Is the Military Industrial Complex the biggest Welfare Queen in the USA?

Murky

Deity
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
7,216
Location
The Milky Way Galaxy
Take this story for instance. We buy a lot of big toys and ship them abroad where they end up sitting in a warehouse.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013...npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130808

Spoiler :
Every year, the U.S. Congress appropriates more than $1 billion in military aid to Egypt. But that money never gets to Egypt. It goes to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then to a trust fund at the Treasury and, finally, out to U.S. military contractors that make the tanks and fighter jets that ultimately get sent to Egypt.

The U.S. started sending M1A1 Abrams tanks to Egypt in the late '80s. In all, the U.S. sent more than 1,000 tanks to Egypt since then — valued at some $3.9 billion — which Egypt maintains along with several thousand Soviet-era tanks.

"There's no conceivable scenario in which they'd need all those tanks short of an alien invasion," Shana Marshall of the Institute of Middle East Studies at George Washington University, told me.

A thousand tanks would be helpful for large land battles, but not for the threats facing Egypt today, such as terrorism and border security in the Sinai Peninsula, according to Robert Springborg, an expert on the Egyptian military at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. In fact, he said, at least 200 of the tanks the U.S. has sent to Egypt have never been used.

"They are crated up and then they sit in deep storage, and that's where they remain," he told me.

The story with F-16 fighter jets is similar. Since 1980, we've sent Egypt 221 fighter jets, valued at $8 billion. "Our American military advisers in Cairo have for many years been advising against further acquisitions of F-16s," Springborg said. Egypt already has more F-16s than it needs, he said.

I asked the State Department why the U.S. is giving Egypt weapons against the advice of its own military personnel. (The State Department, along with Congress, gives final approval on the weapons we send to Egypt.) Regarding those unused tanks, an official told me via email, it's not usual for a country to "maintain a portion of its equipment in reserve in the event of security contingencies." The U.S. decides which weapons to send to countries like Egypt "in consultation with our partners' own determination of their strategic and force structure requirements," the email added.

I met with a high-ranking official in the Egyptian military who confirmed that the Egyptian military does request those tanks and fighter jets because it believes they're crucial for Egypt's security. And, he said, "the U.S. wouldn't have given us weapons they didn't want us to have."

The U.S. wants Egypt to have them in part because of people like Bruce Baron, president of Baron Industries, a small business in Oxford, Mich. "The aid that we give to Egypt is coming back to the U.S. and keeping 30 of my people working," Baron told me. Specifically, he said, 30 of his 57 employees are working on parts for the M1A1 Abrams tanks that we give to Egypt.

Every March for the past few years, Baron says, he and other small-business owners have gone to Capitol Hill at the invitation of General Dynamics, a big contractor. They visit their congressmen and "let them know of our support for these programs and also the impact that these programs have on employment," he says.

Former Republican congressman Jim Kolbe often received visits from military contractors like Baron. Before he retired in 2007, Kolbe was the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that approves the military aid we give to Egypt. But when I talked to Kolbe recently, he said that "legitimate questions need to be asked of the Egyptian military."

"What is the objective of of the military these days? What do you see as the real threat?" he said.

In a perfect world, he said, the U.S. wouldn't be sending more F-16s and M1A1s to Egypt. "I think the Egyptian military needs to be doing more hard thinking about some of those things," Kolbe said. "Big toys are things that generals and military people like to have around."

But, Kolbe said, the State Department doesn't want to upset the status quo, the Defense Department doesn't want to upset a valuable ally in the region, and, of course, defense contractors want to keep their contracts.


So basically, the people who make military equipment have lobbyist to keep the money flowing to them. So in a sense they are our true welfare queens.
 
Wasn't Eisenhower one of the first (significant political figures) to warn against the militaro-industrial complex?

I heard talk of him the other day.
 
Oh they are definitely the queens of handouts. Even the rare times the military itself doesnt want something like tanks, they still have their bought and paid for flunkies spend money for more anyways.
 
That's in the nature of budgets though isn't it? If they didn't spend up to the allowance, it would be cut in subsequent years. No?
 
The military was required to make cuts though, but rather than spend it on services and avoiding cutbacks they are forced to turn around and buy equipment they dont even want.
 
That's in the nature of budgets though isn't it? If they didn't spend up to the allowance, it would be cut in subsequent years. No?

No, because they could just reallocate to infrastructure projects instead.

It used to be that there had to be a definite need for something before the government would pay for it. Now if that need is someone's contract, who pads the campaign coffers, and pays for lobbying it gets doled out to them automatically.
 
So basically, the people who make military equipment have lobbyist to keep the money flowing to them.
Naturally.
The thing with military equipment is that governments are to a large extend the only customers.
To try to convince customers to buy a product is the most basic foundation of any business. Naturally including the arms industry.
Though what can make lobbying by the arms industry particular effective is that they not only come with the generic jobs-argument, they also come with the special argument that there needs to be a flow of finance to guarantee that there is a well-functioning national arms industry.
 
Naturally.
The thing with military equipment is that governments are to a large extend the only customers.
To try to convince customers to buy a product is the most basic foundation of any business. Naturally including the arms industry.
Though what can make lobbying by the arms industry particular effective is that they not only come with the generic jobs-argument, they also come with the special argument that there needs to be a flow of finance to guarantee that there is a well-functioning national arms industry.

I'm not against funding military related research projects. They should work on building better toys not mass producing toys that nobody needs or wants.
 
Eh all these arms companies have their fingers in other things, its not like if you stop building Abrams tanks General Dynamics will go under and when you need tanks no company will be there to pick up the slack.
 
Jesus, I had to educate everyone in that NPR comments section earlier today too.

1.) There is nothing unusual in crating weapons such as tanks. We here in the US do it all the time as does every major military. In the case of tanks you don't actually need a battalion of tanks to train or keep proficient a tank battalion so when they are not in use you put most in storage until things heat up. This saves time and money in maintenance and procurement costs as well as reduces miles on the equipment. It is far cheaper to run ten tanks into the ground in training when breakdowns are not life threatening and have 90 in perfect condition than spread that wear and tear amongst all 100 as well as increase daily maintenance x10.

2.) we don't give military to Egypt aid for craps and giggles or for any military industrial complex conspiracy theories (the mention of which pretty much broadcasts stupidity in most instances). We do so due to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty of 1979 which is based on the Camp David Accords or 1978. In those negotiations it was recognized that one of the primary reasons for Egyptian fears over Israel that prompted things like the Yom Kippur War was Israel was quickly surpassing Eqypt in all areas of military capability leading to Egypt getting its licks in while it still could. The treaty, brokered by the US, specifically called for the US to provide military aid to keep the Egyptian military at a material and personnel quality enough to make thema credible threat to any offensive Israeli action in order to maintain a balance of power.

So you can whine about how the #2 is no longer needed and should be ended but there is no getting around the factual basis of its existance being a desire to maitain peace and ending it will have a diplomatic consequence in Egypt ESPECIALLY since we don't know what the future relationship will be between Egypt and Israel once things get worked out in Cairo. Most importantly it has NOTHING to do with the military industrial complex as a source and the fact that these companies making a living of the legitimate demand signals of a government requirement want it to continue does not change that.

If you want to whine about #1 you are just ignorant of all things military to the same extent this sloppy sensationalist NPR reporter is, and I get my news pretty much exclusively from NPR before all of you start hyperventilating.

No, because they could just reallocate to infrastructure projects instead.

No, they can't. The military is not given a pot of money to do what they will, it is divided into many separate chunks all legally required to be spent on specific things sometimes down to the exact weapon system.

And why would infrastructure automatically be better anyway?

It used to be that there had to be a definite need for something before the government would pay for it. Now if that need is someone's contract, who pads the campaign coffers, and pays for lobbying it gets doled out to them automatically.

Said nobody with any knowledge on this topic anytime. At no point has military spending been determined by the military themselves. From Jefferson and frigates to DuPont and gun powder to Bethlehem and steel to Lockheed and jets, military procurement has always been meddled with by politicians and the citizenry.

Case in point, you know nothing about the OP circumstances yet are making declarations about what the military should to.
 
Is that more complicated, and cleverer, than it looks?

Explain, please.
 
Goodness me, no!

I was just curious. And wondering if I was missing something.

It doesn't matter in the slightest.
 
Take this story for instance. We buy a lot of big toys and ship them abroad where they end up sitting in a warehouse.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013...npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130808

Spoiler :
Every year, the U.S. Congress appropriates more than $1 billion in military aid to Egypt. But that money never gets to Egypt. It goes to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then to a trust fund at the Treasury and, finally, out to U.S. military contractors that make the tanks and fighter jets that ultimately get sent to Egypt.

The U.S. started sending M1A1 Abrams tanks to Egypt in the late '80s. In all, the U.S. sent more than 1,000 tanks to Egypt since then — valued at some $3.9 billion — which Egypt maintains along with several thousand Soviet-era tanks.

"There's no conceivable scenario in which they'd need all those tanks short of an alien invasion," Shana Marshall of the Institute of Middle East Studies at George Washington University, told me.

A thousand tanks would be helpful for large land battles, but not for the threats facing Egypt today, such as terrorism and border security in the Sinai Peninsula, according to Robert Springborg, an expert on the Egyptian military at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. In fact, he said, at least 200 of the tanks the U.S. has sent to Egypt have never been used.

"They are crated up and then they sit in deep storage, and that's where they remain," he told me.

The story with F-16 fighter jets is similar. Since 1980, we've sent Egypt 221 fighter jets, valued at $8 billion. "Our American military advisers in Cairo have for many years been advising against further acquisitions of F-16s," Springborg said. Egypt already has more F-16s than it needs, he said.

I asked the State Department why the U.S. is giving Egypt weapons against the advice of its own military personnel. (The State Department, along with Congress, gives final approval on the weapons we send to Egypt.) Regarding those unused tanks, an official told me via email, it's not usual for a country to "maintain a portion of its equipment in reserve in the event of security contingencies." The U.S. decides which weapons to send to countries like Egypt "in consultation with our partners' own determination of their strategic and force structure requirements," the email added.

I met with a high-ranking official in the Egyptian military who confirmed that the Egyptian military does request those tanks and fighter jets because it believes they're crucial for Egypt's security. And, he said, "the U.S. wouldn't have given us weapons they didn't want us to have."

The U.S. wants Egypt to have them in part because of people like Bruce Baron, president of Baron Industries, a small business in Oxford, Mich. "The aid that we give to Egypt is coming back to the U.S. and keeping 30 of my people working," Baron told me. Specifically, he said, 30 of his 57 employees are working on parts for the M1A1 Abrams tanks that we give to Egypt.

Every March for the past few years, Baron says, he and other small-business owners have gone to Capitol Hill at the invitation of General Dynamics, a big contractor. They visit their congressmen and "let them know of our support for these programs and also the impact that these programs have on employment," he says.

Former Republican congressman Jim Kolbe often received visits from military contractors like Baron. Before he retired in 2007, Kolbe was the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that approves the military aid we give to Egypt. But when I talked to Kolbe recently, he said that "legitimate questions need to be asked of the Egyptian military."

"What is the objective of of the military these days? What do you see as the real threat?" he said.

In a perfect world, he said, the U.S. wouldn't be sending more F-16s and M1A1s to Egypt. "I think the Egyptian military needs to be doing more hard thinking about some of those things," Kolbe said. "Big toys are things that generals and military people like to have around."

But, Kolbe said, the State Department doesn't want to upset the status quo, the Defense Department doesn't want to upset a valuable ally in the region, and, of course, defense contractors want to keep their contracts.


So basically, the people who make military equipment have lobbyist to keep the money flowing to them. So in a sense they are our true welfare queens.

People on welfare don't work or are productive to receive that welfare. So I think premise here has more than a few holes in it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom