By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Senate has approved a $901 billion military policy bill, authorizing defense programs and a 3.8% troop pay increase. The legislation represents a compromise between parties, reflecting some of President Trump’s proposals while also addressing congressional concerns. Key provisions include enhanced oversight of the Department of Defense, repeal of outdated war authorizations, and a push to require Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide video of strikes on alleged drug boats near Venezuela. Further, the bill codifies cuts to diversity and climate initiatives while providing military aid to Ukraine and lifting U.S. sanctions on Syria.
Read the original article here
Senate passes $901 billion defense bill… and the numbers themselves are a bit of a gut punch, aren’t they? Almost a trillion dollars, just like that. It’s a sum so enormous, it’s almost impossible to fully comprehend. What really hits home is the stark contrast it presents. We’re consistently told there isn’t enough money for things like universal healthcare or desperately needed infrastructure improvements, yet here’s this colossal sum being greenlit for military spending. That extra billion on top is practically a taunt, a reminder of how skewed our priorities have become.
…that pushes Hegseth for boat strike video… and this is where things get interesting, and frankly, a bit unsettling. The bill includes language that essentially demands the release of a video related to a boat strike, hinting at potential war crimes. The fact that the powers that be need to legislate this at all is odd. Shouldn’t they just be demanding it, regardless? It isn’t his personal property, after all. The situation highlights the peculiar allocation of resources: endless funds for the military, but constant struggles for essential social programs. The penalty for non-compliance? A quarter of his travel budget. It’s almost laughable. It’s like a slap on the wrist when there are likely much more serious things at play.
Republicans and Democrats agreed to language in the defense bill that threatens to withhold a quarter of Hegseth’s travel budget until he provides unedited video of the strikes with the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services, as well as the orders authorizing them.
This feels like a rather feeble attempt to exert pressure. It’s a bit like, “Here’s a trillion dollars, but could you maybe show us the evidence of possible wrongdoing? Please?” It’s not nearly enough, not nearly forceful enough. The core issue remains: infinite money for war, while essential needs at home are perpetually neglected. It’s frustrating to see tax dollars funneled into these areas, while crucial issues like healthcare, education, and social support remain underfunded. How can we spend almost a trillion dollars and yet claim that universal healthcare isn’t feasible? The answer is simple: the current system benefits certain interests, and changing it is a political uphill battle.
Of the 301 billion, 70 billion is set aside for Ukraine and another 103 billion for rearmament of weapons already provided to Ukraine and Israel. This is a very significant portion of the spending.
The budget is down about 20% from 5 years ago, when we were still active in Afghanistan, and yet, there is no real change, just a continuous cycle of spending.
Consider also that every politician already has amazing healthcare – so, free/inexpensive/universal healthcare for the rest of us doesn’t concern them. This is the crux of the issue. Politicians, who already have access to excellent healthcare, are unlikely to prioritize it for everyone else. If our representatives had the same struggles with health insurance that many of their constituents do, would the landscape shift dramatically? Probably. If we were to even begin to consider the problem of privatized insurance, which currently denies care and potentially kills more people every year than cigarettes, gun deaths, vehicle crashes, or opioids ever did. It’s all about greed.
“Got money for wars but can’t feed the poor” –2Pac Shakur. This quote encapsulates the sentiment perfectly. The priorities are glaringly obvious. The military-industrial complex thrives, while essential social programs and the well-being of the population are perpetually squeezed. And the question remains: if we had universal healthcare, how would we pay for such an enormous defense bill? The answer, of course, is that there would need to be a serious reallocation of resources. Cutting the military budget would be a place to start.
The Federal government already spends way more than this on healthcare, and if we reallocated 100% of the defense budget it still wouldn’t cover the gap to get us to universal care using the rosiest cost projections available. This highlights another harsh reality: the financial commitments already in place for healthcare are massive. Even a complete overhaul of defense spending wouldn’t fully bridge the gap to universal healthcare, at least not without significantly altering the current system.
The way forward, if we want to change this reality, is to be realistic. We need to live in the reality of the situation and start thinking beyond the internet and social media echo chambers. It is obvious that the defense budget needs to change, and so does the political landscape. The current strategy of hoping for change from inside the existing framework doesn’t seem to be working.