ADVERTISEMENT

Eighty percent of Ukraine-Israel bill will be spent in U.S. or by U.S. military

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,717
61,040
113
“[Rep. Adam Schiff] won’t tell you that he just voted to send $100 billion to foreign countries. We have a $35 trillion national debt in America.”
— Richard Grenell, former U.S. ambassador to Germany, in a social media post, April 20

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

As the House on Saturday approved long-stalled aid packages for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, one of the top contenders to be secretary of state in a second Trump administration posted that lawmakers had voted to “send $100 billion to foreign countries.” His jab was a common talking point among opponents of the bill.

The implication is that foreign aid is just a no-strings-attached gift. It isn’t. About two-thirds of foreign assistance is spent via U.S.-based entities, according to the Congressional Research Service. For instance, food aid must be purchased in the United States and by law must be shipped on U.S. carriers. Except for some aid given to Israel, all military aid must be used to purchase U.S. military equipment and training.


ADVERTISING


Since these bills — for Ukraine, for Israel and the Pacific region — are mostly about military aid, that means they are really jobs programs in the United States, which in turn bolsters the U.S. economy. The Senate approved the spending package on Tuesday and President Biden signed it into law on Wednesday. Let’s explore.

The Facts​

The full package was estimated to cost $95.25 billion. But information provided by the White House budget office and a detailed review of the bill shows that nearly 80 percent went either to weapons manufacturers in the United States to replenish stocks or supply weapons or to fund Defense Department operations in the United States and overseas (including the training of Ukrainian soldiers).

Just over $20 billion was reserved for humanitarian or economic assistance, which, as noted above, can often require that the funds go to U.S.-based organizations. About $8 billion of this amount is reserved to assist the Ukrainian government, including $50 million to address food shortages. Another $5.6 billion is for general international disaster assistance and $3.5 billion for refugee assistance.


While previous Ukraine-related bills provided funds to help the government maintain old-age pensions, this bill prohibits the direct payments for pension support. Indeed, the bill calls on Biden to negotiate an agreement with Ukraine to repay economic support, though 50 percent of the debt could be waived after Nov. 15 with congressional notification, with the remaining 50 percent able to be waived after Jan. 1, 2026.
icon-election.png

Follow Election 2024
As is often the case with appropriations bills, there are different ways to run the numbers. To look at the package another way, about $60 billion will support Ukraine, $14 billion will support Israel and about $8 billion is directed to help countries in the Indo-Pacific region, especially Taiwan. Another $9 billion is for humanitarian assistance in conflict zones (including beyond Ukraine and Gaza) and $2.5 billion would support Central Command operations. Nearly $500 million is for refugee resettlement of Ukrainians in the United States.

60 percent will not leave our shores​

Nearly $57 billion — about 60 percent — is never leaving the United States. Instead, these funds are being invested with weapons manufacturers located in dozens of states. (So far, according to the Pentagon, manufacturers in all but 11 states have received Ukraine-related weapons contracts.)



About $24.5 billion is for stock replenishment for weapons given to Ukraine, Israel and other countries, such as 155mm ammunition rounds. The United States has been providing defense items to Ukraine and Israel via presidential drawdown authority, under which Biden can authorize the immediate transfer of articles and services from U.S. stocks. Now, those stocks will be rebuilt, meaning U.S. weapons factories will be working nonstop.
Nearly $14 billion will pay for purchase of advanced weapons systems for Ukraine, such as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, a light multiple rocket launcher built by Lockheed Martin in Arkansas.
Another $1.6 billion will be to replenish U.S. military stocks that are located in Israel, including artillery shells and missiles. These are pre-positioned for U.S. military use, but also available for Israel if necessary.



Nearly $5 billion is to expand military production capacity to manage the needs to Ukraine, Israel and other countries. For instance, the production rate of 155mm-caliber artillery shells was about 10,000 a month, and the administration wants to boost that to 1 million a year — a substantial increase that will include buying additional casing, explosive charges, warheads and fuses.
More than $7 billion — half directed to Israel — is for a State Department program called Foreign Military Financing, under which U.S. grants or loans are provided to countries to buy U.S. military equipment. (The bill also amends that program’s loan authority provided in a previous Ukraine law to allow for up to $8 billion in direct loans and $8 billion loan guarantees for NATO and major non-NATO allies to buy U.S. military equipment.)
Nearly $3.3 billion will be used to boost production of submarines, such as Virginia-class submarines, from an average of 1.3 per year to two per year. Each Virginia-class submarine costs about $4.3 billion.



Finally, the bill provided $1.6 billion to build additional missile defense systems for Israel.

19 percent will go to the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence​

The bill has nearly $18 billion for defense spending to help the Pentagon and intelligence services fund the cost of managing the fallout from a war in Ukraine and the war between Israel and Gaza. The bill both replenishes money that already has been spent and money that will be needed for the rest of the year, officials said. The bill specifically references $2.4 billion for U.S. Central Command, which overseas operations in the Middle East, $1.9 billion for additional maintenance, and $2.4 billion for combat expenditures and other spending, including at U.S. bases in the United States. But money for intelligence activities is classified, so it is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of all the spending.

21 percent will mostly go to aid and diplomacy​

This line item includes the $8 billion to assist the Ukrainian government, $5.6 billion is for general international disaster assistance, and $3.5 billion for refugee assistance. The bill has many other smaller spending categories, such as additional money for the State Department to bolster diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and increased funds for inspectors general.

Allies are refilling their shopping carts here​

An underappreciated aspect of the Russian war in Ukraine is how NATO allies have also spent significant funds buying advanced U.S. weapons to replace materiel they have given to Ukraine. Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland have flooded U.S. manufacturers with orders since the war started. For instance, Poland gave 250 older tanks to Ukraine and then signed more than $6 billion in deals to buy nearly 370 Abrams tanks (made in Ohio). Warsaw also gave Ukraine Soviet-made attack helicopters and in turn signed a $12 billion deal to replace them with Apache helicopters (made in Arizona).



Between 2019 and 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the percentage of arms purchases from U.S. companies has spiked to these percentages: the Netherlands (99 percent), Italy (89 percent), Norway (89 percent), Britain (89 percent), Denmark (70 percent), Germany (63 percent) and Poland (45 percent).
Grenell did not respond to a request for comment.

The Pinocchio Test​

The one thing Grenell got right is that the bill cost nearly $100 billion. It was emergency spending and thus not paid for with offsetting revenue, which if you are a deficit hawk may be troubling.
But it’s highly misleading to say these funds are going to foreign countries. Nearly 80 percent will be spent on weapons made in the United States or by the U.S. military. This spending may be for the benefit of foreign countries — such as Ukraine in its war against Russia — but the money is mostly being used to create jobs in the United States.

Three Pinocchios​

(About our rating scale)

 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4 and h-hawk
Since these bills — for Ukraine, for Israel and the Pacific region — are mostly about military aid, that means they are really jobs programs in the United States, which in turn bolsters the U.S. economy.

Borrowing money to pay Americans to bury cans of money wouldn't 'bolster the U.S. economy'.
Likewise, borrowing money to pay Americans to turn resources into smoke on the other side of the globe doesn't 'bolster the U.S. economy', it just sends resources overseas and saddles the future with increased debt expense to carry evermore.

If government driven munitions manufacture was the key to economic success we'd all be chasing North Korea's living standards. But that isn't how things actually work.
 
Wait so you're telling me the companies that make bombs basically just got a stimulus package to make more bombs from the people that they donate to and back for office?
 
Since these bills — for Ukraine, for Israel and the Pacific region — are mostly about military aid, that means they are really jobs programs in the United States, which in turn bolsters the U.S. economy.

Borrowing money to pay Americans to bury cans of money wouldn't 'bolster the U.S. economy'.
Likewise, borrowing money to pay Americans to turn resources into smoke on the other side of the globe doesn't 'bolster the U.S. economy', it just sends resources overseas and saddles the future with increased debt expense to carry evermore.

If government driven munitions manufacture was the key to economic success we'd all be chasing North Korea's living standards. But that isn't how things actually work.
I disagree with you on this. Having spent 19 years in Northern Virginia, living in the "richest county in America", I can say that the defense industry is a huge driver of a lot of those high paying jobs.

Look at this list of the "richest counties": 3 of the top 5, and 5 of the top 10, are all DC suburbs, and a lot of that is defense/government contractor-driven. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/richest-counties-in-the-us/

That money is going to start with these high-paying execs, but it's also going to trickle down to the places they are making the bullets and bombs and guidance systems and night vision goggles and satellites, etc, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Wait so you're telling me the companies that make bombs basically just got a stimulus package to make more bombs from the people that they donate to and back for office?
I would rephrase that as: companies that make bombs received funding to produce more bombs which will be supplied to Ukraine, or which will backfill our supply of bombs supplied to Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Ukraine is running low on men. Not sure how they solve that unless they beg NATO to get involved or the U.S. sends or new found stockpile of 18-30 year old illegals.
 
I disagree with you on this. Having spent 19 years in Northern Virginia, living in the "richest county in America", I can say that the defense industry is a huge driver of a lot of those high paying jobs.

Look at this list of the "richest counties": 3 of the top 5, and 5 of the top 10, are all DC suburbs, and a lot of that is defense/government contractor-driven. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/richest-counties-in-the-us/

That money is going to start with these high-paying execs, but it's also going to trickle down to the places they are making the bullets and bombs and guidance systems and night vision goggles and satellites, etc, etc.
Almost like either political party will do anything and everything to stay in power to keep the D.C. swamp gravy train rolling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDallasRuss
Keep that MIC rolling.
While you likely meant that to be mocking, I do think we need to keep the MIC rolling and cranked up even more to meet the demands in Ukraine, and also likely other parts of the world in the not too distant future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I disagree with you on this. Having spent 19 years in Northern Virginia, living in the "richest county in America", I can say that the defense industry is a huge driver of a lot of those high paying jobs.

I'd say you're not seeing the whole picture through that keyhole in N.Va.

What did we get in return for borrowing billions to pay those jobs?
Craters and smoke in the Middle East for the last 19 years? Anything else?

That's the problem.

Debt created and foisted on the society, a relative handful closest to the Emerald City benefit, but nothing of value for the society that will evermore bear interest expense on the debt that paid those salaries.
 
So essentially it’s a form of economic stimulus, just another positive outcome for doing the right thing.
It's not economic success when it's:
1) the government borrowing money to pay for it
2) the output only leads to temporary productivity, i.e., weapons, instead of long term productivity

Where's the discussion about the $8B to fund Ukraine government pensions? How does that help anyone in the US, especially when we are paying the interest on the debt?

Where's the discussion about why we need to give Taiwan any kind of aid? They are laughing at us while they look at the checks.
 
It's not economic success when it's:
1) the government borrowing money to pay for it
This is nothing new
2) the output only leads to temporary productivity, i.e., weapons, instead of long term productivity
Bullets and bombs unfortunately will always be in high demand
Where's the discussion about the $8B to fund Ukraine government pensions? How does that help anyone in the US, especially when we are paying the interest on the debt?
Would you prefer the old Ukrainians starve instead of being hit by Russian missiles?
Where's the discussion about why we need to give Taiwan any kind of aid? They are laughing at us while they look at the checks.
The fact that China strongly opposed the Taiwanese funding indicates to me it was the right thing to do as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I'd say you're not seeing the whole picture through that keyhole in N.Va.

What did we get in return for borrowing billions to pay those jobs?
Craters and smoke in the Middle East for the last 19 years? Anything else?

That's the problem.

Debt created and foisted on the society, a relative handful closest to the Emerald City benefit, but nothing of value for the society that will evermore bear interest expense on the debt that paid those salaries.
I get what you're saying. I think we could extend that out to a large percentage of defense spending. Every bullet or bomb not spent on training or used on enemies - used only as "deterrents" are pretty much a waste of money. It seems like Russia has shown that you can save all that money and just convince everyone you have a huge modern army, when in reality you've still got the same tired stuff you had 30 years ago. Maybe we don't need to spend 6x the next highest country (or whatever the number is now) on defense? Maybe we save some of that money to go towards other things we need, or just use it to pay down debt.

I certainly agree that the debt is a huge problem - probably the biggest problem - and it's one that no politicians care to address. It turns out that the "bump" they get from delivering things that people want - regardless of the source of funding - far outweighs the bump from reducing the debt that most people can't see/feel/comprehend anyway. Esp from a segment of the population who knows they'll be gone soon, and it'll be someone else's problem to deal with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obviously Oblivious
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT