in 1961 during his farewell address to the nation to describe the unprecedented American arms industry coupled with an immense military establishment. He warned us to “...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.”

When you are the largest exporter of arms in the world, and your economy is built around the weapons industry, you need to create a demand for those weapons. Weapons play the role of both “carrot” and “stick” in our foreign relations. We sell, or give arms and equipment to nations as enticement to support our policies, and we use our military to threaten and coerce support of our policies as well. Either way, it involves big money moving into the hands of the American arms industry.

Just a week ago, on October 15th, in what has been called “a big win for the defense industry,” the Obama administration moved oversight for the sale of tens of thousands of military items from the State department to the Commerce department; a move which will relax restrictions and facilitate weapons sales to virtually any country in the world.

Foreign Military “Aid”

President Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act into law at the height of the Cold War in 1961 - the same year as Eisenhower’s speech. The policy states it’s intent to “promote the foreign policy, security, and general welfare of the United States by assisting peoples of the world in their efforts toward economic and social development and internal and external security.”

However, from the beginning U.S. foreign assistance programs were much more about promoting the policies and welfare of the U.S. and its corporate institutions than they were about assisting needy foreign governments.

The military aid that the U.S. “gives” to other countries comes in the way of credits which can only be used to purchase U.S. weapons systems, equipment and training. The cost of those aid credits comes directly out of the pockets of the American taxpayer and right into the bank accounts of the defense industry. The U.S. provides around $50 billion dollars in aid annually to over 150 nations, with at least $17 billion of that being military aid. Our foreign military aid programs keep the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) machine well oiled and running smoothly; with big profits for the likes of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, all courtesy of American taxpayers.

The use of military aid packages to influence and pressure other governments into policies that benefit the U.S. can be seen in Pakistan. Though U.S. combat drones have killed hundreds of innocent civilians there, fueling great resentment with Pakistani people (as well as being in breach of international law). The government of Pakistan remains timid in its criticism, let alone dismissing the U.S. from its airspace, for fear of losing the $3 billion of annual military aid.

Human Rights vs Defense Industry Profits

The stipulations of the Foreign Assistance Act attempt to protect human rights as well as civilian control of the military. In addition to the provisions which prohibit aid to countries under military rule, the Act goes on to state that no assistance shall be provided to a government which:

"engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.”

Yet the U.S. turns a blind eye to human rights violations and violates its own law by giving military aid to Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Colombia, Uganda, Mozambique, and Somalia among others. The Foreign Assistance Act is not the only law U.S. foreign policy overlooks or violates. The Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008prohibits the U.S. government from providing military assistance to countries that directly use, or support the use of, child soldiers. Just this month, President Obama issued complete waivers to Yemen, Chad, and South Sudan, opening up those countries to U.S. military aid despite their known use of child soldiers, declaring in a written memorandum it is "in the national interest of the United States" to override the ban. The U.S. has also refused to sign on to the Convention on the Rights of a Child.

The Military Industrial Complex and Congress

The “rise of misplaced power” that Eisenhower warned of is easily seen by the influence the Military Industrial Complex has on Congress and the decisions it makes about war, budgeting, and foreign policy. Defense firms spend millions lobbying Congress to protect their weapons programs from spending cuts and to promote military actions. Senators who voted in favor of a military strike against Syria received an average of 83 percent more money from the defense industry than senators who voted against the resolution.

The second flaw--Do as I say, not as I do

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. 153 countries have ratified or signed the treaty, but shamefully, the U.S. is not one of them, giving the reason that Americans must not be subjected to the jurisdiction of the ICC. In fact, the U.S., Israel and Sudan are the only three countries that have specifically notified the UN Secretary General that they do not intend to join the ICC. This aspect of American exceptionalism - that the United States and its citizens are above the law, is a major point of criticism and undermines U.S. diplomacy, particularly when calling on countries to respect the rule of law.

When chemical weapons were used to kill civilians in Syria recently, the U.S. was quick to say that President Assad had violated international law. But instead of referring the case to the International Criminal Court for adjudication, the Obama administration came very close to waging war.

The United Nations charter prohibits the threat or use of force against any other country except in the event of self defense, yet in just the last 12 years the U.S. has launched two full-blown wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have attacked Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia with hellfire missiles launched from drones. We have used the two most recent wars to justify the use of torture, external rendition and indefinite detention, as well as multiple violations of the Geneva Conventions.

In addition to refusal to become a party to the ICC, the U.S. has also refused to sign on to the Landmine Treaty, the Cluster Munitions Treaty, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Convention against Torture, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Even though the Chemical Weapons Convention was ratified, the U.S. set extensive limitations on how it could be applied in the U.S., essentially gutting its provisions.

A plan for improvement

“America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Once again, President Eisenhower had it right. Since 1961 we have built a foreign policy through fear, intimidation, and coercion. We have ignored opportunities to join the international community and have instead shown arrogance and disregard for other nations and their peoples. We espouse support for human rights, but ignore them in the interest of corporate profits.

The U.S. can change our course and take the following steps to fix the flaws in our foreign policy:

1. Join the International Criminal Court. Americans should be subject to the same international laws to which we hold others. If the United States would abide by the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter, we wouldn’t have to worry about the prosecution of Americans for war crimes.

2. Sign on to all international weapons treaties. Virtually the entire global community has outlawed the use of weapons which have a high rate of civilian fatalities, such as cluster munitions and landmines. The United States needs to start valuing the lives of all humans as highly as their own citizens.

3. Drastically reduce our military footprint. Close the more than 900 U.S. military installations in 150 countries and return U.S. carrier groups to the United States. Develop diplomatic and cultural envoys in their place.

4. Stop foreign military aid and sales. In order to eliminate the power and control of the Military Industrial Complex, the profit motive must be removed from war and militarism. This could be accomplished by converting the defense industry to civilian purposes, and nationalizing the defense industry.

5. Increase humanitarian aid. Money formerly spent on weapons credits could be spent fighting disease or hunger. Using our dollars to truly assist the people of other countries would be much more effective in building positive and productive relationships with other countries than military aid.

6. Honor human rights. The U.S. must uphold international human rights and never turn a blind eye to other countries which violate them, even if that country is considered an ally. Obama’s waiver of the Child Soldiers Act should be rescinded immediately.

These changes are achievable. They also have the popular support of the majority of American people. We have achieved the dark side of the scenario foretold by President Eisenhower, but we can also achieve his optimistic vision:

“America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961.