Summary: Now that the Deep State has emerged into the light, let’s look at one of the most prescient books that had warned us about it. It is well worth reading. Now we see the terrifying news: the author greatly underestimated the Deep State’s power.
They are just regular people. Their jobs make them powerful.
For many years some have warned us about the reach and power of the Deep State. The past two years have shown that they were prescient, but underestimated it. They described how the Deep State works but failed to predict how it has grown – and above all, how it would use its political power to crush a president who challenged it.
Yesterday’s post – The Deep State emerges. This will change America forever – went viral, with over 10 thousand page views. It was the first of my posts about it to do so, suggesting that Americans have become willing to see it. Even interested in learning about it. For those who wish to take the next step, I recommend reading The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government by Mike Lofgren (a Republican official). Written in 2016, it remains the best of the books I have read about this important subject (but there are so many of them now). See my review of it. Here is its Forward.
The Deep State:
The Fall of the Constitution
and the Rise of a Shadow Government
by Mike Lofgren
As the seat of government and location of the headquarters of the armed forces, Washington has always had a large military contingent. Its presence is impossible to ignore. Now that it is regulation to wear camouflage uniforms as ordinary stateside service dress – is the rationale that an ISIS terrorist may emerge from behind the potted palm at the Washington Hilton? – this post-9/11 convention leads to some incongruous Washington scenes.
It has always amused me to see an officer in camouflage dress and desert boots, briefcase in hand, queuing up to board the No. 101 Fairfax Connector bus en route to the Pentagon for grueling duty preparing PowerPoint slides for his general’s budget presentation. A desert camouflage uniform would not render the wearer particularly inconspicuous in an urban setting. Wouldn’t Brooks Brothers be the ultimate stealth clothing on K Street or Pennsylvania Avenue?
However that may be, it is an inescapable fact that Washington is unique among capital cities of the so-called free world in the ubiquity of its military presence. I have never seen anything comparable elsewhere except in East Berlin in 1974 and Moscow in 1979. The extent to which Washington has become a garrison town makes an ironic counterpoint to the widespread myth that the city is some kind of radical-liberal Gomorrah. Its genuine vices are of an altogether different kind.
Beginning in the 1990s, an increasing number of defense contractors, many of whom had been situated in Southern California, began to relocate their headquarters to Washington, D.C., and its suburbs so as to be closer to the political action. Lockheed, a defense and aerospace firm located on the West Coast, moved its headquarters to Bethesda, Maryland, in the D.C. suburbs, when it merged with Martin Marietta in 1995 to form Lockheed Martin. The merger, like those of many other military contractors at the time, should have been a scandal but wasn’t: two years before, at Secretary of Defense William Perry’s urging, Congress passed a provision allowing the merged companies to expense millions of dollars of merger costs on their contracts. (In other words, the taxpayer ended up footing the bill for what should have been in the companies’ business interest to do in the first place.)
Companies like Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics have followed suit in this migration to Beltwayland. Even British contracting giant BAE Systems, Inc., has an imposing satellite office in suburban Virginia, just across the Memorial Bridge from the monuments of Washington.
It is worth examining BAE Systems, Inc., and asking just how a foreign company not only got prime real estate in Rosslyn, Virginia, within sight of the Pentagon, but rapidly grew to become the sixth-largest contractor in America’s military-industrial complex while being permitted to merge with domestic American companies specializing in extremely sensitive research and development work. London-based investigative journalist Andrew Feinstein told me that this de facto Deep State merger with a foreign entity grew out of the historical special relationship with the United Kingdom, and BAE’s capacity to engage in deals that were either politically or legally barred to its American counterparts.
During the 1980s, the Reagan administration wanted to make a military sale of unprecedented size to Saudi Arabia, but Congress balked. As a reward for Prime Minister Thatcher’s unrelenting diplomatic support of U.S. nuclear policy in Western Europe – which incited huge popular protests — the next-best thing was to let the British make the deal: BAE got most of the £45 billion Saudi deal. Six billion pounds of this sum consisted of “unauthorized commissions,” meaning bribes, to the Saudi royals. Since the British hardware had U.S. technology, the Justice Department was forced to take notice and impose a settlement on BAE. The latter had to pay some derisory fines, but the blooming relationship of America’s military-industrial complex with BAE was undeterred. BAE Systems, Inc., the American subsidiary of British parent BAE Systems plc, incorporated on American soil in 1999.
A decade and a half after the Saudi affair, the Deep State sought yet another helping hand from across the pond. At frequent points during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the tongue-tied George W. Bush sorely needed the mellifluous double-talk of British prime minister Tony Blair, on the theory that nothing sells hideously awful policy as well as an Oxford accent (the American political class swoons on cue at gibberish delivered with Received Pronunciation). By a strange coincidence, from the moment of Blair’s Iraq salesmanship onward, BAE Systems, Inc., grew rapidly.
Our stuffy British cousins are now really learning how to play the Washington game: in 2010 they chose Michael Chertoff to sit on the board of BAE Systems, Inc., and in 2012 they named him chairman of the board. While Chertoff displayed negligible administrative vision as Bush’s secretary of homeland security, he did distinguish himself by turning his department’s procurement system into a contractor-infested replica of the DOD’s in only a couple of years. His postgovernment career has been a single-minded attempt to cash in personally on his bureaucratic creation and his own notoriety. Also on the board are former congressman Lee H. Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, and General Anthony C. Zinni, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, the regional military authority in charge of Middle East conflicts.
The Merchants of Death Go Madison Avenue
This seamless mixture of Mars and Mercury results in some picturesque Washington touches that could never have been glimpsed in Napoleonic Paris or Wilhelmine Berlin, however militarized those capitals may have been. A visitor to the city might be surprised to find ads in the city’s Metro system selling a fighter plane, or spot the huge sign on a telecom building near the Southeast-Southwest Freeway extolling the virtues of an aerial tanker aircraft. A reader of National Journal or Congressional Quarterly or Politico will discover full-page ads for the littoral combat ship.
A listener to WTOP news radio, the city’s highest-rated radio station, will hear commercial spots hawking some homeland security gizmo that promises to make our daily lives even more inconvenient, while other spots solicit persons possessing top-secret/SCI clearances (which give them access to the most sensitive “code word” information) to join this or that Beltway contractor for a unique and fulfilling career. All of this weapon-mongering has become so ubiquitous that no one stops to think and ask one elementary question: why on earth?
It is not as if the commuter from Reston or the soccer mom in Fairfax City is going to plunk down $135 million to buy a shiny new F-35. The U.S. government is a monopsony for the contractors: the sole customer for their wares. Even overseas contracts must be duly authorized, as Congress has the right to prohibit the sale. Government purchases must be made according to applicable statute and according to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, subject to the availability of funds appropriated expressly for the purpose. So why is public advertising necessary?
Despite the formal ban on using contract revenues for advertising, the fungibility of money makes it difficult to interpret ads by a company that is dependent on the government for most of its revenue as anything other than the use of taxpayer dollars in a propaganda campaign for the purpose of pushing their wares in front of Washington’s so-called opinion leaders. Whether they intended it or not, the contractors have succeeded in normalizing the abnormal by transforming the sale of a killer drone into the ethical equivalent of a Mad Men pitch for a new mouthwash brand.
All this shilling for implements of mayhem requires a corresponding quotient of hypocrisy. Every Memorial Day and Veterans Day, the major contractors take out full-page ads in the Post and many of the other political gazettes of the Beltway to salute and rhapsodize over America’s soldiers in the required reverential tone. There is a sort of unwritten rule that the bottomless cynicism of a merchant of death must not expose itself too visibly, lest the rubes in the provinces catch on. Precisely because I was annoyed by that hypocrisy, I had always enjoyed talking to Ted, an independent defense consultant and former congressional staff member, as he refused to pretend that he was engaged in some sort of patriotic and holy calling. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Ted let on to me that he was on the lookout for business opportunities with the bigger contractors that might open up as a result of that attack.
A couple of weeks later, I was meeting with Ann, a Washington representative of Lockheed Martin, in the Budget Committee conference room. This was several months before most of us had learned to treat invocations of 9/11 as a cynical ploy to advance overtly political agendas, and consequently most people were a bit uncomfortable discussing the topic. After completing her pitch on how the contracting community could be helpful to the Hill during those trying times, Ann launched into a soliloquy about how mortifyingly tasteless some people were in trying to cash in on a horrific tragedy. Her voice resonant with indignation, she emphasized that one consultant had had the gall to ask her company about business opportunities as a result of 9/11! It was Ted, of course, and it was evident that she was attempting to burn his contacts on the Hill.
Her performance was all the more bitterly ironic in retrospect: in 2002, the first full year after the terrorist attacks, Lockheed Martin’s net sales increased by more than $2.5 billion. Like a Miss Manners of the military-industrial complex, the Lockheed Martin rep had undertaken to teach us the difference between proper and improper war profiteering.
The Flotsam of Foreign Intervention
Washington is in the business of running a global empire, and often enough its efforts misfire. The metropolitan area is therefore notable for its ethnic enclaves that have resulted from America’s failed interventions abroad over the last fifty years. At the conclusion of the Vietnam War, Arlington was flooded with so many Vietnamese refugees who had backed the wrong horse—us—that one neighborhood became known as “Little Saigon.”
I once went with some Armed Services Committee colleagues to eat at a Vietnamese restaurant in Arlington that bore the telltale stigmata of America’s botched crusade in Southeast Asia: on the walls were at least two dozen black-and-white photos taken upcountry of American advisers in tiger-stripe cammies and boonie hats posing with local Vietnamese friendlies. After the 1979 Iranian revolution, another group of exiles, this time speaking Farsi, washed up on the Virginia shore of the Potomac. Now in the 2010s, one of the biggest concentrations of expats voting in the Iraqi elections is in northern Virginia, where polling places are provided.
Northern Virginia may be a magnet for these groups in part because of the close proximity to the Pentagon and CIA headquarters; both agencies have helped many former host country operatives and translators find a new life in America. Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, the South Vietnamese National Police chief whose shooting of a Vietcong suspect in front of a camera during the Tet offensive became a famous, or infamous, Pulitzer Prize–winning photograph, lived out his days running a pizzeria in Arlington. Khalifa Hifter, a Libyan army officer who defected to the CIA in the 1980s, spent many of the succeeding years living in Falls Church and Vienna, Virginia. In 2014, he had returned to Libya and was trying to overthrow the same people who, with U.S. assistance, had just finished overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi.
Beneath its buttoned-down exterior, Washington, D.C., and its suburbs seethe with enough intrigue to rival World War II Casablanca, although it probably would not make as good a movie.
The War on Terror as a Washington Real Estate Scam
In the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, I recall some informal discussion in Congress to the effect that Washington and its critical governmental nodes were too vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This was the time when there was a brief fad for “continuity of government” exercises, and Vice President Cheney, then a physical as well as political troglodyte, flitted between “secure, undisclosed locations” that were often underground. The proper institutional solution would have been to permanently disperse much of Washington’s governmental operations to areas around the country: with secure, encrypted teleconferencing and other electronic aids, this plan was eminently feasible. Most other cities have cheaper real estate and living costs.
The problem was the same one defense contractors had solved by moving their headquarters to Washington: career-anxious generals and bureaucrats like to be physically, and not just electronically, close to the action. The newly created Department of Homeland Security, which rapidly became the third-largest cabinet agency, would certainly seem to have been a prime candidate for relocation: if any agency should have been concerned about terrorist attacks, DHS was it. And as a brand-new agency, it could start with a clean slate in thinking about its headquarters location. Yet it ended up in Southeast D.C., less than three miles from the Capitol Building. The kicker was that the property DHS took over was the site of a disused, dungeon-like insane asylum, Saint Elizabeths Hospital.
Those readers who are tired of having their shampoo bottles confiscated at airports might ponder the cosmic justice in the location of DHS’s headquarters, which is $1 billion over budget and 10 years behind schedule.
It reached an apotheosis of sorts in the DOD’s 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. BRAC was supposed to reduce the excess military base infrastructure of the Department of Defense; yet Fort Belvoir, just 15 miles south of D.C., along with a related site not far away, ended up with 30,000 more personnel as a result. So much for dispersal: Beltwayland already has some of the worst traffic in the country, yet the geniuses on the Army staff decreed that it was appropriate to jam-pack commuters into facilities with no commuter rail transportation astride the main automobile evacuation route from D.C. to points south.
The whole notion that 9/11 would “change everything” was, at least insofar as the convenience of the heads of agencies and commands was concerned, a fraud. The fact that the whole scam managed to lift local real estate prices has been a collateral benefit to Beltwayland’s numerous brokers and fixers.
That is not to say that nothing has changed. During the first few years after 9/11, Washington’s neoclassical core was defaced by checkpoints, miles of hideous Jersey wall and swarms of ninja-suited security squads. The city began to look less like Pierre l’Enfant’s architectural vision of the neoclassical capital of a virtuous republic and more like cold war East Berlin.
But what fascinated me most was to watch the reaction of tourists. A large number actually seemed impressed by the display: It was just like television, and there they were in real life, caught up in some drama out of a Tom Clancy novel or an episode of 24. It was something they could relate to via their media conditioning. One suspects the vast majority of Americans’ acquiescence at airports and acceptance of surveillance can be traced to similar behavioral roots. If one is patted down or watched by the government, it is somehow reassuring to be worthy of all that trouble.
For all the bellyaching that goes on throughout the country about out-of-touch bureaucrats, corrupt and unresponsive government, and how much everyone hates Washington, these visible signs of our increasingly intrusive and overbearing government did not fall out of the sky upon an unsuspecting public. The Deep State, along with its headquarters in Washington, is not a negation of the American people’s character. It is an intensification of tendencies inherent in any aggregation of human beings. If the American people did not voluntarily give informed consent to the web of unaccountable influence that radiates from Washington and permeates the country, then their passive acquiescence, aided by false appeals to patriotism and occasional doses of fear, surely played a role.
A majority of Americans have been anesthetized by the slow, incremental rise of the Deep State, a process that has taken decades.
About Mike Lofgren
Mike retired in May 2011 after 28 years as a Congressional staff member. H
Lofgren began his legislative career as a military legislative assistant to then congressman John Kasich (R-OH) in 1983. In 1994 he joined the staff of the Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. From 1995 to 2004 he was a budget analyst for the House Budget Committee. From 2005 until his retirement in 2011, Lofgren was the chief analyst for military spending on the Senate Budget Committee.
Also see Winston Wheeler’s review of The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. His essay that led to this book: “Anatomy of the Deep State“, 21 February 2014.
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
Powerful details at “John Solomon Reports” about a seldom-discussed aspect of UkraineGate – Ukraine’s efforts to influence the US government and the 2016 campaign: “Debunking some of the Ukraine scandal myths about Biden and election interference.”
Please like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information see all posts about RussiaGate, about the Deep State, and about ways to reform America’s politics, and especially these…
- Democrats betray their principles & embrace the Deep State.
- In 2018 the Deep State went public & the Dems betrayed us.
- Reviewing “Ball of Collusion”, the big book of 2019 about RussiaGate.
- The amazing Trump-Ukraine-Whistleblower story in a nutshell.
- Impeachment = reform of our antique political system.
- See behind the impeachment stories to learn about America.
- Welcome to Third World America. Stand by for a coup.
- See our strange politics. It’s the first step to change.
Books revealing the Deep State
A few people have warned us about the rising reach and growth of the Deep State. We should listen.
Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World by Tom Englehardt (2014).
The American Deep State: Big Money, Big Oil, and the Struggle for U.S. Democracy by Peter Dale Scott, former Canadian diplomat and professor emeritus at Berkeley (2017). See his website.
28 thoughts on “A terrifying revelation about the Deep State”
Is the clownishness of trump a ploy to bring out the hyenas or is it always who he is that inadvertently did so?
That is a really silly question. People make hysterical comments of 4D chess and inevitable dementia, but the troll in chief has been like this since he built his first property.
The “Troll in Chief” (great line that) learned most of his political skills from his years as a Worldwide Wrestling Forum (WWF) announcer. His delivery has coarsened (which I didn’t think possible before now) under the pressures of the office and his previous statements.
I agree. If Trump hadn’t inherited a fortune, his highest possible occupation probably would have been game show host.
Yes and this latest tweet shows this very well:
A photoshopped medal of honor ceremony for a Dog called “Conan” as in “Conan the Barbarian”
The Constitution does not require that Presidents act like a store mannequin. They can have a sense of humor. Lighten up.
My guess (guess) is that your comment is just naked partisanship, tribal loyalty. If Obama sent that tweet, you’d be laughing all day.
“My guess (guess) is that your comment is just naked partisanship, tribal loyalty. If Obama sent that tweet, you’d be laughing all day.”
Maybe. Although it just doesn’t fit Obama. He is just not interesting at all. Not something that would do something for the Lulz.
If Obama is a Troll like Trump. I will still probably find it funny against my will.
Or I will react pretty strongly regardless. The responses show how even partisans against Obama will react if Obama is like Trump.
Superficially, that’s who he is – a clown.
More importantly, that’s who we are – fools for electing a clown.
I do wonder if a clown in office is necessary for dealing with clown-world?
And then for some strange reason the deep state felt desperate enough or even confident enough to show the true nature of power.
Among no other president has this happened.
“I do wonder if a clown in office is necessary for dealing with clown-world?”
“Among no other president has this happened.”
It is usual for Americans to describe their politics as if the citizens are clumps on sofas, passively watching. “This” happened because we elected somebody who promised to change our mad foreign policy.
That particular comment that the President “subverts” foreign policy:
As if President Trump is supposed to stick to the program.
Your fealty to your faction, and willingness to believe what you are told, makes you an ideal citizen of whatever replace the Republic. No amount of lies makes you skeptical. This is becoming commonplace in America.
The WaPo loyally and uncritically prints slanted leaks from Democrats about their secret hearings. We will know what was actually said when we see transcripts of the hearings.
“moving a rough transcript of the call into a highly classified computer server, …If this is such a perfect call, why is everybody going to these extraordinary lengths?” said a U.S. official familiar”
This tidbit is nuts. Other presidents kept sensitive info about calls with heads of State on “secure” servers. The WaPo already reported that, but that’s too inconvenient for the reporter to remember.
Also – the contents of these calls are secret, standard practice in the US and other nations. That might no longer be necessary, since as a result of the Dem’s actions any head of State talking to a US president on the phone will assume that the details might appear in the headlines of the WaPo. They’ll just talk about their dogs and apple pie when talking to the President of Clown Nation.
The WaPo refers to the “explosive whistleblower complaint” that we might not hear about again, since his identity (widely known in Washington) became known the public as a democrat, fanatic pro-Ukraine advocate, opponent of Trump – who was carefully coached by Dems in Congress (who lied about it).
“This” happened because we elected somebody who promised to change our mad foreign policy.
I think the American people elected Obama for this same reason to stop the endless wars. Although I don’t recall the Deep State coming out of hiding against Obama.
“I think the American people elected Obama for this same reason to stop the endless wars.”
That’s quite false. In the 2008 campaign, Obama pledged that if elected he would reduce our involvement in Iraq and greatly increase our effort in Afghanistan – and extend the war into Pakistan. With or without the consent of the Pakistan government (just as we did to Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War).
He did reduce our effort in Iraq, an easy pledge because Bush Jr. had signed the SOF agreement with Iraq to have all combat forces out by 31 December 2011. Obama did expand the war in Afghanistan, as promised. Saner voices prevailed, so we expanded the war into Pakistan only slightly.
See this for more about Obama’s promise to be a vigorous War President.
On Obama. You proved me wrong.
As for the rest of the comment. That why I comment here.
I don’t know everything and may even have presumed things that seemed solid at 1st glance.
And if I am what you describe. All the more reason.
(1) “And if I am what you describe.”
It’s not just you. It is almost everybody in America today. Tribalism is more contagious than measles, as it sets off positive reinforcement cycles.
(2) “That why I comment here.”
A positive reaction, an openness to contrary data, is extraordinarily rare in America today. These are the vanguard, the people who have the potential to break us out from our current dark path.
@Larry Kummer, Editor
Tribalism is primal so its pretty fundamental. The monkey brain takes a lot of effort to override.
I find it uncomfortable for example to change my views on Obama. It feels like I am losing or being defeated. Or my self-esteem got popped. Or something along those lines.
For similar reason. Dictators have to be assassinated. Its as if people cannot simply all turn their back at him and ignore his commands.
In reality dictators only have as much power aside from what he can do with his own body as those who are loyal to him and obey him.
“Dictators have to be assassinated. “
I hate to throw reality on your lust for violence, but killing leaders seldom ends well.
I suggest you read about Britain’s Glorious Revolution. That’s how a stable democratic regime is best created.
Its easier to let the more primitive hindbrain take over. Than to exercise the big-picture calm analytical Neocortex. Most people let their hindbrains rule.
“Its easier to let the more primitive hindbrain take over. “
No, tribalism is not a biological function (eg, of the hindbrain). It’s a sophisticated social system, but less so than representative democracy.
In regards to the glorious revolution. Why did it take man a very long time to come to this conclusion?
I deduced perhaps wrongly that man has tried every other method and it seems for a long time assassination was the best option they could think of.
In regards to tribalism. I would have to disagree to an extent. As even chimpanzees can form tribes. And even ants despite lack of cognition are tribes that compete with each other. And so tribalism has primitive roots.
Tribalism seems innate in many animals which function more on instinct than the neocortex.
“Why did it take man a very long time to come to this conclusion?”
We evolved on the Serengeti plains as scavengers, and have had to figure everything out for ourselves. All the answers look simple once your know the answers. Which is why most people sit on the shoulders of their ancestors, seeing so much farther – and believe they’re much smarter.
In 100 years, people will look back at this time and wonder why we didn’t see the answers that are so clear to them. Why don’t you – personally – see those obvious answers now, and share them with the rest of us?
“In 100 years, people will look back at this time and wonder why we didn’t see the answers that are so clear to them. Why don’t you – personally – see those obvious answers now, and share them with the rest of us?”
Indeed. We are pretty myopic. One can only acknowledge our biases and uncover the truth piece by piece. Allowing ourselves to be changed however uncomfortable it may be.
It may not be obvious because each of us live in a cultural matrix that may actually blind us to the truth. Often with our active participation unknowingly. A fish in water so to speak.
Hypotheses and bumping them up against reality until it fits as the hypothesis is perfected is one of the best methods of arriving at the truth we have come up with so far. And a love of the truth no matter what which is greatly helped by Christian religion.
The pro-traditionalists will argue that tradition are already solutions to past problems we may not know about. But then again the best way is to put that to the test.
A truly impressive article today, Larry. You should have published that Forward a long time ago.
Congratulations Fabius on this milestone of 10k page views!
“this milestone of 10k page views!”
Thanks for the congrats, but it is not a milestone. It’s not even in the top hundred.
The all-time record is 98,536 page views for this 2014 post: Explaining the season 6 finale of “Castle”, and what’s coming next. It went viral among the fans of that hit show.
The record post for 2019 (so far) has 29,560 views: About the coming civil war (our third). I’ve been writing mostly about technical matters – political analysis, climate change – few of which get massive page views. Worse, little of this fits the “we are angels – our foes are devils” mode that modern Americans want. Even so, with a little luck we’ll hit two million page views for the year.
A few other more general structural factors to keep in mind when looking at influence of the Deep State:
1) Detail the role of national security bureaucrats in bill creation–Often help to draft legislation that members of Congress introduce, propose or endorse measures at Congressional hearings and mark-ups, lobby at conference committees/outside Congressional chambers. we need more empirical descriptions of the many ways that the Deep State players inscribe their perspective into law.
2) Then think, for example,, of the average type of career trajectory of major military/intelligence individuals relative to our elected officials–maybe 20 to 30 years in contrast to 2,4,6 or 8 years for most elected officials, involvement in the development of weapon systems which often take10 years or more from time of design, prototype, testing and either acceptance or rejection (with this process carried out under both Dems or Repubs).
3) Way back in 2010 two Washington Post writers (before Bezo ownership) William Arkin and Dana Priest labeled the National Security State the 4th Branch of Government, in 2013 Edward Snowden’s classified document release indicated that our 16 intelligence agencies alone had over 107,000 employees and an estimated annual budget $53 Billion.
4) What are best sources for analyzing the social relationships between Congress and Military as far as creating budgets and detailing how this spending takes place and paid for (who gets budgeted and who doesn’t and why? Does having a fiat currency(not linked to gold, or pegged to another currency) since 1971, actually mean that budgets are created and the money spent first, before concerns about appropriate funding for such projects?
How our modern Deep State is actually financed needs to be described in detail. Does our currency-issuing State have any real spending constraints? Can they purchase whatever they like as long as their are goods and services for sale in the currency they issue? What is the actual operational plumbing of modern public finance and how is it linked to the Deep State?
Larry & All:
Long time counsel to the US Senate foreign relations committee Michael Glennon warned of the problem in his 2014 paper “National Security and Double Government” in which he characterized the contest between the “Madassonians”, the Constitutional three branches , and the Trumanites of the permanent bureaucracy, which became ascendant in the immediate post WW2 period. Glennon’s paper, which he somewhat expanded into book form is here: