|
The
Bombs that Fall on Baghdad Hit in Birmingham
April 24, 2003
By Steven Attewell
Some of the most curious fallout of the War on Terror has
been the fact that, despite Bush's substantial bounce in popularity,
a small group of Republican moderate senators who previously
caved to the party line on previous votes stood up to the
White House and managed to halve Bush's tax cut, and kill
the proposal for ending taxes on dividends. Why would members
of Bush's own party defy him on such a crucial issue?
The answer is the deficit and its effects on domestic government.
The first Bush tax cut, which was billed as the panacea for
any economy, so far has resulted in no stimulus and a historic
$400 billion dollar deficit that's left the government almost
powerless to stimulate the economy and has also left every
state in the Union drowning in debt.
Now that an extra $80 billion has been added to the deficit
for the War on Iraq, it is high time to reflect on the costs
of war here at home. According to figures published by the
group TrueMajority, $6 billion of war appropriations could
have insured every child in America without health insurance.
$2 billion could have fully funded Head Start - a program
which aids poor schools which was once a priority for this
administration - and $1 billion could have provided full public
funding for federal elections, eliminating the pervasive influence
of lobbyist dollars. All this while leaving more than $30
billion to double education funding and save public schools
which are closing their doors early this year, and $10 billion
to double humanitarian aid to poor countries, reducing the
poverty and the resentment which fuels terrorism.
The numbers get even more startling when you consider how
much money we already spend on the military. The $4 billion
of the "No Child Left Behind Act" that was cut from this years
budget went instead to the C-130 Aircraft Avionics Modernization
Program which outfits old Boeing 747s for use as military
transports. The $55 million that could have saved New York
City's public libraries instead bough us a whole 2 extra MH-60
S-Helicopters, of which we already possess 237. $59 billion
that could have housed all of the 600,000 homeless families
in America instead built us the newest version of the Comanche
helicopter.
The question is one of priorities: which is more important,
American military defense or the Constitutional duty to provide
for the "general welfare" of American citizens. When the Gulf
War and the War on Iraq show us how much we invest in over-kill,
given our total military dominance, one wonders exactly how
much more we have to spend to be safe if what we have now
isn't good enough. Terrorists don't fly fighter jets and they
don't drive Abrams tanks - they use AK-47s and rocket-propelled
grenades which can barely scratch us; so why the rush to increase
military spending?
The obsession with military spending is more than a mistake:
it's a deadly one, that annihilates the social programs that
keep the most vulnerable Americans this side of starvation
and allow the rest of us to live at a decent standard of living.
When public funds get cut, private dollars which could have
gone to consumption (new houses, cars, college tuition) or
investment (pension plans, trust funds) have to go to fulfilling
basic needs, and the economy tanks, shedding more jobs and
wrecking more pension plans, and the spiral continues. When
you remember that all of this is done in the name of our safety,
you really have to wonder how safe an impoverished nation
can be.
|
