Opinion | Pass Trump's Defense Budget
- Proposed $1.5 trillion defense hike aims to 'restore deterrence'—code for 'we're scared of our own shadow and want expensive toys.'
- Author's 20 years of gas trading apparently qualifies him as a strategic genius in missile procurement. Because hedging propane = deterring China, obviously.
- Innovation pitch is the classic Pentagon sleight-of-hand: 'Give us billions, we promise to invent something cool—no receipts.'
- Ignore the deficit, ignore the crumbling bridges; the real national crisis is that the Navy only has enough ships to lose a war in *two* oceans at once.
- Reminder: The last 'shock and awe' budget worked so well, we're now in a 20-year hangover with bill attached.
Brief Summary
In a breathtaking leap of logic, a natural-gas trader argues that his experience hedging against price spikes qualifies him to greenlight a $1.5 trillion defense spending spree. The piece leans on the classic fear trifecta—China, Russia, and unspecified 'tail risks'—to justify buying more of everything, from submarines to cyber-warfare gadgets, as if military spending were a commodity futures market. The author mistakes a bloated budget for a strategy, conveniently ignoring that deterrence failed repeatedly even when the Pentagon had more money than God. He also claims 'innovation' will magically emerge from procurement pork, which is like expecting a gourmet meal from a vending machine. The article is a love letter to the military-industrial complex, wrapped in the flag and sprinkled with buzzwords like 'deterrence' and 'agility.' It's the kind of piece that reads like it was drafted by a lobbyist with a thesaurus and a grudge against fiscal responsibility.
Why This Matters
For the average taxpayer, this isn't just a policy debate—it's a demand to hand over $4,500 per person (or about $18,000 per family of four) to buy more jets that can't fly in the rain and ships that need constant repair. Beyond the price tag, the real impact is opportunity cost: That money won't fix your potholes, fund your kids' schools, or shore up the healthcare system. The author's argument essentially says 'trust us, we need a new boogeyman budget'—but history shows that every surge in defense spending buys us more endless wars, not safety. You don't need to be a pacifist to question why the world's largest military budget needs a 50% increase to feel secure. If a gas trader's risk management is as sharp as he claims, he should hedge against the real threat: a Pentagon that can't pass an audit or explain where the trillion dollars went.