Where does your tax money go?

[Disclaimer]

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home/tradeoffs

That particular link gives you the trade offs of costs between the war in Iraq and what else all that money could've bought. Can be organized by city, state, or congressional district.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxchart2008

Put in YOUR personal income tax expense, and it'll tell you how much of it was spent on what for tax year 2007.

The entire http://www.nationalpriorities.org/ site is pretty interesting to explore. The best part is... it doesn't appear to be partisan, just giving the facts.

[Disclaimer]

It goes to $400/gallon gas in Afghanistan...$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan

http://jalopnik.com/5383242/us-military-pays-400-a-gallon-for-fuel-in-afghanistan

Think last summer's $4 a gallon prices at the pump were painful? Imagine being the US Military, which pays around $400 a gallon in Afghanistan according to the Pentagon comptroller's office in a report to the House Appropriations Defense panel.

The report from the Pentagon comptroller was requested as a part of Obama administration's reconsideration of Afghanistan strategy. The price comes as a result of an investigation into why it costs approximately $1 billion a day to send every 1,000 troops into Afghanistan.

Now, there's a lot baked into that $400 a gallon price. Consider that in addition to the basic extraction and refinement costs of normal military fuel, priced at $2.78, it has to be sourced from secure facilities with high security to prevent sabotage, it must be transported across the regions difficult terrain and to remote locations using overland or air transit, and it must be guarded from attack at all times. It's also a variable price, and is not standard for all regions of Afghanistan, some areas are cheaper, and believe it or not, some are even more expensive, ranging up to $1,000 a gallon. Still, the $400 price is nothing short of breathtaking. To put things in even more sobering terms, the report goes on to state the Marines alone, in one day in Afghanistan, consume an average of 800,000 gallons of fuel. [The Hill]

[Todd#43]

The best part is... it doesn't appear to be partisan, just giving the facts.

Doesnt appear to be partisan? Are you fucking kidding me?

Hmmmm.....lets compare a component of the defense budget, or "tax cuts for the richest 10%" to:

1. Free Health Care for a year
   
2. Homes with "renewable electric" (what is that - rechargeable batteries??) for a year)
   
3. Music and Art teacher salaries for a year
   
4. Head start for one child for a year
   
5. pick a bleeding heart, liberal cause of your own
   

How can you possibly look at that and call it 'non-partisan'???

Seriously, it was more fun when you posted stupid cartoons, or links to the Huffington Post or KOS every day.

[RFM]

Would you prefer the comparison dollars used on war versus how many Jr. Bacon Cheeseburgers the nation can not enjoy if the government was footing the bill. I can make that calculation for you.

[Disclaimer]

You'll bitch about anything... even posts that are over a year and a half old...

But, about the site...http://www.nationalpriorities.org/about

National Priorities Project (NPP) is a 501©(3) research organization that analyzes and clarifies federal data so that people can understand and influence how their tax dollars are spent. Located in Northampton, MA, since 1983, NPP focuses on the impact of federal spending and other policies at the national, state, congressional district and local levels.

The National Priorities Project:

• provides data on the impact of federal spending policies for states, cities and counties;
  
• educates and trains citizens, activists, media and elected officials on the federal budget, the budget’s local impact and community needs;
  
• collaborates with national groups on federal budget initiatives; and
  
• facilitates dialogue and action between national social justice and security policy groups.
  

NPP's Beginnings

NPP's Resources and Audience

Collaborators

Who We Are

• Staff
  
• Board of Directors
  
• Institutional Funders
  

NPP does not in any manner endorse or oppose any candidates for public office. Use of the information gathered by NPP or links to NPP's website by other organizations does not imply NPP's endorsement of the views or actions of such organizations.

I BOLDED the key part.

It doesn't matter what they provided alternatives to spending, you'd bitch about it. You'd bitch about it if they'd said:

1) 400,549 boxes of 9mm rounds for every man, woman, and child

2) $8527 tax break for every SBO

3) 8.7B gallons of gas

The point was to provide perspective, but that must've went over your head because you completely shut down when something isn't presented how you think it should.

[Todd#43]

You'll bitch about anything... even posts that are over a year and a half old...

But, about the site...http://www.nationalpriorities.org/about

I BOLDED the key part.

It doesn't matter what they provided alternatives to spending, you'd bitch about it. You'd bitch about it if they'd said:

1) 400,549 boxes of 9mm rounds for every man, woman, and child

2) $8527 tax break for every SBO

3) 8.7B gallons of gas

The point was to provide perspective, but that must've went over your head because you completely shut down when something isn't presented how you think it should.

Hey, if you hadn't tagged your recent post to something that was a year and a half old, I probably wouldn't have responded to it. You did, and here we are.

Sure, they dont "support" any agenda whatever.

Why don't we compare it to, oh...I don't know....how much pork Murtha sends back to his cronies? Or maybe how much the time Kucinich missed in Congress while he was "running" for President cost the US Taxpayers, or maybe how many of my dollars get sucked up in Medicaid or Medicare Fraud?

You're right, its "perspective", and obviously they compare the costs of the war in Afghanistan to their "pet projects"

Lets see, if we add up ALL the costs, how much was REALLY spent for BHO to go to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago's Olympic Bid? $5,000,000.00, $10,000,000.00?

[Disclaimer]

Why don't we compare it to, oh...I don't know....how much pork Murtha sends back to his cronies? Or maybe how much the time Kucinich missed in Congress while he was "running" for President cost the US Taxpayers, or maybe how many of my dollars get sucked up in Medicaid or Medicare Fraud?

Whatever floats your boat, compare it to all of those things ... but what's your point? The money is being spent, period. And the things you've listed are drops in the bucket compared to the military spending... so again, you fail at perspective.

You're right, its "perspective", and obviously they compare the costs of the war in Afghanistan to their "pet projects"

What 'pet projects' is the National Priorities Project involved in? List them for me.. once again, they're just alternatives for perspective, not endorsements for their own 'pet projects'

Lets see, if we add up ALL the costs, how much was REALLY spent for BHO to go to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago's Olympic Bid? $5,000,000.00, $10,000,000.00?

How about $1.4M: http://www.woai.com/content/blogs/headlines/story/Discuss-Obamas-failed-Olympic-bid-cost-estimated/8guP0ubGvEGVY5N92gRwaQ.cspx

And, he met with the commander during that time too, so it wasn't a total loss, even if it was only for 25 minutes.

The Copenhagen trip was not devoted entirely to the Olympics bid. Obama spent 25 minutes conferring with Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his top Afghan war commander. McChrystal had been in London for a speech, and he made the relatively short trip to Denmark to meet with Obama.

[Pedro]

I like it. He didn't stop by the Olympics joint on the way to visit the Commander. It was the other way around. You just can't make this shit up' date=' you know?

The NPP doesn't endorse the Democrat Party like Acorn doesn't endorse Obama, tax evasion and [b']underage punani.

Well played good sir... So that's how you spell that.....

[Todd#43]

Whatever floats your boat, compare it to all of those things ... but what's your point? The money is being spent, period. And the things you've listed are drops in the bucket compared to the military spending... so again, you fail at perspective.

What 'pet projects' is the National Priorities Project involved in? List them for me.. once again, they're just alternatives for perspective, not endorsements for their own 'pet projects'

They could have picked anything to compare defense spending to. They chose the progressive, left, liberal give-aways. THAT tells me they have an agenda. Face it, everyone has one, but its seldom what it seems to be at first blush - you have to go a little deeper.

How about $1.4M: http://www.woai.com/content/blogs/headlines/story/Discuss-Obamas-failed-Olympic-bid-cost-estimated/8guP0ubGvEGVY5N92gRwaQ.cspx

And, he met with the commander during that time too, so it wasn't a total loss, even if it was only for 25 minutes.

Ummm...you forgot this interesting tid-bit in that article:

"However, presidential travel requires additional spending, especially for security personnel and equipment. Also, first lady Michelle Obama and some administration officials traveled to Copenhagen at public expense ahead of the president."

Now, add all of that (whatever THAT number is) and you've got the TOTAL cost of the trip (not just the operating costs of Airforce One.

I like it. He didn't stop by the Olympics joint on the way to visit the Commander. It was the other way around. You just can't make this shit up' date=' you know?

The NPP doesn't endorse the Democrat Party like Acorn doesn't endorse Obama, tax evasion and underage punani.[/quote']

Couldn't have said it better myself. I'd give you rep for that one if I could.

[Disclaimer]

$1M per year to support a single soldier in Afghanistan. Wrap your head around that number.

http://www.truthout.org/1130094

[wrillo]

Which is why I'm for companies like BlackWater. Besides' date=' I don't think we should be in Crapistan, anyway.[/quote']

Private contractors working for the military is what is causing the million dollar/day soldiers.

One of the reasons for the high costs of maintaining each soldier is the lack of oversight of private contractor billings over the course of these two wars. The Department of Defense (DOD), and especially the Army, has fought the auditors and the investigators in the military who have attempted to expose fraud, waste, overbillings and other abuses of costs in contractor contracts.

KBR, the largest contractor which supports most of the Army’s basic needs, has already run up a bill of over $32 billion to feed troops, do their laundry, drive trucks and maintain the buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a service industry with no big plants or permanent workforce to maintain; yet it has billed an astonishing amount of money for everyday tasks.

if the army would just do their own freaking laundry we would have saved 32 billion dollars. Instead we're paying someone else to spoon feed our army. So now things like this can happen:

One KBR manager threatened not to feed the troops on the base the next day unless the general got the Army to approve payments right away to KBR on dubious billings.

How about we just teach our soldiers how to take care of themselves and fight? Then we don't need KBR or Blackwater

[Disclaimer]

I'm going to haz a sad when Obama spends more $$$$ and waste when he announces he's going to send another 30k troop surge to Afghanistan tonight (most likely).

But, yea... I'm not for Blackwater or KBR... Blackwater is what you get when you take your military services and make them private.

[ohdaho]

Its a new DoD out there...things DoD-wide are continuing to be contracted out. From IT to flight test to cooks to MX...things are being contracted out at a higher rate now a days in an attempt to save money.

Personally, I dont agree with alot of it but its a reality everyone who puts on a uniform has to deal with.

[fusion]

It's nothing new. There has always been a large number of contractors in the DoD.

Being in Afghanistan is less of a waste than Iraq.

[Disclaimer]

I don't understand how contracting stuff out saves money in these instances.

Take laundry for instance. The idea is - contract it out because the Army doesn't 'specialize' in laundry, so we'll farm it out to a business that specializes in laundry, that's all they do, laundry is THEIR business so they should be able to do it cheaper, plus the Army can save by not buying expensive washer/dryers - so no capital costs, they just pay for what they use.

At what costs - well, as the laundry company CEO, I still need to make a profit and pay my $50M/year salary, because that's what I'm worth. I still have to buy AND maintain the capital, so the cost per load goes up for my customers (I'm sure as hell not eating the capital expenses, I'll finance them and bank on a business model with a payback period of > 9 months), and the cost per load has to cover capital, maintenance, payroll, taxes, and profit - it's all wrapped in the cost to you, the customer/taxpayer.

Not to mention, all I do is laundry - you're going to have to pick them up and drop them off - so you'll have to either outsource THE transportation of laundry - hopefully to my other side business (Laundry Transport Inc - where I gouge you on the price there to cover expenses and make profit. Which is a great compliment to my laundry business )

You have no control on how I schedule the laundry coming in and coming out per the way the contract was written, you just pay me to do loads of laundry - thus demoralizing the individual soldiers who don't get clean clothes on a consistent and regular basis.

There are TONS of opportunity costs involved (admittedly on both sides of the equation), but you can see the chain reaction of PRIVATE profit centers in the Gov't supply chain when you take on operations like WAR. Great if you're buddy-buddy with the people granting these 'no-bid' contracts. Not so great if you're a taxpayer or an individual soldier fighting for our freedoms.

[ohdaho]

DoD has a mantra that almost everybody knows about (Atleast in the USAF)...do more with less.

It takes money and resources to train individuals to do their job. No matter how small the task seems to a civilian, the military is able to take that small task and turn it into a mountain. So instead of dedicating a uniform to that task, leadership has seen it fit to have those bodies fill more important roles. Which I agree is probably the right maneuver. This makes military contracting and acquisitions an even bigger part of the war effort. I wont go into military contracting/acquisitions, even though its my field, its extremely in depth and convoluted and confusing at times.

I havent looked at the latest recruiting numbers but I think the Army and Marines are still busting their asses to try to fill recruiting goals...I may be wrong though. I know the USAF isnt struggling.

[wrillo]

from the article, I gathered that it isn't the contracting out that is costing us. Its the fraud and "over-billing"

[Disclaimer]

from the article, I gathered that it isn't the contracting out that is costing us. Its the fraud and "over-billing"

Who's to say I can't charge $50 for a hammer, if somehow I have to safely transport the hammer into the middle of a terrorist nation?

How do we know that doing laundry in the middle of a desolate desert area isn't $15,000 a load? "Over-billing" is a very broad term that means different things to different people - could be a simple mistake, could be requoting based on 'scope creep', could be billing for more services than was actually provided.

I suppose the reason I posted that article was to illustrate some of the costs, but if you read the title "War Fraud Whistle blowers Under Wraps"... it's more to show that even the people that want to STOP all this are being stopped from whistle blowing, because of the lobbying of private contractors.

[fusion]

There are no "$50 hammers."

[chevysoldier]

Who's to say I can't charge $50 for a hammer, if somehow I have to safely transport the hammer into the middle of a terrorist nation?

How do we know that doing laundry in the middle of a desolate desert area isn't $15,000 a load? "Over-billing" is a very broad term that means different things to different people - could be a simple mistake, could be requoting based on 'scope creep', could be billing for more services than was actually provided.

I suppose the reason I posted that article was to illustrate some of the costs, but if you read the title "War Fraud Whistle blowers Under Wraps"... it's more to show that even the people that want to STOP all this are being stopped from whistle blowing, because of the lobbying of private contractors.

There are no "$50 hammers."

Lol, yes there are actually. What happens is the military looks for a company to buy hammers from. Companies bid, then the military selects one. So they lock into a "loose" contract with Hammer-R-Us and starts to buy ONLY from them. Then the company says well we know you have to buy from us, so instead of .32 per hammer, we are going to charge 50, cause you are the military and have money, and we want it. Blackwater, KBR, etc make a shit ton of money doing some of the same jobs our troops do. BUT, things like doing your own laundry for example can be tough for some troops because of the hours and missions they run. I knew guys that were in OIF 1 and wore the same uniform for a month. I do think the civilain companies are a huge drain on our military, but some of them are needed, but they shouldnt be charging 3,000 bucks for a minifridge(Army Times news article about 3 years ago)

[fusion]

Lol, yes there are actually. What happens is the military looks for a company to buy hammers from. Companies bid, then the military selects one. So they lock into a "loose" contract with Hammer-R-Us and starts to buy ONLY from them. Then the company says well we know you have to buy from us, so instead of .32 per hammer, we are going to charge 50, cause you are the military and have money, and we want it. Blackwater, KBR, etc make a shit ton of money doing some of the same jobs our troops do. BUT, things like doing your own laundry for example can be tough for some troops because of the hours and missions they run. I knew guys that were in OIF 1 and wore the same uniform for a month. I do think the civilain companies are a huge drain on our military, but some of them are needed, but they shouldnt be charging 3,000 bucks for a minifridge(Army Times news article about 3 years ago)

Nope that's not how it occurs at all. It's a myth surrounded around rare instances where simple items are contracted with support costs bringing the cost of an item to what would be an insane amount. This doesn't happen often at all and pricing information is actually closely watched for all parts. It's one of the systems we do business intelligence work for.

[chevysoldier]

Nope that's not how it occurs at all. It's a myth surrounded around rare instances where simple items are contracted with support costs bringing the cost of an item to what would be an insane amount. This doesn't happen often at all and pricing information is actually closely watched for all parts. It's one of the systems we do business intelligence work for.

Support cost..like transportation and all? Ok so the hammer itself doesnt cost 50 bucks, but all the support involved makes it 50 bucks? That not any better.

And civilians still makes $125,000 for 8 months in a combat zone? For doing what a soldier does at a fraction of the pay? How does that happen then??

[fusion]

Support cost..like transportation and all? Ok so the hammer itself doesnt cost 50 bucks, but all the support involved makes it 50 bucks? That not any better.

No it's not better, but it's also not a regular occurrence for items like that. After the hammers incident happened quite publicly, in the '80s I think it was, it became tougher for companies to pull crap like that even if it only really happened a few times.

I've heard of more complex or specialized equipment coming with some outrageous "support" costs, but it's still often cheaper or no cheaper than the commercial equivalent would be. Depends on what exactly it is.

[fusion]

Support cost..like transportation and all? Ok so the hammer itself doesnt cost 50 bucks, but all the support involved makes it 50 bucks? That not any better.

And civilians still makes $125,000 for 8 months in a combat zone? For doing what a soldier does at a fraction of the pay? How does that happen then??

Snuck that second part in on me.

Depends really. Contractors get paid more as they are supposed to save the military money elsewhere and be in the long run be cheaper. It's also one of those situations where you have to do a role by role comparison.

[chevysoldier]

No it's not better, but it's also not a regular occurrence for items like that. After the hammers incident happened quite publicly, in the '80s I think it was, it became tougher for companies to pull crap like that even if it only really happened a few times.

I've heard of more complex or specialized equipment coming with some outrageous "support" costs, but it's still often cheaper or no cheaper than the commercial equivalent would be. Depends on what exactly it is.

I gotcha. Like I said, I had read an article in the Army Times discussing the same thing a few years ago. I still believe the military gets taken just for the simple fact they are the military, but it probably doesn't happen as often. Thanks Fusion.