------------------------- Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the Oct. 11, 2001 issue of Workers World newspaper -------------------------
A MILITARY BUDGET TO KNOCK YOUR SOCKS OFF: WAR SPENDING EATS AT ECONOMY LIKE CANCER By Gary Wilson Since Sept. 11, President George W. Bush has become an advocate of big government spending. Bush's budget proposal for fiscal year 2002 was $25 billion higher than what it had been before the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with most of the new money going to the military-industrial complex. "Bush's military request was once controversial, but opposition melted after the Sept. 11 attacks," the Washington Post reported Oct. 2. "The $686 billion [budget proposal] reflects a 7 percent increase over current funding, nearly double what Bush originally proposed." The military-industrial complex moved quickly to exploit the Sept. 11 tragedy and maximize its profits. An agenda was quickly put forward to increase the Pentagon budget, concentrate more powers in the White House, reduce Congressional oversight of the military, and expand the U.S. military's sphere of operations to include domestic functions. An anti-terrorism bill proposed by Attorney General John Ashcroft threatens to severely limit civil liberties and increase police powers. It originally included provisions that would allow the Attorney General to order the indefinite detention of any non-citizen. This ominous measure seems to have been scaled back to seven days' detention without charges after a struggle in the House Judiciary Committee, where Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan is the ranking Democrat. The Center for Security Policy--a Washington think tank for the military industries behind the so-called National Missile Defense program--says that it expects the Star Wars program will now get full funding, despite the fact that in attacks like those on Sept. 11 an expensive "missile shield" would be useless. But the Washington Post agrees that "in the past two weeks, opposition in Congress to missile defense has melted away." PENTAGON GOBBLES UP THE BUDGET According to the Center for Defense Information--a think tank established in 1972 by retired U.S. military officers to monitor the Pentagon and oppose the war in Vietnam-- Bush's proposed military increases will mean that the Pentagon will get more than half of the federal discretionary budget. The total federal budget for fiscal year 2002 is $1.9 trillion. Of that, about one third is discretionary spending, that is, funds that the president must request and Congress must act on each year. That's the $686 billion budget proposal. The other two-thirds of the federal budget is mandatory spending, that is, funds that the government spends automatically unless the president and Congress change the laws that mandate them. This includes Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and federal pensions--as well as debt payments to the banks. "Pentagon spending now accounts for over half (50.5 percent) of all discretionary spending," the CDI's Defense Monitor reports in its August 2001 issue. The Defense Monitor also reports, "As the world's lone superpower, it is not surprising that the United States spends more on its military than any other nation. What is surprising is just how large the U.S. share of world military spending actually is, and the fact that while defense budgets of most countries are shrinking, U.S. military spending continues to grow." The United States spends more on the military than the combined spending of the next 15 nations: Russia, Japan, China, Britain, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Brazil, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Canada, and Iran. The advocates of military increases don't dwell on the big boost in profits that will go to the military industries, such as Boeing; they all talk of responding to the Sept. 11 attack. But many of the statements imply that the military increases will pull the economy out of the deepening recession. This view is particularly popular with Democratic Party liberals, who can't explain how making an already gigantic military budget any bigger would prevent attacks like those on Sept. 11 and who won't point to imperialist foreign policy as the greatest danger to the safety and security of the people of the United States. 'MILITARY KEYNESIANISM' Liberal and conservative economists have begun promoting a policy called "military Keynesianism." "Keynesianism" refers to the use of government deficit spending to stimulate the economy, a policy advocated by economist John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Keynes promoted increasing social spending programs such as public works projects. But the "military Keynesians" point out that the spending on social programs did not end the economic crisis; it was only the military buildup to World War II that seemed to pull the U.S. and world capitalism out of the global depression. The "military Keynesian" view was endorsed in Business Week the first week of October by the reactionary economist Robert Barro, who is now an advocate of big government spending--for the military. A liberal endorsement could be found in an article titled style Stimulus" on economy.com, written by Augustine Faucher. "Before the attacks, the economy was limping along. With the collapse in business investment, only consumer spending was keeping the economy moving. There was concern that increasing layoffs, highlighted by the jump last month in the unemployment rate, would cause consumers to cut back and finally tip the economy into recession," Faucher writes. "Policymakers had taken steps to address the weakness. The Federal Reserve has been cutting interest rates since the beginning of the year, and with the tax cut, in particular the rebate checks, Congress and the Bush administration provided additional resources to the consumers who have been keeping the economy going. However, before the attacks, one obstacle to further fiscal stimulus was the Social Security 'lockbox.' "The lockbox was a political consensus between the Republican and Democratic parties that the portion of the federal budget surplus attributable to Social Security be used only for debt reduction, not for additional tax cuts or spending increases. While the lockbox provided an important source of fiscal restraint, it also limited the government's ability to use tax and spending policy to address the sluggish economy. "Now, of course, the picture has changed completely. With the attacks, Congress has rightfully focused on the need to care for the injured, clear away the debris, prepare for the rebuilding of Manhattan and the Pentagon, and provide the military and intelligence agencies with the resources necessary to combat terrorism." The "resources necessary" means an increase in military spending, which, the article suggests, will pull the economy out of the recession. The "military Keynesian" solution ignores the many differences between the 1930s and now. At that time, there were millions of unemployed. Industry and commerce were stagnant, some at a virtual standstill. The United States did not have a standing army or navy. Globally, capitalism was in a deflationary cycle. Prices of most basic commodities had reached rock bottom. Today, the capitalist economy is not deflated, but rather is inflated. In addition, the war buildup being prepared is not a World War II-type conflict with its far-reaching draft that put millions of unemployed youths into the military and put factories to work to outfit the new recruits. Rather it is a high-tech, capital-intensive war that uses only elite forces. This will not stimulate the economy like the military spending leading up to World War II. Rather it will be more like the Gulf War of 1990-91, which deepened the debt to the banks and pushed the economy downward. The war-driven recession that followed was behind the defeat of George Bush in the 1992 elections. Workers cannot rely on the stimulus of military spending to save their jobs. It is a false "solution" that leads to disaster and mass destruction. It is the bosses' answer to a capitalist recession, geared as always to preserving their profits at the expense of the people. Organization, militancy and a program that puts workers and their jobs before profits is the only answer. - END - (Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org) ------------------ This message is sent to you by Workers World News Service. To subscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
