The levels of power in Washington, D.C. are pulled by those with the most influence or those that can buy the most influence. Rep. Buck McKeon has a significant amount of influence as Chairman of the powerful Armed Services committee. McKeon's is one of the most strident defenders of the military-industrial complex, and his corporate campaign donors have purchased his influence to protect their industry.

What do Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman have in common? Each of these corporations is one of the top five largest defense contractors in the nation. In 2011 alone, the Department of Defense committed to spending nearly $100 billion with just these five companies. To put that in perspective, that is about the same amount spent on the entire federal education budget for 2011.

When the U.S. Department of Defense selected Lockheed Martin to design the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter in 1996, it likely had no idea the repercussions they would be facing sixteen years later. After billions of dollars in cost overruns, production delays, upgraded F-16s and close cancellation calls, the Pentagon has had to reduce its order by 179 planes for five years, adding $60 billion to its support cost. Now, the government's practically begging Lockheed to put a higher priority on the completion of the long-term F-35 project, and less of a priority on immediate profit.

Pentagon spending has been a focal point for both President Obama and Governor Romney during the 2012 presidential debates. While Obama’s goal is to slow the defense budget’s growth over the next couple of years, he emphasizes that it will still grow. Romney’s plan however, proposes increasing Pentagon spending to meet 4% of U.S. gross domestic product. 

Next Tuesday, October 30, at 2 pm ET/11 am PT to 4 pm ET/1 pm PT, Brave New Foundation's War Costs is going to lead a Twitter bomb aimed at House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon, the leading recipient of defense contractor campaign contributions in Congress and one-man force for the military-industrial-congressional complex.

Mitt Romney's campaign put together a new ad after last night's final presidential debate in an attempt to highlight the differences between he and President Obama on Pentagon spending. 

Romney often repeats the claim that the U.S. Navy is smaller now than nearly 100 years ago — the ad highlights the comparison between the 245 ships active in 1916 and the 285 active now, which Politifact calls a 'Pants on Fire' claim. His argument would be completely valid if our technology had not advanced in the past 96 years. Due to the changing nature of the Navy and Air Force, it is only appropriate that the numbers will decrease—but that doesn’t mean they don’t strengthen. Quality over quantity.

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com.

By Tom Engelhardt

Americans lived in a “victory culture” for much of the twentieth century.  You could say that we experienced an almost 75-year stretch of triumphalism -- think of it as the real “American Century” -- from World War I to the end of the Cold War, with time off for a destructive stalemate in Korea and a defeat in Vietnam too shocking to absorb or shake off.

As the New York Times reported earlier this week, leading members of the U.S. Senate are scrambling to devise a plan that averts automatic sequestration budget cuts scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 2, 2013. What remains to be seen is how any kind of deal will address a massive, wasteful $700 billion-a-year Pentagon budget and not place the bulk of deficit-reduction solutions on slashing vital programs like Social Security and Medicare.

This post was originally published at TomDispatch.com.

By Andrew Bacevich

First came the hullaballoo over the “Mosque at Ground Zero.”  Then there was Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida, grabbing headlines as he promoted “International Burn-a-Koran Day.”  Most recently, we have an American posting a slanderous anti-Muslim video on the Internet with all the ensuing turmoil.

Congress is getting cold feet about knocking the Pentagon's budget back to 2006 levels. You read that right, 2006 levels, when times were no doubt quite good for a Pentagon and defense industry supporting two wars abroad. But to not slow the growth of the Pentagon after wars end would be an historical first for the U.S. since World War II. This chart says it all: