"Every gun that is made, every
warship launched, every rocket
fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger
and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." --Dwight
D. Eisenhower
34th
U.S. President
A careless war of excessive cost -- human and
economic
Linda Bilmes, Joseph E. Stiglitz
Sunday, January 22, 2006
At the annual meeting of the American Economic Association earlier
this month, we presented a new estimate for the likely cost of
the war in Iraq.
We suggested that the final bill will be much higher than previously
reckoned -- between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, depending primarily
on how much longer our troops stay. Putting that into perspective,
the highest-grossing movie of all time, "Titanic," earned
$1.8 billion worldwide -- about half the cost the United States
incurs in Iraq every week.
Like the iceberg that hit the Titanic, the full costs of the
war remain largely hidden below the surface. Our calculations
include not just the money for combat operations but also the
costs the government will have to pay for years to come.
These include lifetime health care and disability benefits for
returning veterans and special round-the-clock medical attention
for many of the 16,300 Americans who have been seriously wounded.
We also count the increased cost of replacing military hardware
because the war is using equipment at three to five times the
peacetime rate.
In addition, the military must pay large re-enlistment bonuses
and offer higher benefits to re-enlist reluctant soldiers. On
top of this, because we finance the war by borrowing more money
(mostly from abroad), there is a rising interest cost on the extra
debt.
Our study also goes beyond the budget of the federal government
to estimate the war's cost to the economy and our society.
It includes, for instance, the true economic costs of injury
and death. For example, if an individual is killed in an auto
or work-related accident, his family will typically receive compensation
for lost earnings.
Standard government estimates of the lifetime economic cost of
a death are about $6 million. But the military pays out far less
-- about $500,000.
Another cost to the economy comes from the fact that 40 percent
of our troops are taken from the National Guard and Reserve units.
These troops often earn lower wages than in their civilian jobs.
Finally, there are macroeconomic costs, such as the effect of
higher oil prices -- partly a result of the instability in Iraq.
We conclude that the economy would have been much stronger if
we had invested the money in the United States instead of in Iraq.
Spending as much as $2 trillion should make us ask some questions.
First, these figures are far higher than what the administration
predicted before the war. At that time, White House economic adviser
Lawrence Lindsey was effectively fired for suggesting that the
war might cost as much as $200 billion, rather than the $60 billion
claimed by the president's budget office.
Why were the costs so vastly underestimated? Elsewhere in the
government, it is standard practice to engage in an elaborate
cost-benefit analysis for major projects.
The war in Iraq was a war of choice, an immense "project,"
and yet it now appears that there was virtually no analysis of
the likely costs of a prolonged occupation.
Could we have fought the war in ways that would have protected
our troops better and cost the country less?
A Pentagon study apparently concludes that better body armor
would have prevented many deaths and injuries. Penny-pinching
in such matters during the rush to war has led to steep long-run
costs for the nation and, tragically, for the individuals involved.
Even more fundamentally, there is the question of whether we
needed to spend the money at all. Thinking back to the months
before the war, there were few reasons to invade quickly, and
many to go slow.
The Bush policy of threatened force had pressured Iraq into allowing
the U.N. inspectors back into the country. The inspectors said
they required a few months to complete their work. Several of
our closest allies, including France and Germany, were urging
the United States to await the outcome of the inspections. There
were, as we now know, conflicting intelligence reports.
Had we waited, the value of the information we would have learned
from the inspectors would arguably have saved the nation at least
$1 trillion -- enough money to fix Social Security for the next
75 years twice over.
Linda Bilmes, a former assistant secretary of Commerce, teaches
public finance at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University,
won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001. He served as chairman
of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Clinton administration.
This piece first appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Contact us
at insight@sfchronicle.com.
Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Washington -- The White House forecast Friday that the U.S. budget
deficit for this year will be a record $445 billion, lower than
the administration previously predicted but nearly 20 percent
larger than last year's highest- ever shortfall.
President Bush's budget director, while calling the figure "unwelcome,"
said the new forecast for fiscal year 2004 -- in line with recent
congressional forecasts -- provides evidence that the economy
is growing and tax receipts are recovering. The message echoed
a new refrain in President Bush's campaign speeches, voiced repeatedly
Friday in Missouri: "We're turning the corner, and we're
not turning back."
Democrats -- and the campaign of presidential nominee John Kerry
-- countered that the new estimate looks good only in comparison
to a previous estimate of $521 billion that was unrealistically
high and that the deficit is still on pace to be $70 billion higher
than last year's $375 billion.
Still, the White House declared a qualified victory.
"The deficit remains at a level that we think is unwelcome,"
said Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
"The good news is that it is much lower than we projected,
and we or any of the other forecasters projected just six months
ago, and we believe that that is a product of the strong economic
policies that the president has put in place, and that the trend
will continue."
Bolten said the government is ahead of pace to fulfill Bush's
pledge that the annual federal deficit will be cut in half over
five years. But he said the target for the reduction will be based
not on an actual deficit, but on the earlier, overstated deficit
forecast for 2004.
Bolten also said the predicted reduction will be based not on
actual dollars, but on the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic
product. The deficit for fiscal 2004, which ends Sept. 30, will
be 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, Bolten said, well below
the modern high of 6 percent in 1983.
The White House projected a deficit of $331 billion for fiscal
year 2005, which begins Oct. 1. But Bolten said declining deficit
projections for the next four years did not include additional
emergency spending, which is expected to reach tens of billions
of dollars. "You need to factor in that we will need additional
spending, at least in the short term, in both Iraq and Afghanistan,"
he said.
Democrats ridiculed the White House's upbeat portrayal of the
statistics.
"The administration announces the largest deficit in the
history of the United States, and they claim things are getting
better. That is a remarkable claim," said Sen. Kent Conrad
of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.
"It's a little like the captain of the Titanic saying there's
good news as the ship goes down, because it's not sinking as fast
as he'd said it would."
Bolten said the deficits come from "an extraordinary confluence
of adversity," including the terrorist attacks and corporate
scandals. He did not list tax cuts as a cause.
The White House did not offer forecasts beyond five years. The
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said "the problems
only get worse" after that, when increasing numbers of Baby
Boomers will retire and become eligible for Social Security and
Medicare.
The White House report Friday raised the projected costs for
both those programs over five years -- Medicare by $67 billion
and Social Security by $59 billion.
THE COST OF WAR
The Iraq war is proving to be far costlier than initial Bush administration
estimates. Adjusting for inflation, the nonpartisan Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimated the cost of major
U.S. wars of the previous half-century:
Korean War, 1950-1953 $418
billion
Vietnam War, 1964-1975 $597
billion
Persian Gulf War*, 1990-1991 $ 84
billion
War in Iraq
(March 2003 projected to Sept. 30, 2004) $100
billion
(March 2003 projected to Sept. 30, 2005) $150
billion
*About 90 percent of
these costs were paid by U.S. allies.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHART (2):
NATION'S COSTS FOR WAR AND SECURITY
Since Sept. 11, 2001, appropriations for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, homeland security and other federal anti-terrorism
programs have soared. Here is an estimate by the Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessments for the extra costs associated with
those programs:
-- Response to and recovery from 9/11 terrorist attacks
Military operations related to combating terrorism,
including operations in Afghanistan and homeland security $ 83
billion
Reconstruction and related aid to Afghanistan $ 3
billion
Non-Defense Department homeland security
and combating terrorism $ 65
billion
Victim relief and recovery from 9/11 attacks $ 16
billion
Subtotal $167
billion
-- War in Iraq and aftermath
Military operations (Defense Department)
through fiscal 2004* $105
billion
Subtotal $105
billion
-- Other
Reconstruction and related aid to Iraq $ 23
billion
Foreign aid (primarily to states supporting U.S. operations
in Afghanistan and Iraq) $ 7
billion
Aviation industry relief $ 2
billion
Other $ 1
billion
Subtotal $ 33
billion
-- General Department of Defense programs
(activities unrelated to terrorism, homeland security or Iraq)
$101 billion
Subtotal $101
billion
Total $407
billion
* Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
estimate of projected additional costs for Iraq and
Afghanistan, fiscal 2005: approximately $50 billion.
Sources: Department of Defense, Office of Management and Budget,
Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office
Greenspan's got his eye on your retirement
-- for all the wrong reasons
Dean Baker
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
It must be really great to be Alan Greenspan. There he was, all
over the news headlines and TV shows late last month, warning
us that we will have to cut Social Security benefits in order
to get the budget deficit down to size. Economists all across
the country (myself included) were being asked about the wisdom
of Greenspan's latest pronouncement.
The media display was especially impressive because Greenspan
bears much of the blame for the huge deficits that he now proposes
to close by cutting Social Security. In January 2001, Greenspan
testified to Congress that President Bush's tax cuts were a good
idea, because the budget surpluses were too large. They were so
large, Greenspan told Congress, that he was worried we would pay
off the national debt too quickly. Then the government wouldn't
know what to do with all the extra money coming in. So he urged
Congress to pass the tax cuts in order to reduce the projected
surplus. Because this was Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
talking, Congress took his advice very seriously.
Needless to say, things haven't quite worked out as Greenspan
predicted. We are now looking at near record deficits as far as
the eye can see, with the federal government's borrowing projected
to top $600 billion in the current fiscal year, according to the
federal Office of Management and Budget. Three years after warning
that the surpluses were too large, Greenspan is now warning of
the dangers of large deficits. Instead of reversing the 2001 tax
cuts, the bulk of which went to wealthy taxpayers, Greenspan suggests
that we take the money from retirees' Social Security checks.
In most jobs, you get fired when you get something really important
wrong in a big way. But when Greenspan messes up, he gets members
of Congress writing measures to take money from retirees and widows.
This isn't Greenspan's first mistake on the job. He completely
missed the onset of the recent recession, assuring Congress right
into 2001 that the economy just faced a brief soft spot. He also
missed the prior recession. The transcripts of the Federal Reserve
Board's meeting show that he was predicting solid growth back
in June 1990, a time when we now know the economy was already
spiraling downward.
In addition, he missed the largest financial bubble in history,
telling investors that the stock market run-up at the end of the
1990s might be justified by the acceleration in the economy's
rate of productivity growth. The stock crash not only caused our
latest recession, it also cost millions of families approaching
retirement much of their savings. As a result, millions of older
workers have been forced back into the labor market at a time
when they expected to be enjoying retirement.
Greenspan's attack on Social Security seems especially mean-spirited,
for he was the person who engineered the tax increases that were
intended to pay for the Baby Boomers' Social Security. Greenspan
chaired the 1982 Social Security commission that recommended raising
the Social Security tax rate by more than 2 percentage points.
It is important to remember that the Social Security tax falls
disproportionately on low- and middle-income workers: A big city
police captain pays the same Social Security taxes as Bill Gates.
This regressive tax can be justified if it is used to finance
Social Security, because the payback is very progressive: Those
at the bottom get the highest payback rate.
But no one would have suggested raising Social Security taxes
to pay for farm subsidies, the space program or defense. This
is exactly the effect of Greenspan's proposal, however. The Social
Security trustees' report shows that the program has enough revenue
to pay all benefits for nearly 40 years, yet Greenspan wants to
cut benefits so that Social Security funds can be used to finance
the rest of the government. It's a good thing he's Alan Greenspan.
Anyone else would be out of a job.
Dean Baker is an economist and co-director of the Center for
Economic &Policy Research in Washington. He is co-author,
with Mark Weisbrot, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis"
(University of Chicago Press, 1999).
Congress should veto misguided second installment
on Iraq war
Barbara Lee
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
In the next few days, Congress will be asked to vote on an additional
$87 billion appropriation to fund the war in Iraq. This money
follows a $78 billion special appropriation in April and a defense
budget that already tops $368 billion.
Those rising numbers are not only daunting, but they represent
with this second installment for the Iraq invasion a process that
may never end. I've reached that conclusion because this is another
blank check that provides no answers to the questions that it
begs -- questions about a timetable for Iraqi independence and
an exit strategy for American troops. Before appropriating another
taxpayer dollar, we must have both.
One year ago, Congress voted to authorize the use of force against
Iraq. On that day, 133 men and women said no. And 72 of us not
only rejected the president's plan but offered our own: a plan
to address the challenge of Iraq through the United Nations rather
than unilateralism and through diplomacy rather than war. In an
amendment that I offered to transform the use of force authorization,
we asked the president to give U.N. weapons inspectors more time
to determine whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction,
to pursue diplomacy and multilateral cooperation. In short, we
offered an alternative to pouring billions of dollars into Iraq
and sacrificing hundreds of American lives.
A year later, the American people are still owed a clear explanation
of why this nation went to war. So far, we have not received a
credible justification for the war, even though more than 300
Americans have died and more than 1,200 soldiers have been wounded.
The numbers of Iraqi dead and injured are literally countless,
because the military does not attempt to collect this information.
President Bush and his advisers told the American public, Congress
and the international community time and time again that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now grave questions have
arisen regarding the interpretation of intelligence information
presented by the administration.
The American people deserve answers. That is why I will be introducing
a resolution stating that Congress should not adjourn until it
establishes either a select committee or an independent commission
to investigate the origins of this war. And congressional Republicans
should respond to Americans' calls for real answers by refusing
to adjourn until such an independent body is created.
Just as we need to verify the process by which we got into this
war, we must also develop a transition strategy to exit from it.
We need to recognize that we will not gain substantial international
assistance as long as we are maintaining a virtually unilateral
occupation. The United Nations must have real political and economic
authority if it is to be a real force for change in Iraq.
We must also have a concrete timetable for a transition strategy.
This timetable isn't just for American spouses and children to
know when they'll be receiving their loved ones back. We also
need that timetable so that the Iraqi people have a clear vision
of their own future. Our goal has to be to get the government
and the resources of Iraq back into the hands of Iraqis. Iraq
has a huge unemployment problem and a large talent pool of skilled
workers, and it will be cheaper and better to direct reconstruction
efforts through Iraqi-run initiatives. The ultimate economic destiny
of the Iraqis, who have the second largest known oil reserves
in the world, lies in their hands. The U.S. government must pay
for the damage caused by our bombs, but the American people are
not responsible for the long-term economic development of Iraq.
We must leave an Iraq that is stable and secure, but we must leave.
Letting Iraqis take care of themselves also means that we can
take care of unmet needs at home. We have schools that need to
be reconstructed, health- care programs that need to be expanded,
housing that needs to be built and jobs to be created. We also
have deep obligations internationally: With 42 million people
worldwide living with HIV/AIDS, the Bush administration has come
up with only $2 billion of the $3 billion we promised to fight
a disease that killed 3 million people in the last year.
This misguided foreign policy is exacting real costs on the American
people. We need to know how we got into this quagmire, and we
desperately need to know how to get out. For all of these reasons,
I oppose this $87 billion appropriation. Congress must not blindly
sign another check that is simply the latest, but not the last,
installment on the president's doctrine of pre- emption.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, is a member of the House International
Relations Committee.
This is the nail in the Iraq War's coffin for any sane, thinking
individual, regardless of their political stripe. To get some
perspective, here are some real-life comparisons about what $87
billion means:
$87 Billion Is More Than The Combined Total Of All State Budget
Deficits in
the United States.
The Bush administration proposed absolutely zero funds to help
states deal
with these deficits, despite the fact that their tax cuts drove
down state
revenues. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]
$87 Billion is enough to pay The 3.3 million people who have
lost jobs under
George W. Bush $26,363 each!
The unemployment benefits extension passed by Congress at the
beginning
of this year provides zero benefits to "workers who exhausted
their regular,
state unemployment benefits and cannot find work." All told,
two-thirds of
unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits. [Source: Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities]
$87 Billion Is More Than DOUBLE The Total Amount The Government
Spends On Homeland Security.
The U.S. spends about $36 billion on homeland security. Yet,
Sen. Warren
Rudman (R-N.H.) wrote "America will fall approximately $98.4
billion short
of meeting critical emergency responder needs" for homeland
security without
a funding increase. [Source: Council on Foreign Relations]
$87 Billion Is 87 Times The Amount The FederalGovernment Spends
On After School Programs.
George W. Bush proposed a budget that reduces the $1 billion
for
after-school programs to $600 million -- cutting off about 475,000
children
from the program. [Source: The Republican-dominated House Appropriations
Committee]
$87 Billion Is More Than 10 Times What The Government Spends
On All
Environmental Protection.
The Bush administration requested just $7.6 billion for the entire
Environmental Protection Agency. This included a 32 percent cut
to water
quality grants, a 6 percent reduction in enforcement staff, and
a 50 percent
cut to land acquisition and conservation. [Source: Natural Resources
Defense
Council]
There you go. In black and white. A few million of you will receive
this
letter. Please share the above with at least a half-dozen people
today and
tomorrow. I, like you, do not want to see another approval rating
over 50%.
A Personal Appeal from Dennis Kucinich:
Dear Friend,
I'm going to be blunt. My presidential campaign needs your help
more than
ever. There are only a few days left in this fundraising quarter
(ending
Sept. 30) and I need your support. If you saw last night's
nationally-televised debate, you know that I am speaking out for
you...and
for your issues. I spoke out for bringing the troops home from
Iraq, and
against the President's request for $87 billion more. I was alone
in
discussing how the Iraq occupation hurts our economy.I was alone
in
advocating a withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO in favor of bilateral
trade pacts that protect workers' rights and the environment.I
spoke clearly about taking our healthcare system out of the hands
of the insurance and
pharmaceutical companies -- and establishing nonprofit national
health
insurance, Enhanced Medicare for All. I alone called for returning
the
Social Security retirement age to 65. Our wealthy nation can afford
healthcare and retirement security. But we have to rescind the
tax breaks for the wealthy, and as I pointed out in last night's
debate, the wealthiest 1% in our country will get a majority of
the Bush tax cut.To keep bringing these issues to the American
people our campaign needs an infusion of funds. Please donate
at https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php.
Your contribution today will be doubled through federal matching
funds
arriving in a few months.I know many of you have donated as much
as you can, and I thank you. But please reach out to three other
people who share our values -- by forwarding this email to them.If
you watched last night's
debate, you saw me call for a 15% cut in Pentagon spending and
an end to tax breaks for the wealthy in order to fund childcare
and education and job
creation. I spoke of my efforts to end the death penalty and to
establish a
cabinet-level Department of Peace.
"We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence
but the
active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human
awareness,
of respect, trust and integrity."
-- Rep. Dennis Kucinich,
Democratic Presidential Candidate
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY
MoveOn Bulletin
Friday, July 11th, 2003
Co-Editors: Tai Moses and Don Hazen, AlterNet
Subscribe online at: http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/
CONTENTS:
1. Peter Schurman: It's Still the Economy
2. Seth Sandronsky: Bush's Fiscal Policy Not Creating New Jobs
3. Holly Sklar: Poverty Wages are Toxic
4. Molly Ivins: People First
5. Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Poor Pay for States' Woes
6. Stan Cox: Wal-Mart Wages Don't Support Wal-Mart Workers
7. Joe Robinson: Washington to Nation: Drop Dead on the Job
8. William Greider: Rolling Back the 20th Century
9. James Hickey: Waging a Fight
10. Robert Scheer: Blame Bush in State Fiscal Crisis
11. About the Bulletin
------------------------------
IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY
MoveOn Bulletin Op-Ed
by Peter Schurman
Since America's inception, our identity has always been closely
linked to our economy. Among the first writers to define our national
character, Alexis de Tocqueville described Americans as hardworking
and entrepreneurial -- and our country as bustling with economic
activity. America's rise over the past century to global prominence
has been driven not by our arms buildup, but by our economy. When
our politicians assert that the United States is the greatest
country on Earth, it's our economy they're trumpeting.
Today the state of our economy is perilous. Unemployment has
risen to 6.4% and nearly 2.5 million jobs have been lost since
President Bush took office. This summer presents college graduates
with the worst job market in a decade. Many companies are slashing
or eliminating pensions. State and local governments are cutting
vital services to balance their budgets, under pressure from the
economic slump and the cost of President Bush's tax cuts, which
mainly benefit wealthy elites.
The articles in this week's bulletin provide a vivid snapshot
of the American economy in trouble. They cover California's fiscal
crisis, working families trying to get by in Kansas, and a citizens'
group fighting for a living wage in Atlanta.
The 2004 elections may well turn on the strength of our economy,
as they did in 1992. President Bush is concerned enough that he's
announced plans to conduct a massive public relations campaign
this summer, attempting to whitewash the economic picture and
depict himself as a responsible leader. We think the facts argue
otherwise, and we present them here so you can judge for yourself.
------------------------------
BUSH'S FISCAL POLICY NOT CREATING NEW JOBS
Seth Sandronsky, AlterNet
The economy is weakening; the unemployment rate is at 6.4 percent,
or about 9.4 million workers; and state and local governments
are facing unprecedented budget crises. Yet the Bush White House
continues to focus on the economic restructuring of the nation,
cutting taxes for corporations and the rich for the third time.
It's becoming clear that Bush's "jobs and growth" plan
is making working life more precarious for millions of Americans. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16370
------------------------------
POVERTY WAGES ARE TOXIC
Holly Sklar, AlterNet
If your image of the typical minimum wage worker is a teenager,
think again. Think of adult women working at checkout counters
and in childcare, of healthcare aides taking care of your parents
or grandparents -- without employer health benefits, paid sick
days or paid vacation. A $5.15 minimum wage -- $10,712 a year
-- just doesn't add up. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16265
------------------------------
PEOPLE FIRST
Molly Ivins, AlterNet
All this big talk about tax cuts from Washington comes down to
taking away after-school programs and health clinics and firefighters.
But roads, schools, prisons, courthouses, bridges, dams and sewage
systems are all necessary, as are health and education. That's
why we pay taxes. We pay for after-school programs and sports
leagues because kids need them and get into trouble without them. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16152
------------------------------
POOR PAY FOR STATES' WOES
Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet
Thirty-seven states slashed their budgets by nearly $15 billion
this year, balancing their budgets by making deep slashes in programs
and services and hefty increases in taxes and fees. Bush claims
that an improved economy and his tax cut will ignite the economic
miracle that will save the states from financial ruin. If the
turnaround comes, and there is much doubt when or even if it will,
the poor will have already paid, and paid dearly for the state's
budget woes. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16285
------------------------------
WAL-MART WAGES DON'T SUPPORT WAL-MART WORKERS
Stan Cox, AlterNet
Wal-Mart is the nation's biggest employer, the low-price champion,
and a seller of just about everything. But can a Kansas family
whose breadwinner works at the superstore afford to supply its
minimum needs by shopping there? Not even close -- even at Wal-Mart
prices, even with the 10 percent employee discount, and even with
employer-assisted health insurance. EITC, food stamps, Medicaid
and state assistance programs are needed because corporations
like Wal-Mart refuse to pay their employees a sufficient wage
for the work they do. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16111
------------------------------
WASHINGTON TO NATION: DROP DEAD ON THE JOB
Joe Robinson, AlterNet
Americans are already working more hours than at any time since
the 1920s. Yet House Republicans have vowed to continue fighting
for a bill, brazenly titled the "Family-Time Flexibility
Act," that has about as much to do with families as a Vegas
strip joint, yanking more parents for longer hours away from the
home. Meanwhile, the Department of Labor has issued a proposal
for new wage and hour regulations that would radically alter the
definition of the term "salaried employee," a move likely
to dramatically increase the ranks of workers who are not paid
for overtime. And don't even think about taking a vacation. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16218
------------------------------
ROLLING BACK THE 20TH CENTURY
William Greider, The Nation
Hard-right conservatives like George W. Bush have been advancing
their ideological agenda step by step, laying the foundations
for their grand transformation of American life. This 'McKinley
vision' requires vast sectors of society to pay dearly, and from
their own pockets. What does it look like? To begin with, slash
hundreds of billions in domestic programs, especially spending
for the poor, even as the Bush tax cuts kick in for the well-to-do;
and hand housing aid, food stamps and other social welfare programs
over to state governments. http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030512&c=1&s=greider
------------------------------
WAGING A FIGHT
James Hickey, TomPaine.com
The Living Wage movement is taking hold in communities around
the country. Living Wage is founded on two basic principles: that
people who work fulltime should be able to support a family of
three and live above the poverty level; and that employers who
benefit from tax dollars should be willing to be good citizens
and pay a living wage. Take a look inside the Atlanta Living Wage
Coalition, a grassroots movement where the voices of working Americans
are prominent and irresistibly compelling. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8162
------------------------------
BLAME BUSH IN STATE FISCAL CRISIS
Robert Scheer, AlterNet
It is absurd to blame current difficulties on any state's governor,
Republican or Democrat. It is the Bush administration that has
mismanaged a successful economy inherited from Bill Clinton. It
is the Bush administration that should bear responsibility for
the difficulties being experienced by state governments -- and
it should at least help California as much as it is helping our
newest state, Iraq. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16312
------------------------------
ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free email bulletin providing information,
resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues.
The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/;
you can subscribe to it at that address. The MoveOn Bulletin is
a project of MoveOn.org.
MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their
lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the
Internet to democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising
public awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots
advocacy campaigns to encourage sound public policies. You can
help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the
discussion forum at: http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223
¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
U.S. Military Budget Heading Towards Cold War
Levels
by Thalif Deen
Published on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 by Inter Press Service
STOCKHOLM - The war on terrorism has triggered a dramatic
increase in U.S. military spending, according to a report by the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
released Tuesday.
The world spent $784 billion on arms last year, a sharp
acceleration from $741 billion the previous year, the SIPRI report
says. The U.S. accounted for almost three-quarters of that
increase.
SIPRI attributes this increase primarily to the U.S. response
to
the terrorist attacks of September 2001.
But U.S. military spending had been rising earlier too. The
figures show that U.S. military spending climbed from about
$296 billion in 1997 to $335.7 billion last year.
?Our figures show clearly that the bulk of the rapid increase
in
spending in 2002 is accounted for by the United States alone,?
SIPRI Director Alyson J.K. Bailes told IPS.
The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated U.S. military
spending for 2004 at about $390 billion, rising to $400 billion
in
2005. The recent war on Iraq is expected to cost the United
States more than $150 billion, compared to the 1991 Gulf War,
which cost about $61 billion.
Japan, the world's second largest military spender, is far behind
the United States with an annual defence budget of $49 billion,
followed by Britain with $36 billion. The top five spenders--the
United States, Japan, Britain, France and China--account for
about 62 percent of total world military expenditures.
According to the SIPRI Yearbook, the United States now
accounts for 43 percent of world military expenditure.
China, Russia and Brazil have all increased defense budgets
significantly. The countries with the sharpest reductions in
military spending in 2002 were Argentina, Guatemala and
Venezuela in Latin America and Belarus and the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in Europe.
The European Union shows no sign of following the U.S. in
raising defense budgets, Bailes said. And while the Russian
budget has risen, its possibilities are limited, she added.
?A review of global expenditure trends shows that the rest of
the
world is not prepared, or cannot afford, to follow the U.S.
example,? SIPRI says in the yearbook. Among the poorer
nations the signs are mixed, said Bailes. ?Some nations are
able to cut spending voluntarily because of the ending of local
conflicts, or they are being forced to do so by economic
problems,? she said. ?As the security sector reform becomes
a serious focus both of international aid policy and of local
security cooperation, we may also see improvements in what
could be called the quality (rationality, transparency, and proper
targeting) of defense spending, which can often be combined
with quantitative cuts.?
Some former defense funds are not being cut so much as
diverted to internal and non-traditional security aims, such as
counter-terrorism, she added.
But there is pressure also to increase defense budgets because
of factors such as keeping up with the latest technological
advances, and the interest of developing states in peacekeeping
and other interventions, Bailes said. The impact of increased
military aid that the United States, in particular, is offering
is also
a factor, she said. The SIPRI Yearbook notes marked regional
disparities in military expenditure. In 2001 the Middle East spent
6.3 percent of GDP on the military compared to a global average
of 2.3 percent. Latin America spent only 1.3 percent.
Africa (2.1 percent), Asia (1.6 percent) and Western Europe (1.9
percent) spent less than the world average, while North America
with 3.0 percent, and Central and Eastern Europe with 2.7
percent spent somewhat more.
The Middle East is the largest single market for U.S. weapons
systems. The 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait prompted sharp
increases in arms purchases by the six Gulf nations--Bahrain,
Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates.
Asked if arms purchases would decline following the ouster of
the Saddam regime by U.S. military forces, Bailes said
?whatever uncertainties may still remain over aspects of Iraq's
future and its future regime, it seems clear that for a long while
at
least we shall not see another belligerent Iraq with the power
and the wish to threaten its neighbors.?
An international stabilizing force on Iraq's soil for some time
could allow other states to reduce their level of military
preparedness, Bailes said. But the results could be different
if
outside powers build new military ?clients? to compete with
others, she added.
Jayantha Dhanapala, former UN under secretary-general for
disarmament affairs, says the rising global military expenditure
is not just diverting precious financial, material and human
resources from productive to non-productive pursuits, but also
jeopardizing the environment and the prospects for social and
economic development.
Sixteen years ago the world community gathered at the United
Nations for the International Conference on the Relationship
between Disarmament and Development. Yet today military
expenditure is rising, he told IPS.
CONTENTS:
1. Peter Schurman: Why Should We Care about Taxes?
2. Don Hazen: It's Still the Economy, Stupid
3. Bob Burnett: Actually, It's the Ideology
4. Fair Taxes for All: Quick Facts on the Tax Cuts
5. Kari Lydersen: Homecare Hurting for Funds
6. Bob Burnett: What is the War Going to Cost Us?
7. Chris Hartman and David Martin: More Bucks for the Bang
8. Julie Winokur: Live Sicker, Die Younger
9. Stan Cox: Withering Economy? Try Miracle-Growth!
10. Dean Baker: Why the Economy Will Go from Bad to Worse
11. About the Bulletin
------------------------------
WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT TAXES?
MoveOn Bulletin Editorial
by Peter Schurman, Executive Director, MoveOn.org
Taxes are part of the price we pay to live in America. If we
are the greatest country on Earth, as politicians enjoy describing
us, then surely that's worth something.
Nobody loves paying taxes, but we all rely on our fire departments
and public safety officers.
We all benefit from good schools, not just those of us who are
students, or who have kids. Schools are how we invest in our community,
at both local and national levels. Schools open the door to career
options for our neighbors, and provide skilled employees for our
local businesses and our national workforce. And perhaps most
importantly, they help develop an informed citizenry.
Everything we count on the government for -- keeping the air
clean enough to breathe, making sure our water is safe to drink,
sparing senior citizens a life-threatening choice between food
and medicine, responding to public health emergencies like SARS
-- depends on tax dollars.
Taxes are inevitable as long as we have a government. The only
real question is who pays. This week, that question has been the
subject of a raging debate on Capitol Hill. With the right wing
in control of the House and Senate, the trend, sadly, has been
toward tax cuts designed to help the very wealthy shirk their
fair share of the burden. That means the rest of us, who are less
able to pay, will nonetheless be stuck with a bigger chunk of
the bill.
The articles in this week's bulletin explore the tradeoffs in
the tax debate, and highlight some key facts. For example, the
tax and budget cuts being considered would do almost nothing to
stimulate the economy, and could even weaken it further. And the
cutbacks facing our schools and other vital programs are not a
byproduct of restraint, but are in fact the ideological goal of
many conservative lawmakers.
We hope you find this week's bulletin informative. Thanks for
reading.
------------------------------
IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Don Hazen, AlterNet
Bush is in similar straits as his dad was in 1992 -- soaring in
polls after a victorious war against Iraq but unable to effectively
manage or spark a recession-battered economy stuck in a "jobless
recovery." But where his "read
