Attempts to Use Portions of War Contract Monies for Domestic Needs

"Trickle down economics, ladies and
gentlemen, does not work; it has not 
tricked down, and in fact it has closed 
off to where all of the money stays up 
top, it never trickles down to the 
bottom. We've got to change that." 


- Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson  

On July 7, 2011 Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx spoke in the House on the 14.3 trillion dollar debt and said that an uncertainty in spending is what stops job growth.  She left out the cuts made by her and her Republican constituents to vital projects and programs in America, which translate to slashed paychecks, job loss, hunger, the downsizing of the education system, less innovation, a barely existent middle-class, and less job training for the youth.  A look at the US, at Britain and other countries' experiences with austerity show that cuts to social safety-nets have made economies worse.  She also left out the last thirty-year usurp-up economics.  Yes what you have learned in physics has been reversed.  


On July 7 Democrat Rep. Paul Tonko offered an Amendment to the defense spending budget that would limit the yearly salaries of private contractor executives to no more than 200,000 dollars, no more than the salary of the United States Secretary of Defense.  He pointed out that some contractors make a starting salary, of 700,000 dollars with yearly increases.  Private contract companies that send civilians overseas make additional hundreds of thousands for each individual, 100-percent payed for with tax-payer dollars.  Army Privates make a starting salary of 20,000 dollars, a General who has served for thirty-seven years makes 180,000 and the president makes 400,000.  The Amendment did not pass, in fact it was not voted on after Republican Rep. Bill Young stated the Amendment was an attempt to change existing law.

An Amendment by Democrat Rep. Christopher Murphy asked that noncombat vehicles used in Iraq and Afghanistan be purchased from US companies rather than European and Asian companies.  The Buy American Act says that when buying items for the US military, they should be purchased at home.  There is a loophole to the Act.  When buying items for use outside of the United States, they need not be from the United States.  Since 2003, the DOD reports that they have spent 1.3 billion in purchases of noncombat vehicles from foreign manufacturers and thirty-six billion in other foreign purchases last year. They used approximately 38,000 waivers to the Buy America Act last year and approximately 161,000 waivers in the last four years.  Murphy's Amendment would create jobs in the US.  His Amendment would fix the loophole to the Buy American Act. Rep. Bill Young, again, explained that this Amendment too proposes to change existing law and the Amendment was also not voted on.

Democrat Rep. Jared Polis' Amendment would reduce the number of troops in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000.  Polis noted that they can easily and quickly return to Europe with the quick travel of today and that there isn't a real current threat to Europe that requires their presence.  He explains that re-stationing the troops to United States bases would be ten to twenty-percent less expensive.  This would also close some of the bases in Europe, which are unpopular among many Europeans.  He explains that European countries are some of the richest and they can afford to protect themselves, with their current defense spending at two-percent of their GDP.  Young opposed the Amendment and advised a "no" vote.  

An Amendment offered by Democrat Rep. John Lewis would have required that the DOD post information on their website showing the cost of war to each individual American. He explained that there seems to be a bottomless pit of money and blank checks for war, but for education, the elderly, and money for medicine, there isn't enough. Young stated that Lewis' Amendment proposes to change existing law and a vote wasn't taken.  When the House was then asked if anyone had any comments, Lewis stated that he had made his point and did not have another point to make.  

Half a trillion dollars have been spent over the last ten years in Afghanistan.  Twelve-billion dollars is the amount recently appropriated to Afghanistan's security forces and it's in "borrowed money." Afghanistan's yearly GDP is twelve to fourteen billion dollars, nearly the same amount.  Twelve-billion have been spent on private contractors in Afghanistan since 2005 and 112 billion on private contractors in Iraq since 2005.  Democrat Rep. Hansen Clarke recently had an Amendment to keep 236 million to be used instead for an infrastructure fund to repair roads and bridges, secure ports, and fund rapid transit systems, which would enable the United States to be less dependent on foreign oil.  Republican Rep. Bill Young said that Clarke's Amendment would change existing law and the House was not able to vote on it.

Steve Cohen's Amendment requested that four billion of the twelve-billion eight-hundred million in monies going to the Afghan security forces fund be used to pay for some of the deficit.  The Amendment was also denied by House Republicans and not voted on.