http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33534.htm
War Addiction Default: America's Political Dysfunction at Root is an
Unwillingness to Cut War Spending
The US spends $1.3 trillion a year on a military it does not need.
Politicians won't talk about cutting it down to size.
By Dave Lindorff
January 05, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - I was asked earlier
this week by a reporter for PressTV, the state television network in
Iran, if I could explain why the US political system seemed to be so
dysfunctional, with Congress and the President having created an
artificial budget crisis 17 months ago, not "solving" it until the
last hour before a Congressional deadline would have created
financial chaos, and even then not solving the problem and instead
just pushing it off for two months until the next crisis moment.
I thought for a moment, trying to come up with a simple way to
explain the peculiar politics of a fake democracy where two equally
pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist parties vie with genuine bitterness
for patronage spoils and legal bribes, all the while ignoring the
real wishes and needs of the public, and then it hit me: it is really
all about US militarism and the unwillingness of either of the two
political parties to admit honestly to American people how much they
are being gouged to allow the US government and its corporate owners
to continue in their attempt to control the world.
It really is that simple.
The US currently spends almost as much on its military and on paying
for current and past wars in terms of interest on war debt and care
for wounded and aging soldiers as the entire rest of the world spends
on arms and war. Approximately $1.3 trillion gets spent each year in
taxpayer's dollars and in more borrowed funds (50 cents of every
federal tax dollar goes to pay for the US military, the intelligence
apparatus, veterans' benefits and other related military costs). It
is simply ludicrous, given this situation, to imagine that the US can
significantly reduce its budget deficit either by raising taxes or by
cutting social spending.
Think of it this way. The US is currently running a $1.3 trillion
deficit (that is federal spending less tax revenue). That deficit,
significantly one must note, almost exactly matches the amount that
is being spent annually on the US military, and on
military/intelligence-related activities.
In contrast, the federal government budget in 2012 allocated $870
billion for Medicare, Medicaid and all other programs under the aegis
of Department of Health and Human Services. The total Department of
State budget is $56 billion, and a portion of that is actually for
military activities, such as intelligence operations and protection
of embassies and consulates. The Department of Agriculture got $150
billion, and that includes the Food Stamp program. Federal spending
on education was just $100 billion a year. Social Security is not
part of the tax take or the federal budget, as it is all paid from
the Social Security Trust Fund, which in turn has been financed by
the dedicated payroll tax paid by working people and employers.
None of these non-military budget spending categories could possibly
be cut sufficiently to make any real dent in the nation's massive
deficit, which is running at $1.3 trillion a year and which now
totals $16.3 trillion. Certainly cuts of 50% could theoretically be
made in health and welfare spending, in education, and in other parts
of the budget, but cuts of that scale would cause such mass suffering
and chaos that the nation would erupt in open rebellion.
The military budget, on the other hand, could be slashed by 50% and
nobody would know the difference! The public in the US barely knows
there are wars going on. We read about an occasional soldier killed
or plane downed, but there is no day-to-day evidence that the US is a
nation perpetually in a state of war. If the military were to end
those wars, which are costing over $160 billion a year, pull out of
all its far-flung bases, which are costing $250 billion a year, slash
its huge Special Operations Command, which now number nearly 70,000
people at a cost of over $10 billion, eliminate or massively reduce
its strategic nuclear forces, which costs $60 billion a year, and
decommission its fleet of aircraft carrier battle groups, which
counting construction and operation costs, plus the cost of the
planes and missiles they carry, probably cost in the range of $100
billion a year, the US would be no less safe, but the federal budget
deficit could be instantly slashed by close to $600 billion a year.
That is the amount that is being cut in the current so-called "Fiscal
Cliff" bargain over a period of ten years. Of course, hundreds of
billions more could be saved by cancelling the totally unneeded F-22
and F-35 programs and other high-tech weapons boondoggles, so that
saving even $800 billion to $1 trillion a year could be done easily
and painlessly, without jeopardizing US safety -- the US economy -- a
bit.
In a genuine democracy, there would be politicians and a political
party that would be calling for just such an end to US militarism and
the massive spending that is needed to support it. It is something
that polls show the majority of Americans want to see happen, even
though there are no people in government calling for doing it, and
even though the very idea of seriously cutting military spending is
blacked out by the US corporate media.
Instead, what the American public gets is a fake debate between
Democrats and Republicans, and between the White House and the
Republicans in the House of Representatives, all focussed on the rest
of the US budget -- the non-military part. This "debate" is basically
a matter of Republicans saying they want to cut the non-military
budget deficit by slashing "social spending" and Democrats saying
that they are willing to cut "some" social spending, but they would
rather raise taxes.
The thing is, cutting social program spending more than by a small
amount would be catastrophic, leading to even more mass teacher
layoffs, declining health, hunger, collapsing bridges, and to fewer
people being able to afford to go to college. It would lead to even
more homeless Americans, including returned veterans. Nobody would
accept this. We're already suffering from such cuts. And as for
taxes, in a long-running economic crisis such as we are experiencing,
nobody but the rich can afford to pay more, and the rich are given a
free hand at escaping taxes through loopholes, offshore banking, and
high-priced accountants.
The reality is that there really is only one way to attack the
nation's massive and growing budget deficit without destroying both
people's lives and the nation's economy, and that is to slash
military spending and to put an end to the country's militarism and
imperialism.
The US today, as former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel famously said during
an early televised Democratic presidential primary debate in 2008,
"has no enemies." It is not threatened by any nation, has a military
that is without equal, and has a populace that is armed to the teeth.
The United States simply does not need to be spending in excess of a
trillion dollars -- at least on defense. The country would be just as
safe -- it would be much safer actually since it wouldn't be
destroying lives around the globe and creating enemies where there
were none -- if the US military were a tenth of its current size.
The time for a real debate about cutting the US budget by focusing on
military spending has come. It is long overdue. If it isn't addressed
now, it will be eventually, not by choice perhaps, but because the US
will simply no longer be able to pay for its addiction to war.
Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. He is
the founding editor of ThisCantBeHappening.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel