Why can’t we see the headlines promoting the Pentagon’s high price tag?


Yves came to this article and asked a good question, why are the media so cowardly discussing our bloated, overly ambitious, and often underperforming army? But it did not delve into why the media gave the Pentagon a free pass.

One obvious explanation is accessible news.Go past the ghost or the Pentagon and you will come to the end of the line Planted story Pet leaks and contact with insiders Spin ‘Explain what’s going on.

But the second factor is the love for men with medals (almost all of them are still men). There is no conscription, and few Americans have seen with their own eyes the military as terrible as any large organization. People in the private equity industry told me that the senior members of these companies, the masters of the universe by almost any standard, are fascinated by top soldiers and ghosts. They like to stay with them and hire them as speakers, door openers, and board members of portfolio companies.

One proof of the Pentagon’s attention to the US media is the US attack on Biden’s wall after it withdrew from Afghanistan. It is completely fair to criticize the government for poor execution, especially when compared with the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in 1979. But how many subtle criticisms are there? The press published a series of “bad America loses prestige, bad things will be unstable (as if our existence has not destabilized), bad life and wealth loss (sunk cost fallacy)”. “Oh, did we mess up our approach” is mainly an afterthought. Some people want to know whether a bad process is a feature, not an error.

Author: Sonali Kolhatkar, founder, host and executive producer “Rise with Sonali,” TV and radio programs broadcast on Freedom of Speech TV and Pacifica Radio.She is a writer National economy The project of the Independent Media Institute. Depend on. . .Production National economy, A project of the Independent Media Research Institute

The fierce debate on the “Rebuild Better” (BBB) ??legislation has triggered serious Lecture Fiscal conservative views on government spending.The legislation, hung on Political balance Costs between progressive lawmakers and conservative Democrats (such as Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin) 1.75 trillion US dollars The current form is more than 10 years, equivalent to 175 billion U.S. dollars per year.

Compare this with the military budget expenditure proposed by President Joe Biden US$753 billion For fiscal year 2022.according to Security Policy Reform Institute“This is equivalent to an increase of more than $12 billion, which means that Biden has increased the Pentagon’s funding, which is roughly equivalent to the entire annual budget of the CDC.”

Extrapolating this number to more than 10 years, while taking into account the projected annual growth-considering that the military budget will almost never lose annual growth, this is a good assumption-predicting that American taxpayers will gain a firm foothold Nearly 8 trillion U.S. dollars The “defense” part of our budget pie over the next ten years.

Stephen Semler, co-founder Security Policy Reform Institute, Explained to me in an article interview “The hydraulic system of this system is amazing.” He meant, “They cut $25 billion from the BBB Act for home care.” At the same time, he said, “Congress increased Biden’s military budget by $25 billion at almost the same time.”

Although the cost of the new pass Infrastructure Funding Act Biden’s signing into law and the yet-to-be-passed BBB legislation were disgustingly discussed on the front pages of major newspapers and on television networks. These same sources have hardly seen the inflated military budgets, and their scales have increased year after year. Continue to expand throughout the year.

E.g, This Washington Post article The headline in late September was, “Biden, Pelosi start a late fight to save $1 trillion in infrastructure costs”, which is one of many bill-like articles in major outlets throughout the late summer and early fall.

Imagine a title that implicitly slandered the Pentagon’s funds. The size of the military budget is more than four times the size of the BBB legislation. This fact should be reflected in our documents. But we can’t imagine seeing such ideas being discussed in mainstream channels, because military budgets are considered sacrosanct—not only by most lawmakers, but also by corporate media.

Semler pointed out that “there are two expenditure concepts-social expenditure and military expenditure-by two separate sets of expenditure rules.”

After the nation is concerned about the cost of legislation that directly benefits the American people, it is unpleasant to assume that the military budget is many times the cost of social expenditure—but only for those who follow it very closely or read it independently.

An example of fair reporting is by Huffington Post writer Akbar Shahid Ahmed article, The title part reads: “The cost of the Pentagon’s budget is four times that of Biden’s Social Policy Act.”

Another example is Prakashnanda’s article Published in a non-U.S. media called the Eurasia Times with the headline: “Joe Biden’s $778B defense budget went unnoticed, but his $170B social agenda sparked a huge debate.”

No such headline appeared in major US news media.

This is not to say that there is zero debate across the country on our spending priorities.If corporate media like The Washington Post draw inspiration from progressive lawmakers like Bernie Sanders, they might report on the Vermont senator’s recent tweet Point out how, “When our country’s military spending continues to exceed the sum of the next 12 countries, we are told over and over again that we cannot invest in meeting the needs of the working class people. This is simply absurd at home. .”

But on the contrary, the Washington Post and other media continue to enlarge The wishes and demands of conservative Democrats such as Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) story Rear story No follow-up Manchin is willing to spend trillions of dollars on the Pentagon. An article pointed out the hypocrisy of fiscal conservatives and their full approval of military spending will actually be written. Efforts need to be made to avoid expressing such narratives.

Even some American residents have seen the absurdity of keeping silent about the military budget.Alice C. McCain, who lives in Washington State, wrote an article letter A local newspaper called Kitsap Sun questioned the size of the military budget. She could see a clear contrast of priorities, writing: “Some people who condemned the BBB plan for being too expensive were eager to pass a bill that would provide the Pentagon with $778 billion a year, or nearly $8 trillion in ten years.”

She asked sharply: “Why is it so difficult to spend money on our country and people, but so easy to send money to our army?” Her question is one that the media has wisely avoided for years.

Organizations and think tanks such as Government monitoring projects, National priority projectsAnd Semler’s Institute for Security Policy Reform routinely proposes the Pentagon’s unreasonable large budget and provides rich statistical comparisons. These comparisons seem to be insufficient for the main media to emphasize in a serious way.

In the final analysis, the media seems to be as invested in imperialist ambitions as politicians.Semler pointed out, “The fear of Biden’s appointment lies in him and [former President Donald] On the eve of the general election, Trump decides who is tougher and more’manly’ towards China, which will affect Biden’s policy. “

This fear is justified.In June of this year, Biden signed a Executive order Cited “the threat posed by the military-industrial complex of the People’s Republic of China” and continued to advocate Anti-Chinese sentiment At the same time it is proposed to increase the military budget. The Washington Post and other corporate media dutifully support the logic of increasing the Pentagon’s budget Alarmist story Regarding China’s expanding nuclear arsenal.

“Social spending can follow the same rules as military spending, because there is always enough money,” Semler said. “But because Congress just chooses to spend a certain amount [on social spending]In fact, military spending is being stolen from social spending. “Imagine seeing a headline in our main media that reflects such a radical but obvious point of view.





Source link