Reacting to media noise over the economic costs of the Waxman-Markey environmental bill currently before the U.S. Congress, Dean Baker (ZNet, 7/1/09) looks to the damages of a different annual spending bill, this one perpetually unexamined in corporate news:

Global Insight projected that after 20 years of higher defense spending, annual car sales would be down by more than 700,000. Housing starts would be almost 40,000 lower. Exports would be 1.8 percent lower and imports would be 2.7 percent higher, leading to a trade deficit that was almost $200 billion larger. The model also projected that there would be nearly 700,000 fewer jobs as a result of the higher level of defense spending.

In short, the economic harm projected from high levels of military spending is far larger than the damage projected from the Waxman-Markey bill. Given this situation, we should expect that all the oil and coal industry folks who are now so concerned about the average family's well-being would have been screaming about the economic pain that would result from sustaining the Iraq War levels of military spending.

Did anyone ever hear them raise this issue? Does anyone recall members of Congress giving speeches about how the job loss from the Iraq War levels of spending will be devastating? Does anyone recall any newspaper columns or editorials making this point? How about a news story that analyzed the economic impact of higher levels of military spending?

"For some reason," Baker says, "job loss and economic pain associated with the military are just not worth mentioning. These items only become newsworthy when the issue is saving the environment." Listen to the FAIR radio program CounterSpin: "Miriam Pemberton on Military Budget" (4/17/09).

Political Animal blogger Steve Benen (4/8/09) asks if maybe it's "Already Too Late for the Truth" in cable news coverage of U.S. military spending, considering that directly "after Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled his recommendations for restructuring military spending--and boosting the Pentagon budget by $21 billion (4 percent)--the response was immediate: The Obama administration is trying to cut defense in a time of war. It wasn't true. It didn't matter."

Quoting a former defense secretary telling MSNBC viewers a "clearly false" tale of "deep cuts in military spending," Benen notes that anchor Contessa Brewer had asked him "to address the administration's proposed 'cuts'--not 'what some are calling "cuts,"' just matter-of-fact 'cuts,' as if this were plainly true." The fact that it was the former official himself who "eventually noted, 'By the way, it's not a cut. It's a 4 percent increase,' gives Benen

the sense the train has the left the station, and it's not coming back. News outlets--including real ones, not Fox News--have already accepted the bogus notion that Gates' plan cuts defense spending. Republican lawmakers aren't just repeating the false claim, they're practically apoplectic about it. The political world has apparently skipped right over the "some critics of the administration charge...." and gone right to accepting false GOP talking points as fact without debate.

Benen is left feeling that "our political discourse can be awfully frustrating sometimes"--especially when "reported" so awfully as this. Listen to the latest FAIR radio show CounterSpin: "Miriam Pemberton on Military Budget" (4/17/09).

News reports on a March 25 F-22 crash in Mojave, Calif., that "contained some strange assertions about the cost of the F-22" have budget myth-buster Winslow Wheeler (Military.com, 3/28/09) decrying the "utter hogwash" that reporters printed "possibly based on the price asserted in the Air Force's 'fact' sheet on the F-22 that was linked to a Pentagon 'news' story on the crash." Wheeler demonstrates how the uncritical dissemination of the assertion therein--that "the cost per aircraft was typically described in many media articles as about $140 million"--means that "the tragic event was apparently used to disseminate some booster-baloney":

The latest "Selected Acquisition Report" from the Defense Department is the most definitive data available on the costs for the F-22. The SAR shows a "Current Estimate" for the F-22 program in "Then-Year" dollars of $64.540 billion, which includes both R&D and procurement. That $64.5 billion has bought a grand total of 184 aircraft.

Do the arithmetic: $64.540/184 = $350.1. Total program unit price for one F-22, what approximates the "sticker price," is $350 million per copy.

So, where does the bogus $143 million per copy come from? Most will recognize that as the "flyaway" cost: the amount we pay today, just for the current production costs of an F-22. (Note, however, the "flyaway" cost does not include the gas, pilot etc. needed to fly the aircraft away.)

Striking at the heart of such military budget propaganda, Wheeler responds to credulous reporters: "OK, so the F-22 is really pricey and the Air Force and its boosters are full of baloney on the cost, but it's a great airplane, a real war winner, right? Oh, please. Consider the source."