There's Always Money for War

Discussion in 'Economy' started by wiggles, Mar 16, 2007.

  1. wiggles
    Offline

    wiggles Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    581
    Thanks Received:
    133
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +137
    Jared Bernstein
    March 12, 2007

    Jared Bernstein is senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute and author of All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy.


    Okay, this is going to sound really naïve. It’s the kind of question you’d expect from an earnest, if not slightly annoying, 12-year-old, not from a hard-boiled wonk like yours truly. But why is it that our representatives can easily raise endless amounts of money for war, but can’t adequately fund human needs?

    Exhibit #1: The Washington Post recently ran an important article documenting the loss of child-care subsidies to low-income, working parents. One of the lessons from welfare reform is that such work supports are a critical component of a pro-work, anti-poverty agenda. But because the program is terribly underfunded—fewer than a fifth of eligible people receive help—there’s a huge waiting list, and families are left to give up on work or patch together less-than-desirable child-care situations.

    Exhibit #2 : If the president gets his way on budget requests over the next few years, and he always has, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that spending on the Iraq war will soon top $500 billion—$746 billion if you throw in Afghanistan. According to OMBWatch, the Congress will soon begin evaluating the largest supplemental funding bill ever requested by an administration: just shy of $100 billion, mostly for the war on terror and its sundry components.

    Exhibit #3 : We currently spend about $5 billion a year at the federal level on the block grant that funds child care. Last year, we added a $1 billion increase over five years. A bill to dedicate $6 billion more died in the Senate. Because these values are not adjusted for either inflation or population growth, the demand for child-care slots is outpacing capacity. According to the Bush administration’s own budget, if we fail to devote more resources to child care, by 2010, the families of 300,000 fewer children will get the help they need.

    Exhibit #4 : I recently testified before the Senate Finance Committee on the question of whether there needed to be $8 billion worth of tax cuts to businesses to offset the impact of the federal minimum wage increase. I argued that the cuts were unnecessary, but in this context, consider this point: Because tax cuts must now be paid for, the committee was able to come up with $8 billion of offsets to pay for these cuts.

    In other words, when they want to, Congress can allocate or raise money. The problem, as put by my colleague Lawrence Mishel, is “... the direct consequence of maintaining other priorities. Some [policy makers] are wedded to maintaining the recent tax cuts. Many more believe we have to spend whatever it takes for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ... [o]thers believe that moving toward a balanced budget is essential. Whatever one thinks of these positions it is clear that the result is that human capital investments get the leftover fiscal scraps.”

    For those of us unhappy with this state of affairs, who believe that these are the wrong priorities, the big—giant, really—question is what has to change?

    The answer, I think, comes from a meeting of top-down and bottom-up. Today’s priorities are the result of politicians’ perceptions that their constituents, at least the ones they care about, want government to wage war and cut taxes, not to provide child and health care. Thus, the first step in turning this around is to tap and nurture demand among the electorate for the best solutions to the problems we face. I’ve stressed child care for low-income workers because it’s so important to their ability to escape poverty, but think of national health care in this light, along with retirement security and the inequalities associated with globalization.

    Progressive policy advocates need to shape and promote an agenda that reaches people on these issues and is at the scale of the challenges they face. If such an agenda is articulated by a 2008 candidate, it may well start to resonate and reverberate in precisely the way that’s needed to reshape the priorities of those who hold the purse strings. Then I can go back to being a hard-boiled wonk instead of a naïve ingénue who wants to trade guns for butter.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    There sure is! Ain't it great? If we spend enough money on war there wont be any left for the socialists who want to bring about the downfall of the Republic.
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Since the Federal budget in nearly $3 trillon dollars it does not make sense for libs to whine about lack of funding for their welfare hand outs - but they will anyway
     
  4. Dirt McGirt
    Offline

    Dirt McGirt Bad Mother****er

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Thanks Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +503
    With all due respect CSM, it's this kind of thinking that gave the Dems a majority in the House and Senate. Once Hillary takes office, military spending will be cut and taxes are going to be raised. Allocating some of our money to wars now, doesn't mean that the Dems can't raise taxes and implement their social agenda once they assume control of the legislative and executive branches.

    It's sad really. The Repubs could have used their majority to demonstrate that government could have functioned with the tax cuts by being fiscally responsible. So far all they've proven is that tax cuts and less government only work in theory.
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572

    Hilary is folding up like a cheap suit. He does not a prayer of being President - you might want to move on to the next flavor of the month - Obama

    Again, with a budget near $3 trillion what is not being funded?

    Why raise taxes? The economy is growing and revenues to the Federal governmetn continues to increase
     
  6. roomy
    Offline

    roomy The Natural

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,862
    Thanks Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +950
    War generates money, it is a big business.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The Bush tax cuts have generated more - much more
     
  8. roomy
    Offline

    roomy The Natural

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,862
    Thanks Received:
    948
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +950

    :doubt:
     
  9. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Revenues to the government have soared and the budget is down 57%
     
  10. Dirt McGirt
    Offline

    Dirt McGirt Bad Mother****er

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Thanks Received:
    503
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +503
    Are you seriously suggesting that government spending is under control and the Repubs were fiscally responsible over the last 6 years? :rolleyes:

    I bet you've also tricked yourself into believing that government has gotten smaller under Bush, while going around and trying to convince people that you're a Reagan Republican. Denial, denial, denial.
     

Share This Page