Friday, January 05, 2018

The Military Industrial Complex Has Grown Since Eisenhower's Day!

*******

What Is The Military Industrial Complex? | MIC 3

MoFreedomFoundation
Published on Aug 11, 2015
*******

NASA, Hypocrisy & the Military Industrial Complex

MsNoWorld Order
Published on Jan 11, 2012
*******
The 5 Cartels That Rule America and the World
Isaac Davis, Staff Writer
December 26, 2017
Americans have been programmed to fight amongst themselves along partisan political lines, always pointing the finger at the other side of the phony left-right paradigm. Divide and conquer is the broad tactic being used to keep people from recognizing, focusing on, and targeting the truly diabolical agents in our world who hold real power over all of us at once.
We are not ruled by Republicans or Democrats, but rather by the not-so-hidden hands of institutions which have consolidated a tremendous amount of power. Our world is deeply colored by these cartels, and they impact every area of our lives, constantly maneuvering to make more and more dependent on them for our needs.
In short, these are the organizations which rule over us. These are the great forces in our world which prevent positive change and ensure that we continually slide downward into tyranny and self-destruction.
1. The International Banking Cartel
The geopolitical financial elite have for centuries been organizing to consolidate the mechanisms of wealth into the hands of a very few. The Rothschilds are the popular face of this cartel, but the banking and financial corruption goes far, far beyond their influence.
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from its profits or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.” — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
Banks are in a unique position of power in our world, and can generate extraordinary profits without actually producing anything. Through the issuance of currency and credit, they can control the amount of money available to the economy and create economic booms and busts, seizing titles to land, homes, businesses, and property. They hold extraordinary influence over government for their role as financiers of everything from public works to war, and enjoy extraordinary pecuniary advantage and privilege.
Combine this with the new influence of supra-national organizations like the Bank of International Settlements and the World Bank, and you realize that the world is on the cusp of falling into the greatest trap of all time.  The banking cartel is the primary source of war, destabilization and military grade destruction in our world today.
2. The Medical Establishment
Human health has been hijacked by the medical establishment which forces people into an extraordinarily expensive program of dependence on insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other health services providers.
Interestingly, the medical industry is also a major cause of premature death for Americans as malpractice, drug overdoses, botched procedures and poor patient care contribute to these statistics. Medical errors alone are the third leading cause of death in the U.S. 
Additionally, the government deliberately serves these corporate interests by limiting and preventing information and access to services and healing modalities which may produce positive results without dependence on hospitals and physicians.
Furthermore, this cartel actually contributes knowingly to human misery by pumping deadly drugs like opioids in our world, scheming to get as many people as addicted as possible in order to cut a greater profit.
3. The Energy Industry
The raping of the planet for fossil fuel energy is something that has been going on for decades, but is finally now beginning to create substantial blowback as environmental destruction is proving to be something that cannot be ignored any longer.
The nuclear industry is perfectly content to continue the pursuit of nuclear power even in the face of catastrophes like Fukushima which demonstrate that nuclear energy simply cannot be contained and is a threat to all life on planet earth.
We are witnessing major growth in the sectors of renewable energy, but the traditional energy industry has a long history of interfering with the release of alternative technologies, even going so far as to actively suppress technologies.
This cartel has shaped our world in dramatic ways, most notably by creating near universal dependence on the automobile as the primary form of transportation, which has shaped both our cities and our mindsets. The never-ending push for oil exploration is killing the most precious environmental resources we have left, but the influence of the energy cartel is so great that it can practically buy entire nations, such as Ecuador, where foreign oil ventures are allowed to press ever further into the Amazon.
4. Agricultural Chemical Producers
The industrial agro chemical giants have completely changed the face of farming on planet earth within the last 75 years or so. Family farms continue to go under at a record-setting pace, and it is clear that the endgame of companies like Monsanto is to own the patents to all food seed, lording over a planet where people are prosecuted for planting food crops.
This is quite startling, and when couple with the fact that seed biodiversity is collapsing around us, it may only be another ten years before this endgame is realized.
In addition to seed, these companies are polluting the world in incredible ways by pressing for the overuse of toxic chemicals like glyphosate and other herbicides which are killing pollinator insects, destroying the soil and causing horrible health problems for people living near farms.
5. The Information Industrial Complex
This institution is the newest in our world, consisting of what is now commonly referred to as ‘Big Data,’ meaning the corporations and government agencies which collect data points on everything in our world and use this information strategically for their interests.
James Corbett of the Corbett Report remarks:
Half a century ago, outgoing President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term “military-industrial complex” to describe the fascistic collusion between the Pentagon and America’s burgeoning armaments industry. But in our day and age we are witnessing the rise of a new collusion, one between the Pentagon and the tech industry that it helped to seed, that is committed to waging a covert war against people the world over. Now, in the 21st century, it is time to give this new threat a name: the information-industrial complex.
Corbett’s recent video explains the rise of this all powerful institution in the following presentation.
Final Thoughts
There are very few, if any, honest politicians or organizations working in earnest to spread the benefit of industry, technology and prosperity in such a way that actually eliminates the great problems humanity faces such as hunger, environmental stewardship, health freedom, and more. These are the cartels which represent the greatest threats to our collective well-being and the prosperity of future generations.
About the Author
Isaac Davis is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com 
and OffgridOutpost.com Survival Tips blog. He is an outspoken advocate of liberty and of a voluntary society. He is an avid reader of history and passionate about becoming self-sufficient to break free of the control matrix. Follow him on Facebook, 
here.
This article (The 5 Cartels that Rule America and the World) was originally created and published by 
Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Isaac Davis and 
WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.
*******
Is the Canadian energy industry approaching a tipping point?
By Ron Wallace
Oct. 2, 2017
Pipe-line construction at Trans Mountain, British Columbia.
Can Canada afford to be unique among energy producing countries and not use, or export for its own benefit, its hydrocarbon resources? Such questions and challenges extend to the very heart of the Canadian national interest.
In announcing the final federal cabinet decision on the Northern Gateway Pipeline project—after years of consultations and hearings and hundreds of millions of dollars expended by the proponent and court rulings that effectively excoriated the federal government’s role in aboriginal consultations—Canada refused to permit a 1,200-kilometre pipeline.
The decision favoured environmentalists’ arguments to protect the westernmost reaches of the Great Bear Rain Forest and make permanent a tanker moratorium along the northern coastline of B.C. It also overruled the science, evaluations and conditions previously set by the joint National Energy Board (NEB)–Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency panel in approving the project.
The decision to reject Northern Gateway sent shock waves through industry and investor boardrooms while the parallel approvals of Enbridge’s Line 3 and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion were, in turn, met with dismay by many environmental activists.
Such a convoluted decision process was the culmination of changes made by the previous Conservative government that gave the cabinet the final decision on major pipeline projects. Under this system created in 2012, the NEB recommends a course of action after its environmental and regulatory process, and the cabinet has full discretion to accept, reject or modify that recommendation. Inevitably, this process has led to the politicization of a quasi-judicial, fully integrated environmental and regulatory process designed to adjudicate the national energy applications. Accordingly, one would be right to question if this history, and the subsequent decisions made by successor cabinets, constitutes balanced decision making that reflects the national interest and provides clear rules for proponents and the public.
Canadian political attentions will now turn to Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion. Current political leaders in BC after the narrowest of election victories have vowed to use “every tool available to stop” the project, starkly in the face of project approvals by the NEB and the Federal Cabinet.
These are not just political or regulatory issues; they extend into material questions of constitutional rights and the rule of law. The latest unique decision by the novice NEB Energy East panel to require a review of upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project may yet lead to a fundamental re-examination of constitutional powers for resource development between provincial and federal governments.
It may also lead to further questions about the NEB’s mandate. In such circumstances, many would consider it unlikely there could be any regulatory certainty or even determinations of the national interest in a house so divided. The regulatory and political certainty required by international investors for major projects has been significantly eroded just when Canada’s energy industry is struggling to maintain its competitiveness in an era of reduced prices and limited exports.
Is it possible for Canada and its energy sector to become greener and more innovative while enduring lower profitability, restrictions to market access, significant capital flight and major project cancellations?
The regulatory authority of the NEB, previously affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been undermined to the extent that a host of jurisdictions, ranging from the federal government down through to municipalities, now presume, if not demand, a final say in Canadian energy development and transportation. The consequential erosion of the pre-eminence of the regulatory powers of the NEB is creating fundamental uncertainty and makes problematic any determinations that reflect the national interest. The federal government’s initial intentions to restore public confidence in the NEB by modernizing the regulator has increasingly been eclipsed by far more pressing concerns of the economy, the national interest and, perhaps, the ability of the Canadian energy sector to survive such disparate, concerted regulatory assaults from so many sectors.
The Supreme Court has been thrust into the mix as a direct result of a federal government that has consistently demurred from issuing clear rules for aboriginal consultation and accommodation. Worse, governments appear content to hide behind the skirts of the NEB when issues related to consultation are concerned.
While the Courts have been forced to balance individual and aboriginal rights in arbitrating contested developments, Ottawa appears unable, or at least unwilling, to address the uncertain regulatory environment that has arrived. Fortunately, the latest ruling by the Supreme Court suggests that it does not equate the constitutional duty to consult with a veto over development—a useful legal clarification, but it perhaps constitutes one in a long series of decisions that may be viewed by some as being too little and far too late.
The real casualties of this regulatory morass are investors, shareholders and Canadians.
Proponents have expended hundreds of millions of dollars in a complex Canadian political, legal and regulatory environment only to find that final decisions are made at the political level behind closed doors using rules and standards previously undisclosed. Such decisions made so late in the regulatory process fundamentally affect how investors view Canada and this directly influences future corporate investment decisions.
Previously, while corporations may have voiced concerns about the length of time of Canada’s regulatory approval processes, many were prepared to invest millions, if not billions, of dollars to complete balanced, fair regulatory processes. The development of the intense fractionation of Canada’s regulatory processes has been paralleled by a staggering flood of capital out of Canada’s resource development sector. Competing claims and demands from numerous levels of government, unresolved aboriginal claims and the outright hostility from well-organized opponents have undermined even the most determined efforts of applicants.
The subsequent collateral damage to Canada includes aboriginal communities who have negotiated benefits agreements in their favour. Can Canada truly afford such a callous disregard of the capital markets and ignore the realities of a highly competitive international natural resource marketplace?
There are other ironies. Proponents are subjected to gruelling regulatory and public examinations of their project proposals. By contrast, the political decisions and policies advanced by the cabinet are not subject to any substantive analysis of their regulatory impacts. Instead, single-issue determinations of policy are unveiled by governments with little or no apparent understanding of the social or economic consequences of the long-term impacts of these policies. The developing attitude appears to be that Canada is prepared to accept virtually any cost or penalty to save the globe. This is a remarkable situation whereby Canadians are increasingly subjected to the global aspirations and ideologies of the elected establishment, which may be far more attuned to the expectations of international agreements than to the immediate interests of its own citizens.
Recall that, historically, the energy sector has ranked first as a contributor to Canada’s overall positive trade balance. The energy industry is estimated annually to contribute $15 billion to government coffers. However, Canada has no choice but to export oil and gas to U.S. buyers at greatly diminished prices, handicapped by a captive-market discount that has been estimated to provide a daily subsidy of $US38 million to U.S. producers who are free to sell or export that same oil at international market prices. These forces explain the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ recent forecasts that Canadian oil and gas capital expenditures will decrease to $44 billion in 2017—half the $81 billion expended in 2014.
These Canadian political and regulatory uncertainties arrive precisely when the U.S., rightly or wrongly, has set out to undertake significant rollbacks to the Obama administration’s legacy, including material changes to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations and the the Clean Power Plan, a withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Canada’s largest single-energy market is increasingly becoming its biggest competitor as it implements measures to diminish federal regulatory authorities and restore sweeping powers to individual states. 
Such aggressive measures are evidence of a controversial determination by the U.S. to reduce regulatory and tax burdens just at a time when Canada appears headed in a significantly different direction. In short, the U.S. political and regulatory environment has swung wildly from the Obama era of heightened regulatory intervention to the Trump era of deregulation. At the same time, Canada has taken a markedly divergent path from the U.S., its largest single market and one that is changing dramatically.
Scott Pruitt, the EPA’s administrator, recently remarked “the regulatory assault [on the mining industry] is over.”
Irrespective of political or environmental views, especially in light of continuing Canadian regulatory commitments, clearly Canada and the U.S. have diverged in their approaches to the regulation of their resource industries—and in their respective competiveness in the global marketplace. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce recently warned that the federal climate change plan combined with regulatory measures for emissions and a minimum carbon price could seriously undermine Canada’s competitiveness.
In response, Catherine McKenna, the minister of environment and climate change, asserts that “the strongest economies of the next century will be those that nurture business transition and attract companies that want to invest in climate-committed jurisdictions.” She adds that she speaks with those “who don’t see this global shift as a competitiveness problem, but rather a cutting-edge responsibility.”
While many Canadians may prove willing to endure the 83 years until the next century to confirm McKenna’s highly ideological, largely unsupported assertions, it is doubtful that the energy industry or its investors will be so patient. Using as an example the massive energy policy interventions in Ontario, the real costs of such unilateral policy and regulatory commitments may increasingly be marked by few tangible environmental gains but be accompanied by material negative economic, financial and social consequences.
China constitutes another example of the global shift in energy policy. China aggressively stepped in to the void created by the U.S.’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and has trumpeted its determination to become a major exporter of solar
panels and wind turbines with accompanying construction initiatives such as the Quaid-e-Azam Solar Park, one of the world’s largest, in Pakistan.
China, with much credulous international environmental acclaim, has been forced to halt the construction of 100 new in-country coal-fired power plants—driven not so much by international concerns for global warming but by national concerns over severely diminished air quality from local smog and pollution. It is less reported that China will be responsible for the construction of almost half of the new international coal generation coming online in the next decade.
The New York Times cites reports of 1,600 coal plants currently under construction or planned in 62 countries. This will result in a 43 per cent expansion in the global coal-fired power base. Developing countries are relentlessly being drawn into a cycle of coal-generation dependency. Chinese firms have plans to construct coal-fired power plants internationally with a capacity of 6,285 megawatts—almost 10 times the 660 megawatts planned within China. The China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China have provided in excess of US$43 billion for overseas coal financing. This investment is paralleled by the National Power Corporation of India’s plans to build 38,000 megawatts of new coal capacity in Bangladesh and India.
Simple mathematics probably provides the best guide to understanding the political rhetoric and international posturing associated with the climate debate. With burgeoning international emissions that effectively defeat even the most stringent Canadian national efforts at emissions control, one could question if Canadians should be subjected to the monumental economic burdens resulting from a plethora of carbon-reduction strategies. The recently announced plans to implement a Canadian national carbon tax and to phase out coal-fired power is estimated to achieve respective 18-megatonne and five-megatonne reductions in emissions by 2030—figures that are dwarfed by the growth in international emissions. In sum, Canadian hydrocarbon production will quickly be filled by other international producers, as will any reductions in Canadian greenhouse gas emissions.
Canadians need to understand comprehensively just what is at stake. Decisions that will determine the future social and economic well-being of the country surely require a balanced, informed debate that builds a coherent national strategy for energy and natural resources. Regrettably, many are increasingly concerned that we eroding the rule of law and political unity within the Canadian federation to a degree that will make objective definitions of the national interest unattainable.
What is certain is that Canadians are faced with the immediate consequence of a significantly altered energy future with a rapidly diminished international investment capital base.
When a federation dissolves into narrow definitions of federal, provincial and local government interests the number of hands in the pot increases the complexity of issues for everyone. Such jurisdictional complexities also expand the amount of time needed to navigate all the interconnected issues through competing jurisdictions that increasingly include First Nations and local governments. The result is a complex, often contradictory and competing web of legislative and regulatory tools whose resolution should not be achieved by continuous references to federal courts. The urgent responsibility for resolving these challenges is with all Canadians, especially its leaders, who may soon be confronted with undesirable economic and social consequences of current actions and decisions.
Ron Wallace is a former scientist and entrepreneur who has served on federal, provincial and territorial energy and environmental regulators and advisory boards. He was written extensively on the environment, national defence and the circumpolar Arctic.
*******

Rothschild Conspiracy explained in 4 min

jean michel Borde
Published on Apr 3, 2016
*******
Disruption in the Energy Industry: 3 Trends to Know
Don't fall behind.
by James Paine, Founder, West Realty Advisors@JamesCPaine
Published: Aug 31, 2017
The way we generate and consume energy changes seemingly by the day.
The electric car was once laughed at and disregarded as a pipe dream. Now, hybrids rule the road and companies are following Tesla's lead. Solar energy 
used to be viewed as too expensive and not worth the hassle, but now you're seen more and more homes and buildings topped with solar panels.
We are in the middle of a grand energy disruption. The way we obtain and use electricity will be completely different in just a few years, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The global public is starting to embrace green energy technology, leading to a shift from traditional norms.
As homes themselves become more digitized, that means an increase in energy needed. These three trends emerging now will shape the future of energy.
Solar is Serious
Do you still think solar power is too expensive? You're in for a surprise.
Solar energy has absolutely plummeted in price and is now a cost-efficient source. The technology has finally caught up, allowing us to capture more of the sun's energy.
Did you know that in 88 minutes, 470 exajoules of energy from the sun reach Earth? That's as much energy as the earth consumes in one year. Additionally, in just 112 hours, the sun provides 36 zettajoules of energy -- that's roughly the same amount of energy contained in our reserves of natural gas, coal and oil around the planet.
The sun should be our greatest natural resource. Price per watt has dropped from $76.67 per watt in 1977 to $0.74 per watt in 2013, and it continues to fall precipitously. Some experts believe that by the solar capacity triples by 2020, solar could be half the cost of coal and natural gas.
It's no secret that solar installations are on the rise. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a new solar installation happened every 84 seconds in Q3 2016. It's time to take solar power seriously.
The Rise of Electric Vehicles
I don't think it's possible to have a discussion about disruption without mentioning the work that Elon Musk is doing with electric car company Tesla.
Much like the major trend in solar, as electric car adoption has risen, the cost of owning one has fallen.
Tesla has become the flagship electric vehicle, leading the industry when it comes to innovation -- and sales. Led by the Tesla Model S, electric car ownership is experiencing a 59 percent year-over-year growth. Additionally, plug-in hybrid sales rose 86 percent YoY.
Tesla's Q4 sales rose 27 percent, but the company narrowly missed its ambitious goal of shipping 80,000 vehicles by the end of 2016.
The facts are clear: the electric car is a realistic option and here to stay. As we look for ways to wean off of fossil fuels, companies such as Tesla, Chevrolet and Nissan are working to make the electric car run longer for cheaper.
Right now, the electric car is primarily an option for city dwellers and not optimal for long road trips, but that is changing. Tesla is leading the industry in developing a battery that can make sense for Middle America.
When that happens, watch the sale of electric vehicles experience a major boom.
The Internet of Things
Our lives are becoming incredibly digitized. According to Pew Research Center, the percentage of people who own energy-sucking smartphones has climbed from 35 percent in 2011 to 68 percent in 2015. I'm sure that number has only increased in 2017.
GlobalWebIndex data shows that digital consumers own an average of 3.6 internet-connected devices. That number is steadily climbing, and will only grow as more households become connected via IoT devices.
These IoT devices such as smart fridges are built with energy efficiency in mind, and consumers are realizing that the up-front costs of smart devices can be balanced with a reduced energy bill. A PwC study shows that 30 percent of consumers polled said lower energy bills are a primary motivator behind purchasing smart home technology.
The global IoT marketplace is expected to grow from 15.4 billion devices in 2015 to 75.44 billion in 2025. The big conclusion: we need energy solutions to power the rise of all these devices.
I expect that the boom of IoT will lead to energy reform, changing the way more people think of energy production and consumption.
*******

Also SeeThis Chart Shows Bilderberg Group's Connection To Everything In The World

*******
These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
Ashley Lutz
Jun. 14, 2012
This infographic created by Jason at Frugal Dad shows that almost all media comes from the same six sources.
That's consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983.
NOTE: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn't own AOL, so Huffington Post isn't affiliated with them.
But the fact that a few companies own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal Dad says. While some big sites, like Digg and Reddit aren't owned by any of the corporations, Time Warner owns news sites read by millions of Americans every year.
Here's the graphic:
media infographic
*******
Donald Trump Goes All In for the Military-Industrial Complex
The president’s address signaled his plans for domestic austerity and military bloat.
By John Nichols
February 28, 2017
Donald Trump used his first Joint Address to the Congress of the United States to engage in an unprecedented flight of fiscal fantasy. Specifically, the president imagined that the United States could cut taxes for wealthy Americans and corporations, rip tens of billions of dollars out of domestic programs (and diplomacy), hand that money over to the military-industrial complex, and somehow remain a functional and genuinely strong nation.
Trump did not articulate this agenda quite so bluntly. His hour-long speech was far more traditional and temperate in character than his ballistic inaugural address. The themes were, for the most part, predictable: “construction of a great wall along our southern border,” “vetting procedures,” “for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated,” “school choice,” “construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines.” The rhetoric was, by the standards of this presidency, disciplined. But the specifics were few. Only toward the end did the president get precise, saying, “I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the Defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.”
Trump was brought little precision to the task of explaining how he would pay for that increase—aside from mentioning the fact that he had “placed a hiring freeze on non-military and non-essential Federal workers.” But his administration has been very clear about its hope that the money will come from deep cuts to domestic programs.
This argument in favor of austerity for working families and munificence for military contractors (the president’s speech actually talked up Lockheed and “the fantastic new F-35 jet fighter”) is not exactly new. It has been a conservative mantra since the Grand Old Party purged itself of the “Modern Republicans” who clung to the vision of former President Dwight Eisenhower and made theirs a party of reaction rather than reason. But even Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush eschewed the budgetary extremism that Trump has embraced with an immediacy and a fervor that arrests any fantasy that a “billionaire populist” president might steer his adopted party back from the brink.
Dwight Eisenhower warned of “a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples.”
The “Budget Blueprint” that Trump took to Congress on Tuesday night did not plot a course to “make America great again.” It tipped the balance against greatness by making what the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, referred to as “the last best hope of earth” into an ever more heavily militarized state that will not care for its own.
This is not an accidental turn.
This is by design. But it is not a grand design; rather, it is an approach that Trump has adopted as he has moved from the capricious politics of his initial candidacy to the reality of a ever more rigidly right-wing presidency.
Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s man at the Office of Management and Budget, said on the eve of the president’s “Budget Blueprint” speech, “The president is doing what he said he’d do when he ran.” But Trump said a lot of things when he was bidding for the presidency in 2016: He made big promises about jobs and infrastructure, delivering more and better health care, protecting Social Security and Medicare. He portrayed himself as a critic of the war in Iraq, a skeptic about new military adventures, and a critic of “the fraud and abuse and everything else” in bloated Department of Defense budgets. “I’m gonna build a military that’s gonna be much stronger than it is right now,” he announced on NBC’s Meet the Press in 2015. “It’s gonna be so strong, nobody’s gonna mess with us,” he promised. “But you know what? We can do it for a lot less.”
That seemed reasonably definitive.
Yes, of course, Trump bounced all over the ideological landscape during the 2016 campaign, and his presidency hasn’t exactly been a model of consistency.
Even with that fact in mind, however, it must have surprised at least a few Trump backers to learn from Mulvaney that bloating up the Pentagon budget was such a high priority of the Trump campaign. “What you see in this budget,” the budget director explained Tuesday, “is exactly what the president ran on. He ran on increasing spending on the military…”
Mulvaney was unsettlingly vague when asked about keeping Trump’s promise to guard against Social Security cuts. But he was clear about the general thrust of the administration’s approach to budgeting.
“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…by the military-industrial complex.” —Eisenhower
“[We] took $54 billion out of non-defense discretionary spending in order to increase defense spending—entirely consistent with what the president said that he would do,” Mulvaney explained. “So what’s the president done? He’s protected the nation, but not added any additional money to the 2018 deficit. This is a winning argument for my friends in the House and a winning argument for a lot of folks all over the country. The president does what he says but doesn’t add to the budget [deficit]. That’s a win.”
Mulvaney is wrong. That’s not a win.
That does not protect America—at least not in the sense that Democratic and Republican presidents have historically understood the preservation of the republic. Budgeting is always a matter of striking balances. And when there is an imbalance, the American experiment is threatened.
Dwight Eisenhower explained this when he appeared barely two months into his presidency before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The speech 
was much anticipated. Eisenhower was the first Republican commander in chief in two decades, and he was still placing his imprint on the Oval Office, the country and a world that was in the grips of a “Cold War.” The new president could have chosen any topic for his first major address to the assembled media luminaries. He chose as his topic the proper balancing of budget priorities.
Eisenhower recognized the threats that existed. He spoke, at length, about difficult relations between the United States and the Soviet Union and he addressed the threat of annihilation posed by the spread of atomic weaponry. But the career military man—the supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe during World War II, the chief of staff of the Army during the postwar era when tensions with Moscow rose—did not come to suggest that increased defense spending was a singular priority. In fact, his purpose was the opposite. He spoke of the “dread road” of constant military escalation and warned about “a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.”
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed,” said Eisenhower, who explained that
This world in arms is not spending money alone.It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Eisenhower did not propose surrender or immediate disarmament. But he did propose diplomacy (“We welcome every honest act of peace”), and the sincere pursuit of a world with fewer weapons and fewer excuses for war making (“This we do know: a world that begins to witness the rebirth of trust among nations can find its way to a peace that is neither partial nor punitive”).
“The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task, and the greatest opportunity, of all,” explained Eisenhower. “It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared total war, not upon any human enemy but upon the brute forces of poverty and need.”
“The monuments to this new kind of war would be these: roads and schools, hospitals and homes, food and health,” the new president concluded. “We are ready, in short, to dedicate our strength to serving the needs, rather than the fears, of the world.”
These are different times. The world has changed, and so has the United States. But what has changed the most is the understanding that providing for the common defense does not preclude the promotion of the general welfare.
Conservatives like to say “there is no free lunch,” and that is true enough when it comes to budgeting. It is not possible to move tens of billions of dollars out of domestic programs that have already in many cases been squeezed to austerity levels and into a military budget so vast, the National Priorities Project reports, that “U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined.”
On a planet where Americans account for 4.34 percent of the population, US military spending accounts for 37 percent of the global total. And Trump—with Mulvaney’s assistance—appears to be determined to move the latter percentage upward.
That is a problematic imbalance in itself. But what makes it even more problematic is Mulvaney’s signal that, under Trump, the imbalance will be maintained not by collecting new revenues but by redistributing money that could have been spent on health care and housing and education at home—and on the international diplomacy and foreign aid that might actually reduce the need for military expenditures. “While Trump claims he’s serious about great negotiation, his plan to pillage funds from the State Department and foreign aid to feed the insatiable Pentagon budget says otherwise,” notes Peace Action Executive Director Jon Rainwater. Instead of putting Americans first,  Trump “plans to line the arms industry’s pockets by cutting programs like health care that provide real security to American families says otherwise.”
This is the realization of the worst fears that Eisenhower addressed, not just in his 1953 “Cross of Iron” speech but in the final address of his presidency, which warned that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”
“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes,” said the 34th president. “We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

John Nichols is The Nation’s national-affairs correspondent. He is the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.
*******