$70 billion a year seemed like a lot of money when all it would pay for was college education (Fox News Insider, 2/6/16).
Where did all the concern over deficits go? After two years of the media lamenting, worrying and feigning outrage over the cost of Bernie Sanders’ two big-budget items—free college and single-payer healthcare—the same outlets are uniformly silent, days after the largest military budget increase in history.
Monday, the Senate voted to increase military spending by a whopping $81 billion, from $619 billion to $700 billion—an increase of over 13 percent. (The House passed its own $696 billion Pentagon budget in July—Politico, 7/14/17.) The reaction thus far to this unprecedented handout to military contractors and weapons makers has been one big yawn.
No write-ups worrying about the cost increase in the Washington Post or Vox or NPR. No op-eds expressing concern for “deficits” in the New York Times, Boston Globe or US News. No news segments on Fox News or CNN on the “unaffordable” increase in government spending. All the outlets that spent considerable column inches and airtime stressing over Sanders’ social programs are suddenly indifferent to “how we will afford” this latest military giveaway. The US government votes 89–9 to add $81 billion extra to the balance sheet—the equivalent of the government creating three new Justice Departments, four more NASAs, seven Treasury Departments, ten EPAs or 546 National Endowments for the the Arts—and there’s zero discussion as to “how we will pay for it.”
With the cost of just one weapons system–the F35 fighter–you could pay all state college tuition for 21 years. (photo: US Air Force/Madelyn Brown)
As FAIR has noted for decades (e.g., 2/23/11, 5/8/16), the media’s deficit discourse has always been a PR scam. A rhetorical bludgeon used to cry poverty any time a left-wing politician wants to help the poor or people of color that somehow is never an issue when it comes to pumping out F-22s and E3 AWACS, which evidently pay for themselves with magic.
The increase alone in military spending—over a budget that was already bigger than the next eight countries combined—is greater than the total amount spent annually on state university tuition by every student in the United States: $81 billion vs. $70 billion. This is to say that if the budget for the US military had just stayed the same for 2018, the US could have paid the tuition for every public college student this year, with $11 billion left over for board and books.
Where, one is compelled to ask, are those who dismissed Sanders’ free college plan (a mere $47 billion a year, because it only covered two-thirds the costs) as “unaffordable”? Where is Kevin James of US News who did so (3/27/15)? Vicki Alger of the Washington Examiner (2/8/16)? Where is Abby Jackson of Business Insider (6/20/16) or AEI’s Andrew Kelly hand-wringing in the New York Times (1/20/16) and NPR (1/17/16)? Where are David H. Feldman and Robert B. Archibald in the Washington Post (4/22/16)?
A question that didn’t need to be asked when it came to the largest military hike in history (CNN, 1/14/16).
Where are the “detailed” Urban Institute or Brookings Institution studies showing a massive sticker-shock tax hike will be needed to pay for the Pentagon budget increase—the kind of studies that CNN can mindlessly repeat when they bring on DOD-boosters John McCain or Jack Reed?
Where are the Charles Lanes, Joe Scarboroughs, Wall Street Journal editorial boards and other “deficit hawks” in the media to condemn this? The answer is they’re nowhere. And they’re nowhere because no one in the media really cares about deficits, they only care about Deficits™, a clever marketing term used by those charged with keeping government money out of the hands of the poor—and in the coffers of weapons makers, banks and other wealthy interest groups.
Can anyone explain why Elizabeth Warren voted for this? Or why Schumer voted for it but Gillbrand didn’t? I can’t wrap my head around what’s going on here.
I know Warren got some stuff included for MA based military investments. https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1719
But beyond that, isn’t it important that progressives fight to reduce the defense budget in order to free up money for like, healthcare/education/regulatory expansion etc? Or is the size of the deficit completely irrelevant?
I understand Bernie’s hesitation in calling out these Dems about this since it will likely generate another “Bernie is dividing democrats because he’s not a democrat” narrative. But why is absolutely no one compelling people like Warren to make a statement on this? I’m confused and kind of scared sorry if this is dumb
Good question!! Why did any Democrat vote for this bloated bill?? Especially anyone who calls herself a Progressive. I wonder if Massachusetts stands to gain a lot from this bill? #Bernie2020
Because Warren’s a corporate Democrat. Like Cory Booker. Like Kamala Harris. Warren built a career on opposition to Wall Street. Then, in the 2016 election cycle, endorsed everything she built her career on.
Great question – with enough pressure I’m sure she would eventually have to explain her reasoning. With no pressure she (and her 88 of 99 colleagues in the Senate) will not have to explain anything to anyone. Talk to people you know, call her office, write something, do something.
Tremendous article ! Deserves wider circulation. I have posted a link to it on Daily Kos.
Bernie’s Medicare for All would reduce the deficit. So the claim is bullshit.
I am sorry for our country! But if I were a young adult, I would leave it for greener pastures. This is no place to spend a life or raise a family.
Excellent post about an critically important topic. It’s a sad day (year, century…) when news of such importance is noted only by media watchdogs who are commenting about what wasn’t reported by the actual media.
They really don’t care about deficits but instead what the spending is for….they are basically whores for the corporate military industrial complex which their media companies benefit from and as far as Sanders free tuition, it was ONLY for public schools if the student had the academic merit and it WAS paid for by a minute tax on Wall Street speculation which ironically is responsible for the 2008 financial crash where these fraudsters benefitted from the crash thanks to OUR public tax dollars…..as Chris hedges says, we live in an inverted totalitarian country with a rigged economic system….when I hear political whores ask where do we get the money for anything, I say from the same place you found it for two unnecessary wars of choice that cost us American lives and trillions, huge tax cuts for the wealthiest during those wars and the windfall big pharma and big oil loopholes and drug bill…..it’s a matter of priorities and this country has them ass backwards for sure
Everytime the Pentagon Budget needs a Blowjob or Lockheed`s Share Price needs a Jerkoff they bring out Trump to Threaten North Korea. In “Pulp Fiction” it was “Bring out the Gimp”. In Washington it`s “Bring Out the Trump”. Bring out the Gimp, Bring out the Trump.
Egg-fucking -zackly AJ !! I’ve been hearing this phony ‘budget deficit CONCERN’ (to be spoken in oh-so reverent tones) from the right-wing conservatives ever since I started following politics in the early 1960’s, and I know that it was already a ploy back then. It’s SO refreshing to read someone once again who’s revealing the ’emperor has no clothes’ and he’s sitting next to the 800 lb gorilla. Keep up the good work!