Le budget du d\u00e9partement de la d\u00e9fense US (celui de l’ann\u00e9e FY2008 comme ceux qui ont pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9) continue \u00e0 susciter le z\u00e8le et l’empressement des commentateurs. Au d\u00e9part, on a mesur\u00e9 combien ce budget gargantuesque<\/a> l’\u00e9tait r\u00e9ellement ; pourtant, ce n’est encore rien Se retournant sur le budget de l’ann\u00e9e derni\u00e8re (FY2006), Robert Higgs<\/a>, de l’Independent Institute, nous d\u00e9montre que ce budget du Pentagone pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 \u00e0 $499 milliards d\u00e9vore en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 pr\u00e8s du $trillion ($1.000 milliards).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPr\u00e9sentant et justifiant sa m\u00e9thodologie, notamment derri\u00e8re les habituelles allocations \u00e0 d’autres minist\u00e8res et agences de sommes pour des services de la d\u00e9fense, Higgs fait ses comptes :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abTo estimate the size of the entire de facto defense budget, I gathered data for fiscal 2006, the most recently completed fiscal year, for which data on actual outlays are now available. In that year, the Department of Defense itself spent $499.4 billion. Defense-related parts of the Department of Energy budget added $16.6 billion. The Department of Homeland Security spent $69.1 billion. The Department of State and international assistance programs laid out $25.3 billion for activities arguably related to defense purposes either directly or indirectly. The Department of Veterans Affairs had outlays of $69.8 billion. The Department of the Treasury, which funds the lion’s share of military retirement costs through its support of the little-known Military Retirement Fund, added $38.5 billion. A large part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s outlays ought to be regarded as defense-related, if only indirectly so. When all of these other parts of the budget are added to the budget for the Pentagon itself, they increase the fiscal 2006 total by nearly half again, to $728.2 billion.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbTo find out how much of the government’s net interest payments on publicly held national debt ought to be attributed to past debt-funded defense spending requires a considerable amount of calculation. I added up all past deficits (minus surpluses) since 1916 (when the debt was nearly zero), prorated according to each year’s ratio of narrowly defined national security spendingmilitary, veterans, and international affairsto total federal spending, expressing everything in dollars of constant purchasing power. This sum is equal to 91.2 percent of the value of the national debt held by the public at the end of 2006. Therefore, I attribute that same percentage of the government’s net interest outlays in that year to past debt-financed defense spending. The total amount so attributed comes to $206.7 billion.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAdding this interest component to the previous all-agency total, the grand total comes to $934.9 billion, which is more than 87 percent greater than the Pentagon’s outlays alone.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tTout cela nous laisse r\u00eaveurs en ce qui concerne le gargantuesque budget FY2008, qui deviendra, lorsqu’il sera mis \u00e0 nu, hyper-gargantuesque.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 16 mars 2007 \u00e0 13H33<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Le budget du d\u00e9partement de la d\u00e9fense US (celui de l’ann\u00e9e FY2008 comme ceux qui ont pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9) continue \u00e0 susciter le z\u00e8le et l’empressement des commentateurs. Au d\u00e9part, on a mesur\u00e9 combien ce budget gargantuesque l’\u00e9tait r\u00e9ellement ; pourtant, ce n’est encore rien Se retournant sur le budget de l’ann\u00e9e derni\u00e8re (FY2006), Robert Higgs, de… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[6411,6354,3194],"class_list":["post-68630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-gargantuesque","tag-higgs","tag-pentagone"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68630","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68630"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68630\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}