On April 17 this year, U.S. Congressman Mike Waltz raised questions at a hearing in the United States.
He was holding a bag of bushings that he said were parts sold in the United States for $90,000. What made him angry, however, was that the part was available for just a few bucks in China.
This also made K-Waltz angry, where is the vast amount of military spending in the United States spent?
The source in this article comes from the official media [CCTV, Huanqiu, Shangguan News] (the link is attached at the end of the article), but in order to improve the readability of the article, the details may be polished, please read sensibly, for reference only!
Military spending is questionable
The U.S. economy is currently facing a dire situation, with high inflation, a weak job market, and a rising cost of living, as well as increasing financial pressures.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. government's military budget for fiscal year 2025 has hit a record high, and this decision will undoubtedly once again arouse widespread attention and questions from public opinion.
During the economic downturn, people expect the government to use more of its limited financial resources to improve people's livelihood, promote employment, alleviate poverty and other areas that need to be urgently needed.
However, such high military spending raises questions about whether these funds will really be used wisely, and whether there is significant waste and unnecessary extravagance.
In recent years, the U.S. military industry has been repeatedly exposed to serious corruption and inflated pricing scandals, and a large amount of military spending has been inflated or directly embezzled for no reason, and has not been truly used for the procurement and upgrading of weapons and equipment.
Some parliamentarians have even openly pointed out that the purchase price of certain low-end consumables is hundreds of times higher than the actual price. These recurring events have undoubtedly heightened doubts about the use of US military spending.
Previously, several agencies, including Congress, have questioned the rationality and transparency of the use of military spending. In 2021, Congress rejected part of the military budget and asked relevant departments to give a reasonable explanation for its use.
However, this request was not really met in the end, and the budget was still approved later. This is a question that U.S. Congressman Mike Waltz realized when he asked that question.
Questioning the inflated pricing of the U.S. military industry
Recently, at a hearing in the US Congress on military spending, a small move by a member of the House of Representatives caused quite a commotion at the scene.
At that time, the councillor was holding a small plastic bag and slowly walked in front of the crowd. He then poured the contents of the plastic bag onto the table, only to see some ordinary small plastic bushings scattered on it.
This is a common cheap component that sells for just a few yuan in the Chinese market. But to the surprise of those present, the congressman then announced that the same type of liner was in the US military's procurement channel, and the unit price was as high as $90,000.
The scene was in an uproar, after all, 90,000 US dollars was converted into about 650,000 yuan. People began to talk to each other, expressing surprise and puzzlement at this staggering price difference.
The congressman who presented the evidence aims to use this vivid example to question whether there is serious waste of funds and corruption in the process of weapons and equipment procurement by the US military.
The exorbitant price of $90,000 for a bag of small parts is undoubtedly puzzling about the actual flow of military spending.
For many years, the U.S. military industry has been questioned about being accused of inflating prices and abusing military spending. Some companies have been exposed to making huge profits by multiplying the cost of procurement by several times through improper means.
In this regard, the US Congress has repeatedly questioned and demanded rectification, but in general, this stubborn disease has not been cured so far. The "$90,000 padding" incident once again pointed the finger at the military industry and the government's lack of supervision.
More and more people are beginning to question whether the US government is blindly pursuing force and neglecting reasonable control of military spending. Blindly expanding military spending will undoubtedly increase the burden on the state's finances.
It also casts doubt on the fairness and rationality of the use of funds by ordinary people. Therefore, to solve this problem, the government needs to work on three fronts.
First, it is necessary to further standardize the order of the military industry, curb windfall profits and inflated pricing, and then strengthen supervision and control to ensure that military spending can be used for real weapons and equipment construction.
Finally, the decision-making process for military spending should be open and transparent, subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny. Only then can the U.S. government truly restore public confidence in the use of military spending.
Chronic misuse of military spending
For a long time, the US military-industrial complex has been plagued by the abuse of military spending and inflated pricing, which not only increases the country's financial burden, but also raises questions about the fairness and transparency of military spending.
An ordinary coffee cup costs only a few dollars in the civilian market, but in the procurement channels of the U.S. military, the same coffee cup can cost as much as $330,000.
This is just a small example of the countless absurd incidents. During the war in Afghanistan, the sky-high prices of daily necessities purchased by the US military were not uncommon, and a large amount of military spending was wasted.
The main reason for this phenomenon is that the US military-industrial complex has an overly close relationship with the government, and these enterprises largely dominate the US military program.
For example, the famous F-35 fighter project has been delayed for 23 years since its start of construction, and more than $1.7 trillion has been invested.
At the same time, these companies have also influenced the federal government's decision-making through lobbying and other means, so that the five major military enterprises can carve up $118 billion in defense contracts each year.
Under the influence of such relational ties, the military-industrial complex gained de facto control over the distribution of military spending, and their interests were closely tied to the growing military budget.
According to some data, the current US defense budget has reached $895.2 billion, and military spending is mainly used for the purchase and maintenance of existing weapons and equipment, and only a small part is used for the research and development of new technologies.
This undoubtedly gives military enterprises an opportunity to take advantage of it, and they deliberately delay the progress of research and development of new equipment, and at the same time look for and use various means to solicit excessive military spending in the procurement and maintenance links.
For example, selling obsolete weapons to countries such as Ukraine at high prices may create an atmosphere of "defensive" panic and affect the domestic public's attention to military spending.
In order to resolve this deep-seated contradiction, it is not enough to rely on government supervision alone, and it is necessary to fundamentally untie the ties of interests between military industrial enterprises and government departments.
The government should implement an open and transparent system for the allocation of military spending, truly let military spending shine into the sun, and establish an independent monitoring mechanism. Only in this way can we cut off the root causes of the abuse of military spending by military industrial enterprises and truly achieve a rational distribution of national defense resources.
Ambiguity at home and abroad
There are some differences and controversies in public opinion at home and abroad on the issue of corruption in US military spending.
On the one hand, state media in China, Russia, and other countries often focus on corruption scandals in the US military, accusing the US government of not doing enough to manage military spending and fighting corruption, and for lacking strong oversight and accountability mechanisms.
On the other hand, some pro-Western opinion figures are skeptical and skeptical. They believe that China and Russia and other countries are exaggerating the facts, and even slandering and slandering the United States.
In their opinion, this is just an attack on the United States for political purposes. The two sides have very different judgments on the nature and motives of these military corruption incidents.
However, it is undeniable that in recent years, the corruption and waste incidents of the US military have been repeatedly exposed, and this has become an objective social reality and a hot topic.
From sky-high prices for ordinary cutlery to billions of dollars in weapons projects delayed for years, all sorts of cases of corruption in military spending have spread among the people, and ordinary people have begun to question whether defense spending is really being spent where it should be.
This kind of atmosphere of public opinion is exactly what some whistleblowers and watchdogs expected. For example, Waltz, former Comptroller General of the Ministry of National Defense, and others have used vivid examples to arouse the attention of the whole society to the issue of military spending.
They called for the establishment of an effective accountability system only with the help of extensive public scrutiny that national defense funds can be prevented from being arbitrarily wasted and squandered and becoming a tool for a small number of people to pursue their own interests.
After all, military spending comes from the hard work and dedication of taxpayers. As the hard-earned money of the masses of the people, military expenditures should undoubtedly be placed under the sun, subject to the supervision of the whole society, and ensure that they are used in places that are legitimate and reasonable, enhance national defense strength, and protect the interests of the people.
On the contrary, if the military industrial complex and rent-seeking elements are allowed to wantonly extort from it, it will not only increase the financial burden on the state, but will also sow the root cause of social antagonism.
epilogue
Therefore, the government, military officials, public opinion organs, and non-governmental organizations should make due efforts to solve the problem of corruption in military spending.
Only by conscientiously rectifying and reversing the passive situation in the management of military expenditures can the United States' national defense strength be truly strong and the people's confidence in the military cause be firmly established.
The supervisory role of public opinion is crucial, and well-founded revelations will continue to be the driving force behind the fight against corruption. In general, the problem of corruption in US military spending deserves attention.
Supervision by public opinion is very necessary, but at the same time, it must also be objective and rational, and must not be too one-sided or antagonistic. Only when the government, the military, public opinion and the public work together can the problem be truly solved.
What do you think about this incident in the United States?
Resources:
CCTV - [24 hours] Former official of the US Department of Defense reveals the inside story of arms dealers' supply of weapons, arms dealers ask for sky-high prices, and the Pentagon "does not bargain"
https://tv.cctv.com/2023/05/29/VIDEppWIodbGZDr8lo3QhRjp230529.shtml
Global Network -- The US House of Representatives asked the Secretary of the Air Force: How much did the US Air Force spend on purchasing this bag of bushings? $90,000!
https://finance.sina.cn/2024-04-18/detail-inashnsp0460226.d.html
Shangguan News -- Selling Swords on Fire! Exposing the "Economics of War" in the United States
https://finance.sina.com.cn/jjxw/2024-04-21/doc-inaspwaf2471655.shtml
Overseas Network - Former U.S. Department of Defense Officials Reveal Inside Story of Arms Dealers' Supply of Weapons: Arms Dealers Ask for Prices Skyrocketing, Pentagon "Don't Bargain"
https://finance.sina.com.cn/jjxw/2023-05-30/doc-imyvpcqi4781022.shtml