SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"The House measure would authorize $621.5 billion for national defense programs, including the Pentagon's base budget and nuclear programs under the Energy Department, as well as another $75 billion in war funding," Politico reported. (Photo: David B. Gleason/Flickr/cc)
House Passes Defense Bill Sure to Make 'War Profiteers Rejoice'
"Every year, Congress authorizes billions of dollars of Pentagon pork at the expense of other security needs and other taxpayer priorities."
Jul 14, 2017
The U.S. House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a $696 billion defense policy bill--the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)--that critics were quick to denounce as yet another vote for "endless wars" and "Pentagon boondoggles."
"As always, only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
--Alex Emmons, The Intercept
"Every year, Congress authorizes billions of dollars of Pentagon pork at the expense of other security needs and other taxpayer priorities," Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement. "While war profiteers rejoice, voters wonder why the government cannot provide for education, job creation, healthcare, and needs in their community."
The legislation, which passed with a vote of 344-81, far surpasses in cost President Donald Trump's request for $603 billion earlier this year.
Politicosummarized the bill's contents:
The House measure would authorize $621.5 billion for national defense programs, including the Pentagon's base budget and nuclear programs under the Energy Department, as well as another $75 billion in war funding.
It also would tap $10 billion from the war-related Overseas Contingency Operations account to pay for base budget items, including $6 billion to boost Navy shipbuilding. The NDAA funding levels mirror a budget blueprint being crafted by the House Budget Committee.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who voted against the measure, said in a statement that "Congressional Republicans have chosen to bankroll bloated Pentagon spending and funnel billions into the Overseas Contingency Operations slush fund, while refusing to address our fundamental obligation to debate our ongoing military operations."
The Intercept's Alex Emmons argued that the exorbitant military spending approved year after year underscores the warped priorities of Congress.
"As always," Emmons wrote, "only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The U.S. House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a $696 billion defense policy bill--the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)--that critics were quick to denounce as yet another vote for "endless wars" and "Pentagon boondoggles."
"As always, only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
--Alex Emmons, The Intercept
"Every year, Congress authorizes billions of dollars of Pentagon pork at the expense of other security needs and other taxpayer priorities," Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement. "While war profiteers rejoice, voters wonder why the government cannot provide for education, job creation, healthcare, and needs in their community."
The legislation, which passed with a vote of 344-81, far surpasses in cost President Donald Trump's request for $603 billion earlier this year.
Politicosummarized the bill's contents:
The House measure would authorize $621.5 billion for national defense programs, including the Pentagon's base budget and nuclear programs under the Energy Department, as well as another $75 billion in war funding.
It also would tap $10 billion from the war-related Overseas Contingency Operations account to pay for base budget items, including $6 billion to boost Navy shipbuilding. The NDAA funding levels mirror a budget blueprint being crafted by the House Budget Committee.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who voted against the measure, said in a statement that "Congressional Republicans have chosen to bankroll bloated Pentagon spending and funnel billions into the Overseas Contingency Operations slush fund, while refusing to address our fundamental obligation to debate our ongoing military operations."
The Intercept's Alex Emmons argued that the exorbitant military spending approved year after year underscores the warped priorities of Congress.
"As always," Emmons wrote, "only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
The U.S. House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a $696 billion defense policy bill--the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)--that critics were quick to denounce as yet another vote for "endless wars" and "Pentagon boondoggles."
"As always, only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
--Alex Emmons, The Intercept
"Every year, Congress authorizes billions of dollars of Pentagon pork at the expense of other security needs and other taxpayer priorities," Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, said in a statement. "While war profiteers rejoice, voters wonder why the government cannot provide for education, job creation, healthcare, and needs in their community."
The legislation, which passed with a vote of 344-81, far surpasses in cost President Donald Trump's request for $603 billion earlier this year.
Politicosummarized the bill's contents:
The House measure would authorize $621.5 billion for national defense programs, including the Pentagon's base budget and nuclear programs under the Energy Department, as well as another $75 billion in war funding.
It also would tap $10 billion from the war-related Overseas Contingency Operations account to pay for base budget items, including $6 billion to boost Navy shipbuilding. The NDAA funding levels mirror a budget blueprint being crafted by the House Budget Committee.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who voted against the measure, said in a statement that "Congressional Republicans have chosen to bankroll bloated Pentagon spending and funnel billions into the Overseas Contingency Operations slush fund, while refusing to address our fundamental obligation to debate our ongoing military operations."
The Intercept's Alex Emmons argued that the exorbitant military spending approved year after year underscores the warped priorities of Congress.
"As always," Emmons wrote, "only spending that benefits the poor is 'unaffordable.' Larger sums are funneled straight into corporate pockets without protest."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.