I feel deeply for the people of Libya. I respect the hunger they feel for freedom and self-determination and I think I understand both the optimism and the despair that led to their uprising. My heart breaks for the violence perpetrated by their own leader against them. I feel disgust at mercenaries willing to enter another country and kill the people there because the leader s afraid that using his own forces will alienate the military and turn them against him. Something in my gut resonates with the old Bruce Cockburn song, "If I Had a Rocket Launcher..." and the myth of redemptive violence calls me like a siren call.
All of that said, we should not be involved. There are at least three good reasons for that. The first is that we cannot afford to be involved in yet another war. I understand that on the first day, the US launched 112 cruise missiles into Libya. Those missiles cost $1 million each. Just for comparison sake, NPR receives about $5 million a year in government funding. Imagine how many teachers, college scholarships, meals for the poor, health care for the needy we could fund with $112 million dollars, and that was one day... there is no end in sight. Today, an F16E crashed. Evidently the pilots are safe but there are reports that US service people were injured in the rescue. I tried to find prices for an F16E and the ones I could discover ranged from $31.1 to 43 million in 1998 dollars. Add in the other costs and I can't imagine it is costing us less than $500 million a day. This is at a time when many are saying we're broke and those on the right are calling to slash programs for the poor, for children, for the elderly... We cannot afford to engage in yet another military adventure.
Second, we have seen that whether our intentions are good or not, we can't seem to get things right in the Middle East. No, I do not believe the lines we were fed by the Bush administration as we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least some folk did... so even if I give them the benefit of a doubt, IT DIDN'T WORK. Why in the world would we think this would turn out any better?
The third is what war does to the participants, the human costs. Taking a human life destroys a piece of your soul even if the act is justified. For some folk, it is a small bit, for others, it is a huge piece and some never are the same again. I can't help but think the number of vets living on the streets has something to do with the condition of their souls when they got back... and healing a soul is not an easy thing. And there are the horrific examples of destroyed souls that we saw in the photos from Abu Ghraib and now from the "kill squad" in Afghanistan. I would never begin to imply that all soldiers turn into monsters... but some do. Were these evil kids before they went off to war? Perhaps some were, but what about those who were so damaged by their experiences that they became less than human. Again, I am not implying this is the norm or even common, but I do not believe these young men and women would have acted that way had they not been sent off to war. Yes, I know Obama has said we will not send in ground troops and at least to some degree that may mitigate some of the human costs to our side, but as today showed, even an "air war" sometimes requires boots on the ground and there are men and women firing the missiles and flying the planes who know their actions end in death and destruction. Plus, there are the traumatic brain injuries, the missing limbs, the deaths, collateral damage to civilians and infrastructure in foreign lands, and the destroyed families there and here.
I am a pacifist and do not believe war is justified, period, but for those who believe that at times war is a necessary evil, these human costs must be weighed seriously. This is not the time or place to send our young men and women.
Showing posts with label military spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military spending. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
These Cuts
I've been chomping at the bit here for weeks as I listen to politicians talk about cuts that need to be made in government programs and that all of us will need to share the pain. They're lying. And it is immoral.
Here's where are the cuts they're discussing - education, food safety, children's programs, programs to help the poor, international food aid, and the list continues in a similar vein. Most of the budget items are relatively small but they are symbolic. To the degree that a budget is a moral document that speaks to a nation's real priorities, these discussions clearly tell us that the most vulnerable in our society are on their own. These cuts won't fix any perceived problems but the mean spiritedness and short-sightedness of the proposed cuts really is amazing to me. Imagine the future if our educational system, already lagging behind much of the developed world in important ways, is defunded and pushed further down the list. Imagine the future in our cities if the poor safety nets we currently have are removed. As a further insult, I did see a report today that while discussion these small cuts, funding for one will continue - the Army will continue to purchase ad space on a NASCAR car to the tune of $7 million a year.
Which leads us to the big areas... First is the military, which depending on how you count it is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the entire government budget as we care for vets, support bases in over 150 different countries, and prosecute two wars that are rapidly approaching the longest wars we have ever engaged in. There is almost no discussion about the efficacy of the current military or the necessity of maintaining it as it is. Do those bases in 150 countries really contribute to our security? Or are there other ways to accomplish this? After spending nearly $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, are we closer to lessening the threat of terror? And even if we are, might there have been better ways that would have cost less and caused less suffering? As long as military power is an unquestioned value for our country, we will never even investigate the possibilities.
Second is Social Security, the retirement income program. Discussions of cutting the two latter programs are taking place. Unfortunately, they haven't been honest. We hear that Social Security will be broke in X years... as the society ages and there are fewer workers paying in and more taking out of the system. While that piece is clearly true, the original intent was that the funds paid into Social Security were envisioned as being in a "lock box" as a trust fund, held for the time when they ould be needed. Whether that was ever a realistic plan or not is debatable, but beginning with Reagan, the fund was used to pay for other government programs, essentially moving it from a retirement investment program to just another tax used to fund the government.
Any changes made to Social Security will have far reaching implications for our society as it has become the primary income for many elderly folk, the very folk who built this nation. And many who are nearing retirement have planned their lives with that program as an essential part of their future. There are ways to make the program more viable. The tax is capped at a certain income level. If the funds were only used to cover the costs of Social Security, this might make sense but as they are used to fund other government programs, they become an incredible regressive tax. So raise the cap or remove it entirely. There is talk of raising the retirement age as people live longer. While this discussion has merit, it must also be noted that different slices of the population have very different life expectancies and some kinds of work simply cannot be extended. While a 70 year old may do fine behind a desk at a computer screen, climbing onto a roof to do manual labor is a very different issue. And finally there are those who look at the statistics and see the program as being viable, as it currently is, for a very long time.
Third is Medicare, the medical program for the elderly and disabled. Frankly, I don't know enough about Medicare to be ignorant enough to make stupid comments. I do know that it, as with Social Security, is a critical part of the system many people rely upon and that the problems in our heath care delivery system are systemic.
Fourth comes the other side of the equation - taxes. Our highest marginal rates are the lowest they've been for over 50 years. Surely it tells us something that as the tax rates went down, the deficit went up. The discussion has been framed by the right wing that taxes are always evil and should never be raised. While my bank account certainly appreciates that argument, my heart finds it terribly lacking. It takes money to provide essential services. In my mind, the role of government is to provide those essential services, especially the ones that cannot or will not be provided by private enterprise. To the degree that an individual receives the benefits of living in this society, that individual is responsible to pay back. That means taxes. It is clear that since the Reagan presidency, income has been redistributed upward (see the chart to the right which goes through '07, the trend has increased since then). The wealthiest 1% have by far received the most benefits of living in this society. They, and the rest of us, should pay our fair share to support this society.
OK, now for the theological part... it is simple. The scriptures again and again show God's expectations that a society must care for the poorest and most vulnerable of its citizens. Sojourners Magazine is distributing What Would Jesus Cut bracelets... surely he would not cut the programs upon which the poor depend.
Here's where are the cuts they're discussing - education, food safety, children's programs, programs to help the poor, international food aid, and the list continues in a similar vein. Most of the budget items are relatively small but they are symbolic. To the degree that a budget is a moral document that speaks to a nation's real priorities, these discussions clearly tell us that the most vulnerable in our society are on their own. These cuts won't fix any perceived problems but the mean spiritedness and short-sightedness of the proposed cuts really is amazing to me. Imagine the future if our educational system, already lagging behind much of the developed world in important ways, is defunded and pushed further down the list. Imagine the future in our cities if the poor safety nets we currently have are removed. As a further insult, I did see a report today that while discussion these small cuts, funding for one will continue - the Army will continue to purchase ad space on a NASCAR car to the tune of $7 million a year.
Which leads us to the big areas... First is the military, which depending on how you count it is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the entire government budget as we care for vets, support bases in over 150 different countries, and prosecute two wars that are rapidly approaching the longest wars we have ever engaged in. There is almost no discussion about the efficacy of the current military or the necessity of maintaining it as it is. Do those bases in 150 countries really contribute to our security? Or are there other ways to accomplish this? After spending nearly $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, are we closer to lessening the threat of terror? And even if we are, might there have been better ways that would have cost less and caused less suffering? As long as military power is an unquestioned value for our country, we will never even investigate the possibilities.
Second is Social Security, the retirement income program. Discussions of cutting the two latter programs are taking place. Unfortunately, they haven't been honest. We hear that Social Security will be broke in X years... as the society ages and there are fewer workers paying in and more taking out of the system. While that piece is clearly true, the original intent was that the funds paid into Social Security were envisioned as being in a "lock box" as a trust fund, held for the time when they ould be needed. Whether that was ever a realistic plan or not is debatable, but beginning with Reagan, the fund was used to pay for other government programs, essentially moving it from a retirement investment program to just another tax used to fund the government.
Any changes made to Social Security will have far reaching implications for our society as it has become the primary income for many elderly folk, the very folk who built this nation. And many who are nearing retirement have planned their lives with that program as an essential part of their future. There are ways to make the program more viable. The tax is capped at a certain income level. If the funds were only used to cover the costs of Social Security, this might make sense but as they are used to fund other government programs, they become an incredible regressive tax. So raise the cap or remove it entirely. There is talk of raising the retirement age as people live longer. While this discussion has merit, it must also be noted that different slices of the population have very different life expectancies and some kinds of work simply cannot be extended. While a 70 year old may do fine behind a desk at a computer screen, climbing onto a roof to do manual labor is a very different issue. And finally there are those who look at the statistics and see the program as being viable, as it currently is, for a very long time.
Third is Medicare, the medical program for the elderly and disabled. Frankly, I don't know enough about Medicare to be ignorant enough to make stupid comments. I do know that it, as with Social Security, is a critical part of the system many people rely upon and that the problems in our heath care delivery system are systemic.
Fourth comes the other side of the equation - taxes. Our highest marginal rates are the lowest they've been for over 50 years. Surely it tells us something that as the tax rates went down, the deficit went up. The discussion has been framed by the right wing that taxes are always evil and should never be raised. While my bank account certainly appreciates that argument, my heart finds it terribly lacking. It takes money to provide essential services. In my mind, the role of government is to provide those essential services, especially the ones that cannot or will not be provided by private enterprise. To the degree that an individual receives the benefits of living in this society, that individual is responsible to pay back. That means taxes. It is clear that since the Reagan presidency, income has been redistributed upward (see the chart to the right which goes through '07, the trend has increased since then). The wealthiest 1% have by far received the most benefits of living in this society. They, and the rest of us, should pay our fair share to support this society.
OK, now for the theological part... it is simple. The scriptures again and again show God's expectations that a society must care for the poorest and most vulnerable of its citizens. Sojourners Magazine is distributing What Would Jesus Cut bracelets... surely he would not cut the programs upon which the poor depend.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tax Day
I mailed off all of my tax forms today and like most folk, have mixed feelings at best. We do have a refund... but I also have to make quarterly payments so one hand receives a check while the other writes one. All of it has been more immediate this year with all of the talk going on regarding the federal deficit and the impact it will have on future taxes.
I've been hearing commentators over the last few days say that with the huge deficit and the new health care bill, we will need to raise taxes or cut entitlement programs or both. As a general rule, I believe we should pay as we go. Yes there are some things for which borrowing is a logical plan, but generally, we should pay for the benefits we receive. And if you can't afford a Mercedes, drive a Kia. But here's the problem... we're being told to drive a Kia while nobody is questioning whether or not we really need a 14,000 square foot house with a pool and a tennis court. Huh? Let move away from the metaphor. The largest area of expense in the Federal budget is military spending. Now, the government figures say military spending is 20%, but that does not include costs for past military, interest on the debt incurred by military expenditures, or military costs that fall under other budget categories. The War Resisters League places the percentage of military spending at 54% with 36% going to the current military. In either case or somewhere in between, military spending is a huge piece of the pie. It needs to be a part of the discussion.
A budget is a reflection of values. Where your heart is... there is your money. The US spends more on the military than the next 15 nations combined, accounting for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending. Of the next 15 countries, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. So what does this massive spending say about us? Do we need to maintain military bases all around the world? Does that even make us safer? Or are the better ways to spend our money?
I don't mind paying more taxes. I benefit from living in the country in ways I cannot begin to express. It is my responsibility to contribute both to current needs and to the future. Even though I am a pacifist, I won't even complain about a reasonable amount going to the military. I do mind 1/2 of my taxes going to empirism. So let's talk seriously about the budget, about deficits, about the need to both cut spending and to raise taxes, but lets keep military spending on the table and realize that without cutting those expenditures, other changes will be inadequate to solve the problem without causing incredible hardship to our population. Imagine how many seniors would live in poverty if we drastically cut social security. Imagine what would happen to health care for seniors if we did away with medicare. We already have school districts talking about cutting a day from the school week to cut costs... imagine.
One of the primary pieces contributing to the disintegration of the Soviet Union was unsustainable military spending. Infrastructure suffered. Social programs suffered. Education and health care suffered while they continued to spend on the military until everything collapsed.
I've been hearing commentators over the last few days say that with the huge deficit and the new health care bill, we will need to raise taxes or cut entitlement programs or both. As a general rule, I believe we should pay as we go. Yes there are some things for which borrowing is a logical plan, but generally, we should pay for the benefits we receive. And if you can't afford a Mercedes, drive a Kia. But here's the problem... we're being told to drive a Kia while nobody is questioning whether or not we really need a 14,000 square foot house with a pool and a tennis court. Huh? Let move away from the metaphor. The largest area of expense in the Federal budget is military spending. Now, the government figures say military spending is 20%, but that does not include costs for past military, interest on the debt incurred by military expenditures, or military costs that fall under other budget categories. The War Resisters League places the percentage of military spending at 54% with 36% going to the current military. In either case or somewhere in between, military spending is a huge piece of the pie. It needs to be a part of the discussion.
A budget is a reflection of values. Where your heart is... there is your money. The US spends more on the military than the next 15 nations combined, accounting for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending. Of the next 15 countries, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. So what does this massive spending say about us? Do we need to maintain military bases all around the world? Does that even make us safer? Or are the better ways to spend our money?
I don't mind paying more taxes. I benefit from living in the country in ways I cannot begin to express. It is my responsibility to contribute both to current needs and to the future. Even though I am a pacifist, I won't even complain about a reasonable amount going to the military. I do mind 1/2 of my taxes going to empirism. So let's talk seriously about the budget, about deficits, about the need to both cut spending and to raise taxes, but lets keep military spending on the table and realize that without cutting those expenditures, other changes will be inadequate to solve the problem without causing incredible hardship to our population. Imagine how many seniors would live in poverty if we drastically cut social security. Imagine what would happen to health care for seniors if we did away with medicare. We already have school districts talking about cutting a day from the school week to cut costs... imagine.
One of the primary pieces contributing to the disintegration of the Soviet Union was unsustainable military spending. Infrastructure suffered. Social programs suffered. Education and health care suffered while they continued to spend on the military until everything collapsed.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
The Fall of the Soviet Union and Iraq
What do these two subjects have to do with one another? Let's first talk briefly about the Soviet Union. It fell not because of the strength of America but because of the weakness of its own economy which was overburdened by a military budget that bled everything else dry. Military spending is not productive spending. It doesn't provide infrastructure or goods to the public. Instead it is just a little better than throwing the money away. It is the epitome of the disposable product. So all of this wasteful spending as they tried to keep up with us in an arms race while sustaining a war in Afghanistan was more than they could afford. When their economy collapsed, as was inevitable because of the percentage of non-productive sending, the nation crumbled.
Last Thursday Joseph Stigletz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, and Robert Hormatz, vice chairman of Goldman-Sachs International, testified before the Joint Economic Committee of congress. Stigletz said that he believes the overall cost of the Iraq war will be around 3 trillion dollars with the direct cost to US taxpayers being at least $2 trillion.
Both men testified about the opportunities to make this country better that are rendered impossible because of this war. Stigletz said that for a fraction of the cost, Social Security and Medicare could have been kept easily solvent for at least 50 more years. Each day's spending could put 58,000 children in Head Start, make college affordable for 160,000 students, pay the annual salaries of 11,000 border patrol agents or 14,000 police officers. And that is one day's costs. Watch this little film from the American Friends Service Committee to see more of what could be done with just 1 day's expenditure for this war.
Stigletz also noted that 40% of the vets from the first Gulf War are eligible for disability benefits which will go on for decades. Imagine, he asked, what the numbers will be for this war which will involve 2 million troops and go on for at least the 5 years we already have under our belt? Imagine with me the social costs when the safety net for them fails as it did for the Viet Nam vets - remember how many of them ended up homeless on the streets? How many of these young men and women will end up discarded? And what will happen to their families?
And finally they testified that because of tax cuts during war and what was an already growing deficit, this war is financed almost entirely by deficit spending. Bush has worked to try to hide the costs of the war by bypassing the normal budget process and using emergency appropriations for the funds. The costs will be hanging around our necks like an albatross for decades to come.
And John McCain says we should expect to stay there another 100 year!
Let me make a prediction. If we do, we will fall just like the Soviet Union did and for essentially the same reasons. It will have nothing to do with the strength of our ideals or the beautiful vision upon which this nation was founded. It will be because of a poorly planned and completely unnecessary war that strangled our economy.
A vote for McCain will virtually insure that end. Actually, I think a vote for Hillary will too. It is only Obama who is talking about seeing security in a new way - of building coalitions and negotiating before dropping bombs.
Last Thursday Joseph Stigletz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, and Robert Hormatz, vice chairman of Goldman-Sachs International, testified before the Joint Economic Committee of congress. Stigletz said that he believes the overall cost of the Iraq war will be around 3 trillion dollars with the direct cost to US taxpayers being at least $2 trillion.
Both men testified about the opportunities to make this country better that are rendered impossible because of this war. Stigletz said that for a fraction of the cost, Social Security and Medicare could have been kept easily solvent for at least 50 more years. Each day's spending could put 58,000 children in Head Start, make college affordable for 160,000 students, pay the annual salaries of 11,000 border patrol agents or 14,000 police officers. And that is one day's costs. Watch this little film from the American Friends Service Committee to see more of what could be done with just 1 day's expenditure for this war.
Stigletz also noted that 40% of the vets from the first Gulf War are eligible for disability benefits which will go on for decades. Imagine, he asked, what the numbers will be for this war which will involve 2 million troops and go on for at least the 5 years we already have under our belt? Imagine with me the social costs when the safety net for them fails as it did for the Viet Nam vets - remember how many of them ended up homeless on the streets? How many of these young men and women will end up discarded? And what will happen to their families?
And finally they testified that because of tax cuts during war and what was an already growing deficit, this war is financed almost entirely by deficit spending. Bush has worked to try to hide the costs of the war by bypassing the normal budget process and using emergency appropriations for the funds. The costs will be hanging around our necks like an albatross for decades to come.
And John McCain says we should expect to stay there another 100 year!
Let me make a prediction. If we do, we will fall just like the Soviet Union did and for essentially the same reasons. It will have nothing to do with the strength of our ideals or the beautiful vision upon which this nation was founded. It will be because of a poorly planned and completely unnecessary war that strangled our economy.
A vote for McCain will virtually insure that end. Actually, I think a vote for Hillary will too. It is only Obama who is talking about seeing security in a new way - of building coalitions and negotiating before dropping bombs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
