Tax burden is disproportionately in the area of military spending

I'm sick of hearing all about "entitlement programs breaking the backs of average Americans" shit. But as soon as someone raises the idea that some of the spending could be reduced via reduction in military spending, the R's go ballistic.

Globally the USA fear machines has enabled the military to outspend any other nation several times over.


http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

I assume most gov't budgets are outlined similarly. In the Gov't office I work in, each department has it's own budget and within that budget there are specific line items. As an example, in Zoning, there are budgets for equipment, training, office supplies, equipment, postage, vehicle maint, phones etc.

That Zoning Department also uses IT equipment (pc's printers, software etc)...BUT the IT items are not in the Zoning budget, rather in the IT Department Budget. Those items can easily be found for a total cost of running the Zoning Department, but part of the cost of running Zoning, is buried in the budget of other departments.

What the article is saying is that just using the Military Department budget codes doesn't give a full picture of military spending...expecially those items related to nuclear weapons, because they are added as a line item to another departmental budget.

expenditures for war are tracked.

Maybe they're just not in the current fiscal year Military Spending, but once they are known in total they show up in the coming fiscal year's Military Spending?

I will try to look this up in a bit.

just buried in the line item of other departmental budgets...see my explanation in #3.

other departments, e.g. nuclear weapons (for the Military) in DOE budget, compared to paying for wars with ONGOING Supplemental Spending as "needed".