At $34 billion, you're already counting pretty high. After all, that's Harvard's endowment; it's the amount of damage the triple hurricanes -- Charley, Ivan, and Jeanne -- inflicted in 2004; it's what car crashes involving 15-to-17-year-old teenage drivers mean yearly in "medical expenses, lost work, property damage, quality of life loss and other related costs"; it's the loans the nation's largest, crippled, home lender, Countrywide Financial, holds for home-equity lines of credit and second liens; it's Citigroup's recent write-off, mainly for subprime exposure; it's what New Jersey's tourism industry is worth -- and, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, it's the minimal figure for the Pentagon's "black budget" for fiscal year 2009 -- money for, among other things, "classified weapons purchases and development," money for which the Pentagon will remain unaccountable because almost no Americans will have any way of knowing what it's being spent for.

Now, imagine that, due to a little more Pentagon/Bush administration wizardry, even this black budget estimate is undoubtedly a low-ball figure. One reason is simple enough: The proposed $541 billion Pentagon 2009 budget doesn't even include money for actual wars. George W. Bush's wars are all paid for by "supplemental" bills like the $162 billion one Congress will soon pass -- so the Department of Defense's $34 billion black budget skips "war-related funding." This means that even the overall figure for that budget remains darker than we might imagine (as in "black hole"). The Pentagon not only produces stealth planes, it is, in budgetary terms, a stealth operation. If honestly accounted, the actual Pentagon yearly budget, including all the "military-related" funds salted away elsewhere, is probably now more than $1 trillion a year.

There is, however, another stealth side to the Pentagon--the corporate side where a range of giant companies you've never heard of are gobbling up our tax dollars at phenomenal rates. Nick Turse, author of the single best account of how our lives are being militarized, our civilian economy Pentagonized, and the Pentagon privatized--I'm talking about The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives--just offered us all a glimpse into the stealth corporate side of the Pentagon, the ever larger black hole into which our tax dollars pour. He did a portrait of five companies--he calls them "billion-dollar babies"--that take in more than a billion dollars yearly from the Pentagon, but whose bland names will be utterly unfamiliar to all but the most inside of insiders. What, after all, do you know about MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. (Total DoD dollars in 2007: $3,360,739,032) or DRS Technologies, Inc. (Total DoD dollars in 2007: $1,791,321,140)?

He concludes: "When the history of the Iraq War is finally written, chances are that these five billion-dollar babies, and most of the other defense contractors involved in making the U.S. occupation possible, will be left out. Until we begin coming to grips with the role of such corporations in creating the material basis for an imperial foreign policy, we'll never be able to grasp fully how the Pentagon works and why we so regularly make war in, and carry out occupations of, distant lands."

Comments (16)

1. "Trimmed at the edges" or "slowing of the growth", Mr Engelhardt...

   even under Obama, that's the best you're going to get.

   (A) because Dems are still gun-shy enough of "weak on defense" to avoid any big cuts in the defense budget.

   and (B) because a lot of those Dems have defense contractors in their states or districts and with the economy tanking THOSE are the only secure jobs their constituents can count on.

   "trimmed at the edges" or "slowing of the growth"....just console yourself with that bit.

   Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 08:51am

2. Tom,

   But not spending billions if not trillions of dollars on the pentagon and NSA means we're turning our backs on our soldiers!!!

   Just thought I'd pull out the old Republican scare response any time anyone utters reducing defense spending.

   Imagine how much different the U.S. would be if we funneled about half that money towards infrastructure and education.

   Nope, it's more important that we establish the international oil corporations in Iraq (Shell, BP, Exxon) versus spending our tax money on programs that might help get Americans to work and get us off our dependency of foreign oil such as a national public mass transit system.

   Our leaders have tunnel vision. In the corporate world I believe the term to use is this... "They don't think outside the box."

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2008 @ 10:36am

3. The writer, Robert Towne, has said that his idea for the movie, Chinatown, was a place where the cops do essentially nothing since they cannot penetrate the complex culture and difficult language of the place, and any actions of the police are as likely to aid criminals as to assist the innocent.

   It's an entirely apt metaphor for the culture of Washington DC today, I think.

   In the latest issue of Newsweek is a Periscope piece that suggests that John McCain's clanging cymbal stand against the Boeing tanker rip-off was actually an effort to assist EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co.) in its attempt to secure the $35 billion dollar deal.

   Excerpt:

   The assumption within the Pentagon, the official added, was that McCain's letters were drafted by EADS lobbyists. "There was no one else that would have had that level of detail," the official said.

   McCain said last week his "paramount concern" was "that the Air Force buy the most capable aerial refueling tankers at the most reasonable cost." But some defense analysts say the controversy over the Air Force rebid--and the higher costs that will result--have taken some of the shine off McCain's efforts. "This shows how a sort of naive crusade for good government can actually backfire," said Loren Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank.

   www.newsweek.com/id/142658

   Or as Robert Towne put it, "Chinatown is a metaphor for the impossibility of good intentions."

   The matrix of misinformation that American political society has morphed into has become increasingly inscrutable, if not impenetrable. It's difficult to discern how good government can emerge from such a morass, or how to fix it.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/26/2008 @ 11:15am

4. I agree in large part, my friend. But, no disrespect intended, but they most definitely do NOT have tunnel vision, they are just PAID (handsomely!) not to see - the majority of our so-called "leaders" are bought and paid for by the hypercorps! The few that are not are not in their pockets enough to compensate. There is no way that the average working Joe is going to get a fair shake, and the republic is dying as a result. They view the Constitution as a liability and restraint and do all in their power to avoid, change, or out and out remove those restraints. Result: the American working people get the shaft and the big fat cats get the dough and the power. Chimpy & Co are the worst ever, but McCain and Obama are greater and lesser of two new evils, witness how Obama is already changing his positions to match that of the hypercorps, all the politicos are eating from the same trough. Do you folks REALLY think the cost of gas is bothering those guys? Not a chance. That don't give a damn about the people, its just lip service. Anyway, talk is cheap. We need ACTION, people!!We need to throw ALL the rascals out and stop the hypercorps fascists before it is too late. I am NOT voting for the lesser of two evils this time. I am an ex-Demo and was going to vote for Paul, but since he has pulled out I will likely vote for Nader. Whoever wins, Obama or McCain, greater or lesser evil, matters not to me - at least my conscience will be clear. It in the eyes of some this will be a cop-out, but I have been around too long and voted with good hopes only to watch defeats and outright election stealing go down. This time I vote my conscience. God save the Republic!

   Posted by ucnick at 06/26/2008 @ 11:17am

5. "We need ACTION, people!!We need to throw ALL the rascals out and stop the hypercorps fascists before it is too late. I am NOT voting for the lesser of two evils this time. I am an ex-Demo and was going to vote for Paul, but since he has pulled out I will likely vote for Nader."---Posted by ucnick at 06/26/2008 @ 11:17am

   That kind of "action"...gets you the last eight years under Bush. Period.

   Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 11:47am

6. God save the Republic, I'm throwing my vote away.

   Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 1:02pm

7. they most definitely do NOT have tunnel vision, they are just PAID (handsomely!) not to see - the majority of our so-called "leaders" are bought and paid for by the hypercorps!

   Posted by ucnick at 06/26/2008 @ 11:17am

   Couldn't agree more with you on that.

   One can only hope that Obama isn't completely under the fingernails of the "DC Establishment", but you may very well be right. One thing is a given though, and that is that McIdiot certainly is.

   I don't know if voting for Obama will produce change or not. Obama is starting to act and talk just like his counterpart.

   I think you are correct in your statement that nobody in D.C. gives a damn about the average person working for a living. The ony time they even pay lip service to us is election time, and then they lie out their asses, make false promises and put on quite a show. The little freakshow they provide for us at election time is a far cry from a real democracy.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:06pm

8. Nader is definitely the republicans best friend. Emile is right, voting for Nader may be washing the stench of D.C. off your hands, but in essence, it's a vote for McIdiot.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/26/2008 @ 1:08pm

9. I propose a new way for the public to better define where tax dollars go to. When I file my taxes electronically, I want a website that allows me to "place" my tax dollars into particular categories.

   Those categories can be very general, with options to get very granular. In that way the "unconcerned" citizen could continue to allow their tax dollars to be spent willy-nilly by the elected officials; or someone with a much stronger activist mind-set could get really specific on what their tax dollars are spent on.

   Let's say, for example, I could select the following categories: <Infrastructure <Federal Transportation System <Bridges <all the way down to "I want my funding to go to the new bridge here in my local city". Or I want my Infrastructure part of my taxes to go to the unfortunate people in the mid-west with all of the flooding.

   I can, using this category method, specifically refuse to send any of my tax dollars to any particular organization/category; as well as specifically send my tax dollars to particular categories.

   Like the military funding, etc. What would happen if 74% of Americans, or the current percentage that now opposes the war, using this method, refused to allow their tax dollars to be spent on the Iraq and other wars?

   I know this is Congress's job, but this would change Congress's job. Let's say there is a 3 or 4 year lag time. If I do not put my money into a specific category, then Congress, or the President, or the local congressman or my US Senator would have to moderate a public discussion asking me (we) to change my (our) funding decisions - and then their elections/re-elections would really really really be on the line.

   Congress would have some way of "overturning" the will of the collective tax payers, but at their own peril.

   So Say We All!

   Posted by odysseus14 at 06/26/2008 @ 2:01pm

10. odysseus14

    a nice sentiment, no more.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 2:22pm

11. Nader is definitely the republicans best friend. Emile is right, voting for Nader may be washing the stench of D.C. off your hands, but in essence, it's a vote for McIdiot.

    Posted by Wolfgang1

    Sorry Wolf, but you've fallen for the standard propaganda --and a logical fallacy.

    Ralph Nader's run did not single handedly cost Al Gore the 2000 election. In fact, Nader's role was akin to the bench player who enters a championship game in the waning moments and promptly turns the ball over or misses a last second shot. To the crowd it's obvious that he just blew the game, but a more sophisticated --and accurate-- assessment is that an uninspired Al Gore, the incompetent media, the poorly informed voters, the derelict supreme court, the Republican machine in Florida etc......take your pick, were far more culpable for the election debacle in 2000.

    In a classic reductio ad absurdum, the closer an election the more an individual voter can be blamed for the result. For example, if the results of an election were 4 million to 4 million minus one, we could justifiably pick any voter at random (on either side of the equation depending on our view) and excoriate or otherwise abuse them for their horrifying lack of mental acuity, or patriotism, or bullheadedness, or vanity, or you name it.

    Ralph Nader is the chosen scapegoat for what is in actuality a problem that exceeds him by multiple orders of magnitude.

    Whatever one's opinions are of Ralph Nader personally, by his very presence and message he is performing an invaluable service to a "democracy" that is in disrepair.

    We can pile all the abuse that we would like on Ralph Nader, but we'll still have only accomplished the mauling of the messenger and not the meeting of the challenge.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/26/2008 @ 2:22pm

12. Ha, emile, let's talk about implementing this "nice sentiment" and see the firestorm of controversy that would erupt.

    People taking back their power?

    Posted by odysseus14 at 06/26/2008 @ 2:45pm

13. Shoulda listened to Ike. Too late now.

    Posted by masussman at 06/26/2008 @ 3:20pm

14. Shoulda listened to Ike. Too late now.

    Posted by masussman

    Ike didn't practice what he preached.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 3:37pm

15. Re voting for Nader: Believe me, I'm sorry that it has come down to this - that I need to vote for the lesser evil to avoid the greater. I have been accused from friends on both sides of throwing away my vote, but for me it has come down to matter of principle, not convenience, and if I were to follow their path it would only continue to support the sham process that is in place. In order to make a change one must eventually take a stand, whether in politics or life. In order to give a third party a realistic shot at the next election (assuming there is one - who knows? Hopefully there will be!) the third (or fourth or whatever) party must be able to make a good enough showing this time to attract people next time. Until the third choice has a chance to compete with the entrenched fascists the stand must be maintained. Unfortunately this process may be extremely painful, but it must be done. If more people had voted their conscience in the past rather than voting for what they perceived as the lesser if two evils, and had instead given alternative parties a realistic chance, the situation would not be what it is today (stolen elections notwithstanding). Dang I'm too verbose sorry about that folks...

    Posted by ucnick at 06/26/2008 @ 3:39pm

16. Lincoln warned about it too...

    Posted by ucnick at 06/26/2008 @ 4:01pm