>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:24:40 -0500 >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >From: Robert Weissman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Multiple recipients of list CORP-FOCUS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: The Insanity Defense >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Comment: Please see http://lists.essential.org for help > >Need a definition for Washington? > >Try institutional insanity. > >Consider this: The United States, the world's only remaining military >superpower, is about to embark on a military buildup unmatched since the >peak of the Reagan-era Cold War. > >President Clinton is preparing to propose a boost in the defense budget of >$112 billion over six years -- on top of the already monstrous $265 >billion of federal money spent annually on the military. The weapons >procurement budget alone is scheduled to grow 50 percent in the next half >decade. And the Congressional Republicans are set to demand an even >greater jump in military spending. > >What's happened, you might ask: Was there a coup in Russia? Has the Cold >War resumed? > >Uh, no. It is not the Empire that's struck again, itUs the >military-industrial complex. > >During the Clinton presidency, the U.S. defense industry -- with >encouragement and subsidies from the Pentagon -- has undergone an >ear-splitting consolidation that has left but three major contractors: >Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon. Today's Lockheed Martin is the >product of the merger of Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Loral and parts of >General Dynamics. Boeing leaped to the top tier of the contractor pack >with its acquisition of McDonnell Douglas. Raytheon gobbled up Hughes. > >With manufacturing facilities spread across the United States, these three >companies now have enormous political influence -- they can promise that >new military contracts will mean jobs in the districts of hundreds of >members of Congress, and in nearly every state. They supplement this >structural power with huge campaign contributions -- more than $8.5 >million in the 1997-1998 electoral cycle, according to the Center for >Responsive politics -- and even bigger lobbying investments -- nearly $50 >million in 1997 alone, according to the Center. To complete the package, >the industry invests in a variety of hawkish policy institutes and front >groups, all of which churn reports, issue alerts, factsheets, >congressional testimony and op-eds on the critical need for more, and >more, and more defense spending. > >Combined with the powerful lobby from the Pentagon and its chicken-little >worries about shortcomings in U.S. military "readiness" and the ability of >the United States to fight two major wars simultaneously, the defense >contractors have successfully positioned themselves to reap the benefits >of a new explosion in military spending. > >As William Hartung of the World Policy Institute notes in a new report, >"Military Industrial Complex Revisited," nothing indicates the power of >the contractor lobby more than its ability to extract more money from >Congress for weapons purchases than the Pentagon itself has requested. > >Hartung highlights the example of the C-130 transport plane, which is made >by Lockheed Martin just outside of the congressional district of former >Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. In the last 20 years, the U.S. Air >Force has asked for five C-130s, but Congress has funded 256. "This ratio >of 50 planes purchased for every one requested by the Pentagon may well be >a record in the annals of pork barrel politics," Hartung writes. The >C-130s go for about $75 million a piece. > >Even more remarkable, perhaps, is the "Star Wars" program. With the >collapse of the Soviet Union, the program's original mission no longer >exists. Although the Pentagon has poured $55 billion into the program in >a decade and a half, as Hartung notes, it has been a miserable failure in >technical terms. Undeterred, the Congressional leadership added an extra >$1 billion in Star Wars funding in the 1999 federal budget. Chalk up >another victory for Lockheed and Boeing. > >But nothing compares to bonanza that the defense sector is about to reap. >Without even the bogeyman of a perceived Soviet threat and in a time of >rigid adherence to budget austerity, the weapons makers and their allies >are about to usher in a new era of military profligacy and industrial >waste. > >With the U.S. infrastructure crumbling, its Medicare system imperiled, >child poverty at unconscionable levels in a time of unparalleled economic >expansion and global warming threatening the well-being of the entire >planet, a remotely sensible version of "national security" would >prioritize these concerns over maintaining the military budget at current >levels, let alone increasing it. > >Unfortunately, the lobbies for public works, the sick and aged, the poor >and the environment cannot match the influence of the weapons makers. >Their urgings that the federal government invest to address real problems >that trouble the entire society, or at least large segments of it, are >dismissed as "unreasonable." > >In Washington, where things are upside down, it is the madmen in the >Pentagon and at Lockheed Martin who are considered reasonable. > >Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime >Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based >Multinational Monitor. > >(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman > >Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber >and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends or >repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column on >a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first contact us >([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]). > >Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve >[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to corp-focus, send an e-mail >message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following all in one line: > >subscribe corp-focus <your name> (no period). >Focus on the Corporation columns are posted on the Multinational Monitor >web site <www.essential.org/monitor>. > >Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like to >comment on the columns, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
