Why Cutting Weapons Programs Won't Be Easy | Harper's Magazine

Sign in to access Harper’s Magazine

Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?

  1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
  2. Select Email/Password Information.
  3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.

Locked out of your account? Get help here.

Subscribers can find additional help here.

Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!

Get Access to Print and Digital for $23.99.
Subscribe for Full Access
Get Access to Print and Digital for $23.99.
[Washington Babylon]

Why Cutting Weapons Programs Won’t Be Easy

Adjust

Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s recent decision to cut big ticket weapons systems (even as he was increasing defense spending by four percent overall) was met with predictable howls of outrage from members of Congress. Those protests, needless to say, have nothing to do with concern about protecting the country– unless you’re dumb enough to believe that the Pentagon can build a workable missile defense system– and everything to do with protecting the defense companies who provide so much money to members of Congress.

Here’s an interesting small-scale example of how the system works, involving Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat, and General Dynamics:

Step 1, April 23, 2008: General Dynamics makes a $4,000 contribution to Wasserman’s personal Leadership PAC, Democrats Win Seats (and it kicks in another $1,500 in early 2009).

Step 2, May 22, 2008: General Dynamics opens a small office in Wasserman’s district.

Step 3, September 20, 2008: General Dynamics makes a $5,000 PAC contribution to Wasserman.

Step 4, Wasserman announces her fiscal year 2010 appropriations requests, which includes $9.7 million for a General Dynamics project at the company’s new Florida office.

Multiply that process 535 times and you get a defense budget.

More from

More