Veto veto veto! The Cromnibus sucks in so many ways. To say there are some good things in it as a way to justify it is the height of silliness. Cuts pensions, Pell Grants, allows more money into elections, but hey, at least the banksters get more freedom!
Will all the cuts in the bill comes the ultimate slap in the face.
Published on
Friday, December 12, 2014
by
Common Dreams
Buried Within Omnibus Bill, a 'Long-Term Blank Check for War Spending'
Analysts warn that "emergency" war spending fund, which was supposed to be temporary, has become permanent fixture that inflates Pentagon's budget
by
Sarah Lazare, staff writer
The bill approves $554 billion overall in Pentagon spending—in keeping with the trajectory of a country that spends more on the military than the next 11 countries combined. As Dave Gilson points out in Mother Jones, this sum means that total Pentagon funding during 2015 is " close to what it got during the height of the Iraq War" and "close to its highest level since World War II."
and
Furthermore, Lindsay Koshgarian points out for National Priorities Project, included within the bill is a "spending spree for defense contractors," which includes $479 million for F-35s and war ships. In addition, the bill green-lights $5 billion for the expanding U.S.-led war in Iraq and Syria,despite the fact that that military operation still has not been approved—or even subject to real debate—in Congress.
How does this square with what needs to be done to offset climate change?
Austerity for us, bonanza for the 1%. That's our President, that's our Party. What a country.
A long-term blank check for “war” spendingCenter for Public Integrity
By Julia Harte 14 hours ago
The U.S. military's budget request now pending on Capitol Hill includes a particularly notable oddity inside the special fund meant to support combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: a new $810 million U.S. defense initiative to "reassure" Europeans of their security in the wake of Vladimir Putin's Crimean land grab.
This is not how America’s war budget – otherwise known as the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund – is supposed to work.The White House in 2011 reaffirmed that the OCO, originally established in 2001 under a different name, was for “temporary and emergency requirements” associated with U.S. combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, many experts say its continued use is emblematic of a five-year collapse in Washington's fiscal discipline.
The OCO budget isn't subject to spending limits that cap the rest of the defense budget for the next seven years; it's often omitted altogether from tallies of how much the military spends each year; and as an "emergency" fund, it's subject to much less scrutiny than other military spending requests.
This sort of special war funding was supposed to decline and then disappear as combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan wound down. But that target has receded, if not disappeared altogether, as the OCO fund has become a larger catchall -- a slush fund used by the military services, by lawmakers, and by the White House to escape budgetary constraints, officials and independent experts say.
This is not how things are supposed to work.
GOTV is not enough . Clearly. What next?