Tag Archives: Pentagon

U.S Taxpayers Funding the Taliban

25 Monday Jul 2011

Posted by in Afghanistan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

“Every day, families are figuring out how stretch their paychecks – struggling to cut what they can’t afford so they can pay for what’s really important.  It’s time for Washington to do the same thing…We need an approach that goes after waste in the budget and gets rid of pet projects that cost billions of dollars.” President Obama’s weakly weekly address.

Speaking of:

“A year-long military-led investigation has concluded that U.S. taxpayer money has been indirectly funneled to the Taliban under a $2.16 billion transportation contract that the United States has funded in part to promote Afghan businesses.

The unreleased investigation provides seemingly definitive evidence that corruption puts U.S. transportation money into enemy hands, a finding consistent with previous inquiries carried out by Congress, other federal agencies and the military. Yet U.S. and Afghan efforts to address the problem have been slow and ineffective, and all eight of the trucking firms involved in the work remain on U.S. payroll. In March, the Pentagon extended the contract for six months.

According to a summary of the investigation results, compiled in May and reviewed by The Washington Post, the military found “documented, credible evidence . . . of involvement in a criminal enterprise or support for the enemy” by four of the eight prime contractors. Investigators also cited cases of profiteering, money laundering and kickbacks to Afghan power brokers, government officials and police officers. Six of the companies were found to have been associated with “fraudulent paperwork and behavior.”

Fraudulent paperwork and behavior? That’s no big deal. Just ask the banksters.

Advertisement

Obama Hearts the “Gang of Six” Plan

20 Wednesday Jul 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, health care, Medicaid, Medicare, Obama, Politics, Social Security, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama was quick to endorse the latest deficit reduction plan, the one from the so-called “Gang of Six” released yesterday, calling it a “very significant step” and “broadly consistent with the approach he has advocated.” This without knowing the details. But the details weren’t really important, because all the major elements are indeed consistent with what the president wants in this deficit reduction shell game.

* Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cuts.
* Further cuts in the top marginal income tax rates. (So much for that pledge to let the Bush tax cuts expire).
* Corporate tax cuts.
* The continuation of Reaganomics and Bushonomics. That would be the supply-side, tax cuts equals increased revenue and economic growth nonsense that we all know works so well.

The broad strokes of the “Gang of Six” plan (and just as an aside I wonder why Sen. Sanders is never included in any of these gangs? Not bi-partisany enough, I assume) are as follows:

An immediate $500 billion “down payment” on deficit reduction. All spending cuts, all from unnamed programs. A brilliant idea in a recession. The other $3.2 trillion in savings would be decided by various committees at some later date, enforced by spending caps. Congress would be required to get a 2/3 vote to exceed those caps. IOW, when the next recession hits, anybody looking for any assistance is SOL. David Dayen at Firedoglake:

“Simply put, this is a recipe for depression. When the economy suffered and stimulus would be required to increase aggregate demand, the 2/3 vote needed would simply put a stop to it. The New Deal would have been out of order under this regime. Same with the Recovery Act. Any spending from the federal government would be restricted as much as it is in the states. So there could only be the status quo or contraction in fiscal policy in the event of a recession, which is a perfect way to create a depression.”

Also in the down payment would be the institution of chained CPI, aka a cut in SS benefits, and repeal of the CLASS Act, which was a part of health care reform that the insurance lobby fought tooth and nail. From the New York Times, December of 2009:

“The Class Act, which the late Sen. Ted Kennedy considered his legacy, would allow people to buy long-term care insurance through payroll deductions and to receive cash if they’re later disabled, regardless of their age or of a previous health condition. “This is the best chance the baby boomers have to protect themselves from impoverishment if they need long-term care,” Mr. [Jim] Firman [president of the National Coalition on Aging] said.”

That is Part One. Part Two calls for an additional $200 billion in “healthcare savings,” aka Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and an $80 billion cut in the defense budget. That’s $80 billion over ten years, pocket change for the Pentagon. Gotta love that shared sacrifice.

In Part Two, the Finance Committee…

“…would be required to reduce tax rates to three tax brackets of rates: of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. The current top marginal rate is 35 percent. The corporate tax rate would be between 23 percent and 29 percent…”

And this little goodie for corporations as well:

“…tax reform would cease taxation of overseas profits.”

The corporate behemoths had been lobbying to get the tax on overseas profits reduced, allegedly under the guise of returning these profits for use in job creation, but that’s not how it worked before:

“Congress and the Bush administration gave companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment.

While the tax break lured 800 companies into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that was used for dividends and stock buybacks, according to the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research. The study concluded the program “did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development.”

Indeed, 60 percent of the benefits went to 15 of the largest U.S. multinational companies — many of which laid off domestic workers, closed plants and shifted even more profits and resources abroad in hopes of cashing in on the next repatriation holiday.”

So let’s just eliminate the tax entirely. Nice.

More on the tax “reform” aspects of this plan:

“Coburn said the plan would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens. He also noted, however, that the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.”

I’m not sure how that works. How is $1 trillion in revenue increases scored as a $1.5 trillion tax cut? But I know for sure how this works, it doesn’t:

“It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.”

And I believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

No “Hostilities” But “Imminent Danger” Pay

23 Thursday Jun 2011

Posted by in Libya, Obama

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

What’s wrong with this picture?

“The White House has officially declared that what’s happening in Libya is not “hostilities.”But at the Pentagon, officials have decided it’s unsafe enough there to give troops extra pay for serving in “imminent danger.”

The Defense Department decided in April to pay an extra $225 a month in “imminent danger pay” to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores.

That means the Pentagon has decided that troops in those places are “subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.”

[…]

Asked Monday whether the White House finding contradicted the Pentagon’s, an Obama spokesman declined to comment.”

Understandable. They’re busy re-defining “imminent” and “danger.”

Bush Taught, Obama Learned

20 Monday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, George W. Bush, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From an editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, May 21, 2006, via Newshoggers:

“[T]he changes that George W. Bush has made to our nation’s constitutional firmament may not depart with the first family’s bags. His disregard for the separation of powers has so dramatically distorted the office of the president that he may have engineered a turning point in American history.

…Bush has taught tomorrow’s leaders that, if there are no consequences for ignoring legal constraints on power and if no one stops you from conducting the nation’s business in secret, you don’t have to be accountable. He is ruling through the tautological doctrine of Richard Nixon, who told interviewer David Frost that as long as the president’s doing it “that means it is not illegal.”

…Holding the executive branch to account for its actions, demanding that it respect the law and insisting that it fully report to Congress on its activities – these are nonnegotiable duties of Congress, because they are key part of our inheritance.

Being answerable to another is humbling. It makes you more careful in your actions. It requires that you consider how you will defend your decisions. George Bush has freed himself of this constitutional imperative and is showing the next president, and the next, how it is done.”

Bush taught, Obama learned, as evidenced by recent events. Like the expansion of the FBI’s investigative powers:

“The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans’ basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.

Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations — not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone — that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama’s Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further.”

Like ignoring the advice of the Attorney General, the Pentagon general counsel, and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel on the president’s convoluted definition of “hostilities”:

“President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

…Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.”

But the Executive’s ability to expand power and ignore existing law becomes easier with idiots like Lindsey Graham ready, willing, and able to lend a helping hand with statements such as this:

“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that Congress should not interfere with U.S. operations in Libya. “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qadhafi,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Pull out that copy of the Constitution that I’m sure is in your coat pocket, Sen. Graham. See what it says about Congress’ responsibilities and duties relating to the declaration and funding of war. I don’t think “shut up” is among them.

A Milestone in Colossal Stupidity

27 Saturday Nov 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Obama, Obama administration, Pentagon, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Proving Santayana right, today marks a milestone in the Afghanistan quagmire. A milestone in colossal stupidity:

“On Saturday Nov. 27, the United States and its allies will reach a grim milestone: they will have been in Afghanistan a day longer than the Soviet Union had been when it completed its 1989 withdrawal.”

And the end is not in sight:

“Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell last week made clear that the 2014 date for an end to combat operations agreed by NATO was an “aspirational” deadline. And an Afghanistan progress report by the Pentagon to the U.S. Congress released Tuesday made clear that despite the Obama Administration’s “surge” of some 30,000 extra American soldiers into the war zone, progress has been modest and the insurgency continues to expand.”

2014? What happened to July 2011?

“…it appears as if President Obama isn’t prepared to cut his losses in the war and order a sharp drawdown of troops next July, when, at least according to his stated policy, US forces will begin to leave Afghanistan. Worse, it looks like the much anticipated December 2010 presidential review of war policy is being reduced to a rubber-stamp approval of General David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency scheme.

…Obama is increasingly in harmony with Petraeus. The president and the general are “meshing well, advisers say,” they reported, adding that the president strikes a “deferential tone” toward Petraeus even though Petraeus “has made clear that he opposes a rapid pullout of troops from Afghanistan beginning next July.”

A “deferential tone?” Who’s in charge here? That would be a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious.

“When asked by a reporter about the US “exit strategy” for Afghanistan, the senior defense official took issue with the term. “We don’t have an exit strategy. We have a transition strategy. The US commitment to Afghanistan is continuing, enduring, and long-lasting.”

A “transition” that, according to the former number two U.N. diplomat in Afghanistan, Peter Galbraith, could take 100 years:

“We’re talking about something that will take 100 years, generations,” says Galbraith, “You can equip them. You can provide some training, but you can’t make them honest. You can’t make them literate. You can’t make them committed to the notions of policing that we have in the West,” he says.”

Once again, we’ve been here before. Apparently the lesson was unlearned. More on the Pentagon’s report to Congress, with the appropriate editing inserted:

“The Pentagon’s semiannual report to Congress on the war in Vietnam Afghanistan paints a picture of a country where corruption remains rampant, violence has increased, and a well-funded Vietcong Taliban insurgency continues to make troubling gains.

The report, “Progress Toward Security and Stability in Vietnam Afghanistan,” which was released this week, actually cites little in the way of progress in the war, a major US undertaking that is rapidly losing popular support among Americans and threatens to become a political burden on President Johnson Obama.”

The song remains the same, only the names have changed.

Taliban Hired for Security at U.S. Bases in Afghanistan

08 Friday Oct 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Congress, Pentagon, war on terror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

On the day that marked the beginning of the 10th year of the Afghani-Nam cluster(bleep) the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Carl Levin (D-MI), released the results of an investigation which found that private security forces hired by the Pentagon to protect our military bases there include Taliban warlords and people with ties to Iran.

“Afghan private security forces with ties to the Taliban, criminal networks and Iranian intelligence have been hired to guard American military bases in Afghanistan, exposing United States soldiers to surprise attack and confounding the fight against insurgents, according to a Senate investigation.

The Pentagon’s oversight of the Afghan guards is virtually nonexistent, allowing local security deals among American military commanders, Western contracting companies and Afghan warlords who are closely connected to the violent insurgency, according to the report by investigators on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[…]

There are more than 26,000 private security employees in Afghanistan, and 90 percent of them are working under United States government contracts or subcontracts. Almost all are tied to the militias of local warlords and other powerful Afghan figures outside the control of the American military or the Afghan government, the report found.”

But as usual, Congress loves to have investigations and release reports followed by nothing. Especially true when the findings involve the Pentagon, which is apparently a government unto itself, with an unlimited budget and unrestrained power.

“Levin did not indicate that he would seek any legislative fixes. The panel’s investigation likely will inform two Pentagon task forces that are looking into the problems.”

Letting the fox “look into problems” at the henhouse is always a good idea.

“Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, earlier this month issued guidance on the use of contractors “that made it clear that all corrective actions, including terminating contracts and suspending and disbarring contractors, will be on the table,” Levin said.

Levin said that commanders in Afghanistan, with Petraeus in the lead, are committed to change the “status quo” of private security contracts in Afghanistan.”

I take it General Petraeus and Sen. Levin aren’t aware that the State Department recently awarded a 5-year, $10 billion contract to eight private companies for security in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the infamous Blackwater under another name.

But always looking on the bright side, Republicans on the committee “faulted the report for failure to acknowledge the positive impact of providing employment to Afghans.”

If only they were that interested in providing employment to Americans.

“Levin said…that his panel’s report underscores the need to “shut off the spigot” of U.S. money going into the “pockets of warlords.”

I know of one sure-fire way to “shut off the spigot,” Sen. Levin. Get the hell out of there. Now.

Senate Turns Down Extension of Unemployment Benefits

17 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Republicrats in the Senate gave a big middle finger to the long-term unemployed yesterday, as 12 Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting down the extension of unemployment benefits, citing their hypocritical concerns about increasing the deficit as the reason:

“I’ve said all along that we have to be able to pay for what we’re spending,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who voted against the bill. “$77 billion or more of this is not paid for and that translates into deficit spending and adding to the debt, and the American people are right: We’ve got to stop doing that.”

Funny, Sen. Nelson didn’t have any problem with deficit spending when he voted for $165 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008 and 2009.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) also voted again the extension over her concerns that unemployment benefits are so generous that they encourage people to not look for a job:

“We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance,” Feinstein said. “The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don’t want to go back to work at all?”

Right DiFi, the unemployed are getting fat and happy living on benefits that are about one-third of their previous wages. This coming from the ninth richest member of Congress whose assets in 2005 were estimated at $40 million. And oh by the way, whose husband, Richard Blum, just happens to own two defense contractors that benefitted greatly from Sen. Feinstein’s time as chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee.

Feinstein was echoing what Congressman John Linder (R-GA) said last week:

“Georgia Republican Rep. John Linder suggested Thursday that extended unemployment benefits keep people from looking for work…”[N]early two years of unemployment benefits are too much of an allure for some,” said Linder.”

OK, Rep. Linder, let’s apply your logic to the Pentagon. Since you also voted for the $165 billion in funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t that “too much of an allure” for the continuation of both wars? Let’s cut off their funding and end their addiction.

Last but not least, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) turned up the stoopid yesterday with his proposal that the unemployed undergo drug tests in order to receive benefits. Right, Orrin. The 46% of the unemployed who have been out of work for more than 6 months, the highest number since the Labor Department started keeping that statistic in 1948, would rather sit around the house, get high and watch the tube than go to work. Idiot.

I propose that members of Congress undergo drug testing. Or maybe more appropriately, brain scans.

Convenient Timing of “Newly Discovered” Mineral Assets in Afghanistan

14 Monday Jun 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Speaking of Afghanistan, with nothing but bad news coming out of there lately, I find the timing of the announcement of these “previously unknown” and “newly discovered” mineral deposits just a little too convenient. Mostly because they are neither previously unknown nor newly discovered. Sounds to me like a good excuse reason for us to stay indefinitely.

“The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

[…]

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries.”

But later in the article it says that in 2004 American geologists “stumbled upon” some old charts and data that had been compiled by Soviet mining experts during their occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980’s.

“Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.

The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.

The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.

But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments.”

So why release it now? Something’s rotten in Kabul—and at the Pentagon. For instance:

“The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.”

Since when did the Pentagon get into the mineral development business? I smell another round of no-bid contracts in the near future. Does Halliburton do mining?

Where Are the Deficit Hawks on Pentagon Spending?

25 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, budget, economy, Iraq, Pentagon, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Think of what the reaction of the self-anointed deficit hawks in Washington would be to this headline in relation to any government spending not affiliated with the Pentagon:

“Cost of (insert name of program here) Will Be Double the Original Estimates”

Members of Congress would be stampeding to find a microphone and rail against wasteful government spending. The Tea Party movement would take to the streets in protest. Radio and TV talkers would be ranting about “stealing money from our children and grandchildren.” So why no outcry over this:

“Since 2001, when an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was expected to cost an already hefty $50 million, the plane’s cost has soared into the stratosphere…The estimated cost today is $113 million per plane.  Yes, that’s per plane….It’s also 2 ½ years behind schedule.  Keep in mind that the Marines, the Air Force, and the Navy are planning to buy a combined 2,450 of them for what’s now an eye-popping $323 billion.”

That’s assuming there are no more cost overruns. Quite a stretch, to say the least.

“In other words, if all goes well from here (an unlikely possibility), a single future weapons system is now estimated to cost the American taxpayer almost one-third of what the Obama administration’s health-care plan is expected to cost over a decade.”

Where are Sens. Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln? Where are Sen. McConnell, Rep. Boehner and the born-again fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party? Strangely silent. To his albeit limited credit, Sen. McCain offered this scathing rebuke (sarcasm intended) :

“The taxpayers are a little tired of this. I can’t say that I can blame them.”

Strong stuff there, huh?

$600 Million for Police Stations in Afghanistan

25 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, budget, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Deficit? What deficit? When it comes to the Pentagon, the checkbook is always open (emphasis added):

“In an attempt to increase the size of the Afghan police force to 160,000, the United States military intends to invest more than $600 million to build approximately 200 police stations for the Afghan National Police by 2013. This was announced only days after President Obama signed an executive order establishing a new, bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

Paul Giblin, spokesman for the U.S. Corps of Engineers, explained how the stations will be built. “There are five basic designs that are used for police stations, and they’re all pretty similar.” However, at the cost of nearly $3 million a police station, the structures will far surpass any standard set by local neighborhood precincts. In fact, the Afghan police stations will have a barbed wire perimeter with guards posted at each of the four corners. Additionally, reinforced concrete will make up the walls and roofs.”

At an average of $8,000 per person, $600 million could pay the health care costs of 75,000 Americans for one year. Priorities, anyone?