War budget might be permanent 'slush fund'

Politico ^ | March 24, 2015 | Jeremy Herb and Bryan Bender

[C19fan]

The practice of slipping unrelated or pet projects into spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — from new helicopters to fighter aircraft — has long been derided as deceptive and financially irresponsible. But now lawmakers have taken the budget gimmickry to a whole new level — no longer even pretending that billions of dollars in additional war spending would go to fight Islamic State militants and the Taliban.

[C19fan]

What is the saying about nothing more permanent than a temporary gov't program.

[mac_truck]

The government needs the money to make up for all the weapon systems they’ve lost to America’s enemies in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

[C19fan]

We are paying for the 100% boondoggle of the F-35.

[apoliticalone]

I’m a proponent of the war surtax on every individual and business when we have troops in combat. It should be mandatory and required. It needs dedicated to paying down debt and funding our forays and the needs of vets that can often last many decades after the war ends..

It has become too easy for politicians to get us into wars on a credit card, and using a volunteer military. I also support a draft for many of the defense functions (from KP to truck drivers) that are being outsourced to private contractors that much more expensive. . The draft would get youth off the streets and turn them into productive citizens. All Americans need to a dog in the fight.