Nation “Too Broke” for Universal Healthcare to Spend $406 Billion More on F-35
Nation “Too Broke” for Universal Healthcare to Spend $406 Billion More on F-35
(Photo: Forsvarsdepartementet/flickr/cc)
The nation’s most expensive weapons program isn’t done showing U.S. taxpayers how much it will ultimately cost them, with Bloomberg reporting Monday that the F-35 fighter jet budget is now predicted to jump by a cool $27 billion.
“Think about [F-35’s] $405 billion price tag when a family member dies of a preventable disease. Get angry.”
Though the estimated future cost of the program had previously hovered at a mind-boggling $379 billion, an updated draft that could be submitted to Congress as early as today will reportedly exceed $406 billion—a nearly 7 percent increase.
The new cost increases may come as a hit to President Donald Trump, who has bragged about his ability to get weapons manufacturers to offer the Pentagon “better deals.”
Let’s see. Back in the ’80s, when I was current in this kind of thing, Ronald Reagan and company spent something like a trillion dollars (at most — in today’s money) buying 2250 F-16s, 750 F-15s (high/low mix), 700 F-14s, 400 FA-18s, 700 A-10s (anti-tank).
I was all for modernization (e.g., M1 tank); we can afford anything we need. The Russians had an unbelievable 180 armored divisions (50,000 tanks they could man; not sitting in a mothball yard!), 10 airborne divisions, something like 10,000 fighters (maybe 20,000; don’t remember for sure), hundreds (300?) of (mostly conventional) submarines. Needed 11 time zones just to stack all this stuff.
Russian army divisions then divided into first, second and third category. First, 75% active, ready to one week; second, 50%, ready in month; third, 25%, ready three months. Units of 90 tank divisions active!
Now the Russkies are planning to buy 2,400 of their latest super tank. Whew; almost go scared.
My question: who are we supposed to fight with trillions of dollars (I’ve heard four trillion) worth of new fighter planes. Are the Martians going to attack?!
When you spend money on military weapons, it goes to big corporations and their leaders who, in tern, support you.
When you spend money on the people, it only helps the people. They may or not support you.
Guess who politicians choose?
That is one reason why elections should be publically financed and corporate money banned.
At my last look a year ago, 2015 US annual defense spending was equal to the SUM of defense spending by the other 12 top defense spending nations on the globe.
It was $596.5 billion ($0.6Trillion)
It was (in order of top defense spending nations):
(US Spending / Foreign Nation Spending)
4.1x China
7.3x Saudi Arabia
9.1x Russia
10.6x UK
12.4x India
12.8x France
12.6x Japan
16.3x Germany
17.8x South Korea
24.6x Brazil
26.2x Australia <== US = Cumulative Sum through Austrailia
27.7x Italy
28.3x Iraq
32.1x Israel
Source: https://en.wikipedia_org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
The US annual defense spending was equal to 2.0x the SUM of spending by China, Saudi Arabia, & Russia combined. It was 2.8x (that's nearly 3x!!!) the sum of China and Russia combined.
According to SIPRI:
2016 (in billion constant 2015 Dollars)
Rank ..$……..US/Forgn…US/Cum
1……611.2…………………………………..USA
2……215.2…..2.8…………2.84…………China, P.R.
3……69.2…….8.8…………2.15…………Russian Federation
4……63.7…….9.6…………1.76…………Saudi Arabia
5……55.9…..10.9…………1.51…………India
6……55.7…..11.0…………1.33…………France
7……48.3…..12.7…………1.20…………UK
8……46.1…..13.3………….1.10……….Japan
9……41.1…..14.9………… 1.03……….Germany
10….36.8…,,16.6……….. 0.97……….Korea, South
11….27.9…..21.9………… 0.93……….Italy
12….24.6…..24.8………… 0.89……….Australia
13….23.7…..25.8………….0.86……….Brazil
14….18.0…..34.0………….0.84……….Israel
15….15.2…..40.3………….0.82……….Canada
16….14.9…..41.0………….0.81……….Spain
17….14.8…..41.3………….0.79……….Turkey
18….12.7…..48.2………….0.78……….Iran
Source: https://sipri.org/databases/milex
According to SIPRI the US spent 2.15x China + Russia combined in 2016. And our "arch enemy" or the Saudi's, Iran, spends 2% of the U.S. and 20% of Saudi Arabia.
The Donald is likely presuming to get the MIC corruption at wholesale rates given the way his administration appears to be organized.
Why pay retail?
Ike warned about this as he handed the keys to JFK.
LT,
While I am certainly against the level of our defense spending, I think it makes sense to look at China’s spending in terms of purchasing power. No question their expenses for manpower, pensions and healthcare are far, far below ours.
Not to mention:
“For example, the average price of a Big Mac in America in July 2017 was $5.30; in China it was only $2.92 at market exchange rates. So the “raw” Big Mac index says that the yuan was undervalued by 45% at that time. ”
http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index
EMike,
Considering how winning the US and House of Saud have been using common equipment and tactics, the US is in deep trouble vis a vis China and Russia.
You found the basics, the pentagon trough is no place to go to compare effective spending.
The Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) don’t tolerate things like F-35 or star wars or Ford class carriers……. An engineering house acting like Lockheed or Boeing would have been bankrupted twenty years ago by PLA buyers. The managers treated like treasonous criminals.
Putin does the same!
BTW
The roughly $190B a year for dept of veteran affairs and the $30B odd a year in DoE for nuclear weapons design maintenance and refit are not counted in pentagon spending you see in headlines, while money for the adventures in supporting al Qaeda in Syria are budgeted outside the “baseline/core” $500B (2012 USD) odd a year the pentagon squanders since the raises from 9/11.
Emichael,
The defense military numbers are estimates, and as ilsm pointed out the US doesn’t count a huge additional amount that is in fact defense spending.
Regards China’s spending and purchasing power … there are other military comparison sites, valid ones, that show military power in terms of active duty, reserves, number of ships of varying types, aircraft and general types (fighters, bombers, cargo), amphibious vehicles, trucks (necessary for logistics), tanks, mobile armaments, etc.
I don’t have those links readily handy but come across them whenever I do and nation to nation comparisons of military spending and strength.
China has an overwhelming military manpower advantage, but is terribly outmatched by military equipment of all kinds. Their manpower advantage is applicable on home turf, but almost nowhere else…. their troop transport is basically only good for home turf and neighboring turf but of almost no value in international terms for timely use.
In other words the US would by stymied on invading China and would almost certainly grossly fail by even a cursory attempt, much less an all-out one. But other than that home turf “defense” power China is not a formidable military foe, even in terms of ICBM’s.
Another thing to keep in mind, as I do in some of my analysis, is to recognize that allied forces combined spending and military capability is much greater than any combined set of allied forces in opposition to US western powers if a real threat materializes. .. e.g. Russia, China. And Iran isn’t even in the “significant military comparison” category. Iran can launch a few missiles to hit ME targets, and even Italy, Turkey, Greece but they have little in defense so are terribly vulnerable if they attack anybody in fact.
The bottom line is that US defense spending has little to do with defense at all in any scenario, and everything to with tax payers supplying defense contractors profits and employment in that industry. .. which are a powerful lobby.
When the Revolution comes– and it has only taken 6 months of Trump and GOP control of all branches of government to get me thinking about revolutions– the military/ industrial complex should be the first to the guillotine
Terry, I agree.
LT,
They have more than enough to dominate where they want to dominate. The China Sea being their main area. Not that they are a threat to us, but the countries in the South China Sea are in big trouble. Militarily and in economic terms.
On the other hand, Ilsm is insane. To pay any attention to him is to waste your time, despite the fact that one or two things he says are true.
Did you know that the Clintons have killed 65 people by his count?
I didn’t.
Still don’t.
emike:
:<)
Emichael,
Regards Ilsm…. normally I don’t (pay his info any mind) but in this case he’s right … US defense spending doesn’t include many actual defense costs. This isn’t nor has it been a secret… it’s just a matter of what is “counted” in defense. Of course the same is true of China’s “military spending” so it’s a relative wash.