The Military Version Of Shared Sacrifice
I have stated that I believe that the Republicans got… using Boner’s figure… 98% of what they wanted and that it didn’t cost them or their Corporate masters a goddamned dime.
I’ve thought about (not for long at a tme though) giving up trying to point out what people like me had to lose on this deal for the administration and the Centrist Democrats to be able to claim their “victory”. It seems to be a pattern among people who believe in the “shared sacrifice” BS being spewed by the DC parasites that, because they somehow “dodged a bullet” and all the “shared sacrifice” is going to occur yet again in the bottom quintile of the population, it’s a “victory”.
A few people have responded by pointing to the fact that we “won” concessions on the defense budget a Republican, sacred cow from Day one. “For once, Defense is going to have to shoulder a share of the burden.”, they say. The only trick now is to make sure it doesn’t eat into the profits of the corporations who can only thrive if we’re off killing people and taking their stuff.
So, when you go to the source, you find that the only bites they’re talking about so far… just as in civilian life… consist of hammering the bottom rung of the military’s food chain, the rank and file and veterans. All they do is politically “legitimize” some of the things that have already happened in regard to our veterans and start applying them to active duty personnel too.
Saw this piece today quoting Admiral Mullen on the Miltary’s version of “shared sacrifice”. Not a lot in it in regard to knocking off unwinnable and inexplicable for profit wars or maybe scaling back, much less eliminating an unneeded trillion dollar weapons system or two… in fact he says we need those more than ever… but a bunch about cutting retirement and veteran’s benefits.
Here’s the military version of “We need to throw old and poor people under the bus so Exxon can make more bucks. Just substitute Boeing or Raytheon for Exxon and remember, Smedley Butler had it right. (Emphasis is mine in all cases.)
The Pentagon’s top officer said Thursday that service members will likely see cuts in pay and benefits as the military plumbs its budget for nearly half a trillion dollars in savings over the next 12 years.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen warned against taking the “relatively easy” choice of cutting hardware while maintaining the increasing costs of paying and providing ongoing health care to troops and retirees.
“Two of the big places the money is, is in pay and benefits,” Mullen told defense reporters at a June 2 breakfast meeting in Washington. “And so when I say all things are on the table, all things are on the table.”
The U.S. doesn’t face the same world it saw after the Vietnam War, Mullen argued, when Congress and the Pentagon slashed defense by nearly 40 percent. The threats to U.S. security are real and growing, so gutting aircraft and ship programs would undercut American defense, he said.
I’m no expert on military affairs of course but I would suggest that the emphasis is as much… if not more… on not undercutting war industry profits than it is defense.
A trillion dollars for 2000 plus F-35s at $112 million a pop… double it’s original estimate… is not going to protect us from the threats we’ve been told we need to turn into quivering blobs of warm Jello over for the past ten years.