$51,000 Trash Cans: Senate Votes To Throw $886 Billion At Defense; How Much Money Is Wasted?

By Mish Shedlock of MishTalk

By an 88-11 margin, the Senate votes to spend $886 billion on defense spending. The details show much graft that both parties seem happy with.

A proposal this week to modestly cut the already needlessly high and wasteful Pentagon budget failed miserably says Responsible Statecraft in its take Senate Bails Out the Weapons Industry Once Again.

Press coverage of yesterday’s passage of the Senate version of the annual Pentagon spending bill, known formally as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), has mostly focused on the looming battle over “culture war” provisions included in the House version of the bill, including measures that would constrain the Pentagon’s ability to promote diversity, fight racism in the ranks, and promote reproductive freedom and LGBTQ rights.

Meanwhile, neither chamber did much to question the Pentagon’s soaring budget, which could reach $1 trillion over the next few years if current trends continue. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would have cut the Pentagon budget by 10 percent failed by a vote of 88 to 11, suggesting that the vast majority of members are perfectly happy throwing $886 billion at the Pentagon and the Department of Energy (for nuclear weapons work), with few questions asked and few strings attached.

There are endless examples of contractors overcharging the Pentagon and fleecing the taxpayer. Sen. Warren mentioned just a few in this week’s hearing: paying $1,500 for a medical device that could be purchased at Walmart for $192; giving Boeing $70 for a pin that was worth four cents; and paying $1,800 for vaccines that normally cost $125. And as 60 Minutes noted after interviewing former Pentagon procurement official Shay Assad, “[t]he Pentagon, he told us, overpays for almost everything – for radar and missiles … helicopters … planes … submarines… down to the nuts and bolts.”

The Pentagon’s $52,000 Trash Can

Please consider The Pentagon’s $52,000 Trash Can

Until 2010, Boeing charged an average of $300 for a trash container used in the E-3 Sentry, a surveillance and radar plane based on the 707 civilian airliner. When the 707 fell out of use in the United States, the trash can was no longer a “commercial” item, meaning that Boeing was not obligated to keep its price at previous levels, according to a weapons industry source who spoke to RS.

In 2020, the Pentagon paid Boeing over $200,000 for four of the trash cans, translating to roughly $51,606 per unit. In a 2021 contract, the company charged $36,640 each for 11 trash containers, resulting in a total cost of more than $400,000. The apparent overcharge cost taxpayers an extra $600,000 between the two contracts.

In another case, Lockheed Martin hiked the price of an electrical conduit for the P-3 plane as much as 14 fold, costing the Pentagon an additional $133,000 between 2008 and 2015. 

Jamaica Bearings — a company that distributes parts manufactured by other firms — sold the Department of Defense 13 radio filters that had once cost $350 each for nearly $49,000 per unit in 2022. The apparent markup cost taxpayers more than $600,000 in extra fees.

The investigation also revealed that Raytheon Technologies had raised the price of Stinger missiles from $25,000 to more than $400,000 per unit. “Even accounting for inflation and some improvements, that’s a seven-fold increase,” Shay Assad, a former Pentagon acquisitions official, told 60 Minutes.

About half of the Biden administration’s $842 billion Pentagon budget request goes to contractors. In 2022, roughly 30 percent of military spending went to the “big five” weapons makers, which include Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman.

Pentagon Price Gouging

Senator Warren harps about price gouging frequently and most of it is nonsense. When it comes to defense spending she is correct for a change.

Please play the following video by Responsible Statecraft. It’s a real eye opener.

More Than the Next 10 Nations Combined

The Peter G. Peterson foundation puts a spotlight on defense spending in US Spends More on Defense Than the Next 10 Nations Combined

Defense spending accounts for a sizable portion of the federal budget and the United States vastly outspends other nations. In determining the appropriate level of such spending in the future, it will be important to evaluate whether it is being used effectively and how it fits in with other national priorities.

Support From All Corners

Mind-Boggling Reasons

Noah Smith: “Human extinction is going to require an increase in defense spending.”

OK, that’s a sarcastic comment. But how the hell are we supposed to pay for this?

Deficit? Did You Say Deficit?

Please note Republicans Push for More Military Spending in Debt Deal as They Decry Deficit

Republican lawmakers who oppose the debt-ceiling bill argue it doesn’t do enough to cut spending or reduce the deficit. Yet when defense is concerned, many argue the government ought to be spending more, not less.

Under the deal passed by the House on Wednesday evening and sent to the Senate, defense spending would get the 3.3% increase the president proposed for the coming year — even as other programs are cut. Defense hawks are pushing for an even bigger boost, and Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed an amendment to the bill that would increase defense spending to keep up with inflation.

“When I hear Republican leaders say this budget deal fully funds defense, I laugh,” the South Carolina Republican told reporters Wednesday.

The administration’s $886.3 billion national security budget request for fiscal 2024 provides the biggest-ever defense spending increase and also one of the largest peacetime budgets when adjusted for inflation. The US would be spending more on defense than the next 10 nations combined.

The Permanent Push for More Military Spending

Please consider The Permanent Push for More Military Spending Includes Submarines, Missiles, and Now Icebreakers.

Allegedly we have gaps on Icebreakers, Submarines, Artificial Intelligence, Rapid Defense Experimentation, Science and Technology, Nuclear Submarines, NATO, China, Missiles, and
Space.

Republicans defend this as a jobs creation mechanism.

I would rather spend money building infrastructure than fighting wars and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars stationing troops all across the globe.

But there is no choice. Democrats want Bidenomics and free money for social spending, and Republicans do not give a damn about wasting massive amounts of money on defense.

The inevitable consequence is the worst of both worlds, and in this case by an 88-11 vote.

By a 100-0 margin, they are all hypocrites on something.