Federal budget-cutting ignores fattest part-the military
Facebook
The Register Guard
Susan Cundiff
02/24/2011
How much belt-tightening can a body take? Even the skinniest fashion models cannot strut their stuff in outfits that endanger their vital organs.
Last week's House vote to reduce the obese federal deficit is welcome, but the focus on so-called "nonsecurity" spending is totally the wrong way to do it. That portion represents only 12 percent, a small fraction of the budget calories. Many agencies that support large sectors of the U.S. economy, including transportation, housing and agriculture, along with those that serve the most vulnerable people in this country, would have to lay off staff and dramatically cut back their work.
Meanwhile, Pentagon funding, which is already on steroids, remains almost untouched.
This wrong-headed approach assumes that only military spending provides security. Everyday security for most people in this country requires living-wage jobs, affordable housing and health care, a safe environment and decent education for our children.
Here in Eugene and Springfield we see agonizing proposals to trim already spare school budgets to the bone by cutting calendar days, increasing class size and closing schools. We are cutting away at a vital organ of our society.
Research published last December shows that U.S high school students continue to lag behind their international peers. Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. This puts U.S. students at a disadvantage in a global job market that needs highly skilled workers. The Dec. 7 edition of USA Today quoted Education Secretary Arne Duncan: "The results are extraordinarily challenging to us, and we have to deal with the brutal truth. We have to get much more serious about investing in education."
Isn't it time to face the reality of our bloated military budget, which has doubled in the past 10 years?
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, U.S. military spending accounted for a massive 43 percent of the world total in 2009 — close to that of all other nations combined — followed by China with 6.6 percent, France with 4.2 percent and the United Kingdom with 3.8 percent.
Military spending — $693 billion in the 2010 fiscal year — creates fewer jobs than investments in other sectors. For each billion spent, we could double the number of jobs created if that money were invested in education or mass transit, a University of Massachusetts study revealed.
Pentagon contracting is out of control. The Department of Defense has a history of cost overruns and funding for unnecessary and outdated weapons systems. It was refreshing to see the House eliminate the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, a program that the administration and the Pentagon agreed was useless, but which Congress kept funding.
That one program amounted to $450 million, a sum that is close to the amount Lane County taxpayers will contribute to the proposed defense budget for the 2011 fiscal year. The National Priorities Project tells us what our $505.8 million could buy for Lane County: 8,013 elementary school teachers; 68,078 university scholarships; or medical care for 64,617 veterans.
Let's consider a complete makeover for the federal budget. The so-called "security" portion devotes 87 percent to offensive resources (military) vs. 8 percent on defensive (homeland security) and 5 percent on preventive efforts (international nonmilitary aid). No sane business plan would accept such a lopsided approach.
What are we sacrificing here, and why? It's high time to re-make the military budget to meet people's needs.
This is the theme of an eye-catching exposé, "Fashion Resistance to Militarism," produced by University of Oregon students and staff, as well as Eugene community members, that uncovers the high costs of militarism. The organizers see militarism as a broad system of institutions and investments that take their meaning and value from war. We are all involved in this system — as taxpayers, as elected officials, as industry CEOs and as veterans.
The show features original outfits by professional designers, home dressmakers, and canny thrift store shoppers. As a counter to the Militarized Federal Budget outfit, a sturdy three-piece cotton People's Budget ensemble, in a comfortable size 12, features deep pockets, inside pockets, and pockets within pockets. It shows that there's plenty of money — for education, health care, renewable energy, good public transit, affordable homes, parks and gardens, filling in potholes, cleaning up trash, community centers, libraries and care for elders, children and everyone who needs it. A roomy Social Security pocket is zipped up tight and padlocked.
Our belts are already tight. The fat in the federal budget is in military spending. Everything else has been pared to the bone.
Susan Cundiff is on the national board of Women's Action for New Directions, an organization that seeks to redirect excessive military spending to unmet social and environmental needs. The free "Fashion Resistance to Militarism" show is scheduled for 7 p.m. Friday at Agate Hall auditorium, 1787 Agate St. on the UO campus.
