RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

$296 Billion, 22 Months

by Jim Wallis 03-31-2009

$296 billion is a lot of money. Twenty-two months is a long time. But that’s not the cost of the most recent bailout and 22 months isn’t a prediction of how long our economic crisis will last. $296 billion is the total cost overrun for the Department of Defense’s 96 largest weapon programs and 22 months is the average time these projects are behind schedule, according to a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). $1.6 trillion, the estimated U.S. debt next year, also happens to be the total cost of these 96 weapon programs the report studied in 2008. The $296 billion cost overrun was actually an improvement over the 2007 excess that, adjusted into 2009 dollars, would be $301 billion. The report says that after this small improvement, “the overall performance of weapon system programs is still poor,” that the cost overruns are “staggering,” and that “the problems are pervasive.” One of the primary causes the report identifies for these problems is a lesson that the economic crisis is teaching many people. The report notes as one of four problems that “an imbalance between wants and needs contributes to budget and program instability.” As the budget process gears up and Congress looks at what will be good debt and bad debt – and determines the difference between wants and needs- let’s hope they look at this report and listen to members like Barney Frank who are calling for responsibility and cuts in unnecessary military spending.

Categories: War & Peace
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • This is the best post on this topic i have ever read.
  • Now this is highly recommended post for me. I will surely email this to my friend.
  • justintime
    Like I just said, "You can't have it both ways."

    If it looks like a conservative Republican (I've learned how to spot Republicans just from their body language), acts like one, talks like one and votes like one, it's a Republican conservative.

    Now that the GOP has been thoroughly discredited,
    libertarians will not own up to their failed ideology and their past behavior.
    They think they're in a special category of innocence, immune from all criticism.
  • Nor did you engage my ideas with a credible response other than your rather impolite words for libertarian ideas.

    You are confusing conservatives with libertarians. Libertarians I read do not complain the government didn't regulate well enough, they are complaining there was too much regulation which caused the crisis we're in.
  • justintime
    You're welcome, xfree.
    Reaganomics is a 28 year old movement, driven by libertarian ideology, dedicated to cutting taxes (especially for the wealthy), eliminating existing regulation of the banking and financial industry, dismantling existing trade policy and transforming the global economy into a totally unregulated libertarian paradise.
    The inevitable consequence of this ideologically driven movement is the collapse of the global economy that we are witnessing today.
    Libertarian true believers will never acknowledge their responsibility for the collapse of Reaganomics, claiming that market deregulation didn't go far enough in creating an environment for true "laissez faire' capitalism to flourish.
    Then they blame the government for not intervening in time to prevent this disaster.
    Excuse me but you can't have it both ways.

    If you claim to have read Finkelstein's essay, "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid" I certainly didn't see that.
    Please tell me, how do you respond to his logical arguments?
    Perhaps you could post it on your website and see if any of your readers can help you out with a credible response?

    I stand by my assessment of John Stossel as an "overexposed airhead", his lack of intellectual integrity and the stupidity of his anti Social Security screed.
  • Thanks for your polite review of my website.

    Yes, I've read Hayek and Mises, and I agree with you I doubt Reagan read them (or at the least I doubt he completely understood them).

    What you are witnessing today is the failure of a government to successfully intervene in the market, which is in no way "laissez faire," as you claim.

    I've repeatedly told you that I've read that essay. Why do you keep asking me to read it?

    When you told me you actually read the libertarians, I started to respect you. your disrespectful attack on my blog and on the person of Stossel is immature and simply brings you down to the level at which you claim I am: stupidity.
  • justintime
    You should run for office, Jonabark.
  • justintime
    Here's my number 1 priority political goal:

    MEDIA REFORM:

    To succeed, Democracy needs an informed citizenry.
    We wouldn't be in the mess we're in now if we'd had an informed citizenry.
    Our perennially divided and confused electorate has been following corrupted, incompetent leadership which routinely lies to us over the corrupted corporate media. This is AMERICA DUMBED DOWN!
    And that's us in the eyes of the rest of the planet.

    Reforming the crucially important nervous system of our Democracy is the key to getting America back on our feet and working smart again.

    MEDIA REFORM will take unstinting courage and resolution on the part of our leadership. This is what we should do:

    1. Election campaigns for public responsibility shall be publicly financed -- 100%, exclusively.

    2. Qualified candidates for public office shall be provided with reasonable access to free bandwidth/airtime to communicate their ideas with the public -- based on equal time for competing candidates.

    3. New regulations affecting licenses for the right to broadcast over the publicly owned electromagnetic spectrum will require broadcast networks and major internet portals to restructure their business models around the new regulations.

    4. Campaign contributions from private individuals and corporations shall be strictly banned and violations prosecuted under existing corruption and bribery statutes..

    Media Reform measures shall be based on the principle that money is not free speech. The intent of these new rules and regulations, to be administered by the Federal Communications Commission, is to eliminate the enormous commercial profiteering and corruption of our democratic process.

    ZERO TAX DOLLARS ARE REQUIRED TO FULLY IMPLEMENT MEDIA REFORM!
    It's non-inflationary and bipartisan too.
    GET SMART, AMERICA!
  • justintime
    xfree,

    I visited your website and found it to be chock-a-block full of libertarian propaganda. Frankly, it's a great example of the widely noted libertarian lack of intellectual curiousity.
    The anti Social Security screed by the overexposed airhead John Stossel is factually incorrect in many ways and stupendously stupid in its conclusion.

    Are you aware of the many other Nobel economists besides Friedrich Hayek?
    Have you studied any of them?
    Have you even read Hayek?
    Hayek influenced both Ronald Reagan (but I doubt Reagan ever read Hayek), his Budget Director, David Stockman and of course, Margaret Thatcher, who, shortly after she became leader of the Conservative party,

    “reached into her briefcase and took out a book -- Friedrich von Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty. Interrupting [the speaker], she held the book up for all of us to see. ‘This’, she said sternly, ‘is what we believe’, and banged Hayek down on the table.”

    What we are witnessing today is the collapse of Reaganomics -- supply side, laissez faire capitalism.
    Did you know that Hayek himself warned of the dangers of laissez faire capitalism:

    "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism"

    I suggest you broaden your knowledge of economics before issuing any more dogmatic libertarian pronouncements on the God's Politics blog.
    Also I suggest you read Seth Finkelstein's essay, "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid".
  • jonabark
    Had a feeling there there were some points of agreement. Interesting how much. I would like to see More GP writers outline a list of major political goals so we could see the spectrum of thinking and points of agreement and disagreement. It is confusing when too much is implied or assumed.
  • I'm very pleased to hear you've at least read them. It's impressive, actually. Kudos to you. When I read some of their articles, I get the distinct impression that they believe in principles that are timeless, not just relative to a certain day. After all, Hayek won a Nobel in the 1970s for economics; surely the 70s weren't THAT much different from our economic situation today. I don't think economic landscapes changing means that principles and basics of economics change. Supply and demand is a fundamental of scarcity, no matter what economic system. The business cycle explanation of booms and busts is still accurate (how else could the Austrians have predicted all of the booms and busts since before the Great Depression?).

    Essentially, the Austrian School is committed to the promotion of a society based on non-aggression, and from there its tenets fall. Applied consistently, non-aggression is a very Kingdom-centric notion—I'd say Jesus went further than the Austrians and didn't include self-defense as a legitimate purpose of aggression, as most libertarians do.

    But I digress. Seriously, I am glad you've read them. It certainly makes me appreciate what you have to say, though honestly it's kinda annoying that you post that same link on just about every comment you make. So let me be a hypocrite: visit my website, www.liveloud.net, and interact with me there. It's Disqus-enabled, which is nice for replies.
  • justintime
    It's rather difficult 'interacting' with long dead economists but I have read von Mises, Hayek and the so-called Austrian School. I agree they were great thinkers in their day.
    I certainly don't think they were stupid and I would never call them stupid, as you have insinuated.
    However, the economic landscape is far different now than it was when these 'saints of libertarianism' were at the top of their games.
    If you visit the Ludwig von Mises Institute website: http://mises.org
    you get the impression you've opened a time capsule.
    I agree that blindly following libertarian principles will make you stupid.
    And anyone issuing dogmatic libertarian pronouncements, universally applied to contemporary situations, should be prepared to defend against the arguments presented by Seth Finkelstein in his essay "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid".
    http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
  • I would suggest interacting with some libertarian scholars such as Hayek, von Mises, and other (older) philosophers and economists. They aren't gods, of course, but they are not stupid. To call them stupid is naive because there are great thinkers who have thought much more about these things than you or I have. Blindly following libertarian principles DOES make you stupid.
  • justintime
    I posted this link on another thread for you and nuclearferret:
    http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

    I did this so you might get a sense of how silly, absurd, even stupid libertarian pronouncements appear to those not living in a libertarian fantasy world.

    Did you read it?
  • justintime
    Do you subscribe to the view that taxation is theft by the government?
    Do you like driving on toll roads?
    Most people don't.
    Did you know that the Skyway Concession Company -- owned by Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte S.A. and Macquarie Infrastructure Group (a Spanish/Australian consortium) bought the rights to collect tolls on Chicago's "Skyway" ring road?
    How do you like that?

    government depends on taking a percentage of income or wealth from others to do its own projects.
    Do you understand that WE are the government ?
    Your language shows you don't understand this.
    Do you know the difference between money and wealth?

    Taxation does not create.
    Taken by itself, this statement is meaningless.
  • Eh, what the heck. Here's where we agree:
    2, 4, 5 (not sure about the % but "heavily" would be nice), half of 6, 9 (not sure how you do this, but I'm for accountability), and 10

    My thoughts on the rest would just dovetail into a big argument. Suffice it to say we have more in common than appearances would normally depict.
  • Yes, I do wish military spending would be cut, if you must ask.

    I don't agree with all your ten items, though the results you hope for with them I'm sure we'd agree. It's the methods we'd disagree. Unfortunately some of them require reconfiguring people's hearts and attitudes toward fellow mankind, which cannot be done by legislation, and if attempted to be done by legislation is in danger of violating respect for fellow man. I don't have all the solutions, either, so I wouldn't expect you to have them (though of course we must seek them).
  • letjusticerolldown
    This is the best comment I have read. I don't agree with all. But I really have trouble with the focus and framing of most issues in the public debate. I don't know how to get to good administration of government and exercise of politics without a public able to outline how we want the fundamentals of our society to function--and where the varied levels of government fit into that.

    And I know your comment is simply identifying 'ten things'--not a comprehensive framework for society/politics.

    I appreciated Obama coming in with a set of ideas on issues the government has just been AWOL on. And it is scary watching the incapacity of the media and Congress to lay these things out for consideration.
  • nuclearferret
    Capable of helping its citizens? Yes.

    Creating new projects and new jobs? At the expense of the private sector, sure. Except in cases like toll roads, where user fees are charged for a service provided, however, government depends on taking a percentage of income or wealth from others to do its own projects. Taxation does not create.
  • We're all trapped in some ideology, so in that respect, you are correct. We're both "not free."

    Funny you pointed out my name. It's the make/model of my snow skis from high school... just saw the connection!
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008