$1 Trillion on Weapons Since 9/11

As the warhawks, and I might add all their war profiteers, wall street, investors, cry crocodile tears about much more needed defense spending, especially as they destroyed any sense of National Security. Which brings to mind how much has been spent on the now needed beefed up security measures that are not even completely up to par according to reports over these years.

While not demanding sacrifice as to the results of these and previous wars of choice, while the tepubs, back in control of the house have already tried cutting the Veterans Administrations underfunded budget.

Well someone did decide to see what we've spent of defense and Mother Jones has the report.

Report: Military Blew $1 Trillion on Weapons Since 9/11

Nov. 2, 2011 - A new study suggests that defense hawks are crying crocodile tears over planned cuts to Pentagon spending.

Capitol Hill conservatives and Pentagon brass fighting cuts to defense spending have argued that the military is limping off the battlefield with decrepit hardware. It's quite the sob story: At a hearing last week, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), the chair of the House armed services committee, cut his remarks short to literally sob for "these young men that are going outside the wire over in Afghanistan, every day on patrol."

But a new report shows the US defense establishment is in much better shape than it claims: The DOD has blown roughly $1 trillion on shiny new tanks, ships, and jets since the 9/11 attacks—and it's often done so with dollars that were supposed to be spent on those troops on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan.{that deserves a highlight especially with the reports in the earlier years, Walter Reed, VA budget and more}

The Stimson Center study, "What We Bought: Defense Procurement From FY01 to FY10" [PDF], says the military is hardly in dire straits when it comes to funding its big-ticket items. "The services capitalized on funding to modernize their forces, especially the major weapons programs that constitute the heart of the services’ capabilities," writes the report's author, Russell Rumbaugh—a retired Army officer and ex-CIA military analyst.

The study shows there's one big reason the brass are concerned about budget-cutting discussions in Congress: They've been double dipping into the taxpayer's pocket to finance weapons purchases. Of the roughly $1 trillion spent on gadgetry since 9/11, 22 percent of it came from "supplemental" war funding—annual outlays that are voted on separately from the regular defense budget. Those bills are primarily intended to keep day-to-day operations running in Iraq and Afghanistan—meaning that if a member of Congress votes against a supplemental spending bill, she exposes herself to charges that she doesn't "support the troops" in harm's way. read more>>>

Just think how that could have helped the economy, especially as to real job creation while the 'job creators', and their congressional minions on our payroll, fight to maintain the 'supply side capitalism' that has so greatly enriched them!!

And I'm still wondering how much we paid countries to join the coalition, especially the ones who sent no soldiers or just a few, for that bush needed support.

With these questions and more, which should have been being asked now for years, and looking at the growth of the deficit, how much of that is not related to what came down after 9/11, the complete opposite of what should have been done!!