Mr. Ewing, military spending far outstrips U.S. discretionary budget
Editor,
This letter is in response to Mr. Don Ewing's assertion that welfare is consuming this country. On the contrary, America's discretionary budget indicates otherwise. Our military budget is a whopping 58 percent! It also costs the taxpayers approximately $1 million dollars to support one soldier per year.
The Pentagon alone has consumed over $8 trillion since 1996 with no account for the money it has spent! Our ventures in Afghanistan include guarding opium poppy crops and droning people at will. This is part of our government's rhetoric that America is being kept safe and we are protecting our interests in the Middle East. Mr. Ewing needs a reality check.
Thank you and sincerely,
George Sharpe
Portland
Editor,
This letter is in response to Mr. Don Ewing's assertion that welfare is consuming this country. On the contrary, America's discretionary budget indicates otherwise. Our military budget is a whopping 58 percent! It also costs the taxpayers approximately $1 million dollars to support one soldier per year.
The Pentagon alone has consumed over $8 trillion since 1996 with no account for the money it has spent! Our ventures in Afghanistan include guarding opium poppy crops and droning people at will. This is part of our government's rhetoric that America is being kept safe and we are protecting our interests in the Middle East. Mr. Ewing needs a reality check.
Thank you and sincerely,
George Sharpe
Portland
Obama Casts Russia As A Threat To Peace In Europe
| By Julie Pace
Posted: Updated:
TALLINN, Estonia (AP) — Lashing out at Russia, President Barack Obama on Wednesday cast Moscow's aggression in Ukraine as a threat to peace in Europe. He vigorously vowed to come to the defense of NATO allies that fear they could be Vladimir Putin's next target.
"You lost your independence once before," Obama said following meetings with Baltic leaders in the Estonian capital of Tallinn. "With NATO, you'll never lose it again."
Obama, who faces criticism in the U.S. for being too cautious in confronting Russian President Putin, sharply condemned Moscow's provocations. He declared in blunt terms that Russian forces that have moved into Ukraine in recent weeks are not on a humanitarian or peacekeeping mission, as the Kremlin has insisted.
"They are Russian combat forces with Russian weapons in Russian tanks," he said during a speech at a packed concert hall.
Obama also took aim at one of Russia's main rationales for its provocations in Ukraine: the protection of Russian speakers living outside its borders. Like Ukraine, Estonia and other Baltic nations have sizeable Russian-speaking populations, compounding their fears that Moscow could seek to intervene inside their borders.
"We reject the lie that people cannot live and thrive together just because they have different backgrounds or speak a different language," Obama said.
Despite the president's tough talk, the U.S. and Europe have been unable to shift Putin's calculus in the months-long crisis in eastern Ukraine. While multiple rounds of Western sanctions have damaged Russia's economy, the penalties have not pushed Putin to end what the White House says is unfettered support for pro-Moscow separatists who have stirred upheaval in key cities.
Obama offered no new options for penalizing Russia beyond more sanctions, and reiterated his opposition to getting involved in the conflict militarily.
Shortly after the president arrived in Estonia Wednesday morning, there was a brief flicker of hope for a resolution to the conflict. The Ukrainian president's office announced that it had reached a cease-fire agreement with Putin. But the statement was ambiguous, and a top rebel figure quickly said no cease-fire was possible without Ukraine withdrawing its forces.
Estonia and other countries in the region that were once under Soviet control have been warily eying Putin's aggression and fear he could set his sights on their nations next. Unlike Ukraine, the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are NATO members, and have been seeking firm commitments that the U.S. and other alliance powers would come to their defense if Russia were to encroach on their territory.
Obama's three-day trip to Europe is aimed at offering just those assurances. Following a meeting with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, he declared that the U.S. commitment to security of NATO's newest members runs deep.
"We will defend our NATO allies — every ally," he said. "In this alliance, there are no old members or new members, no senior partners or junior partners — there are just allies, pure and simple. And we will defend the territorial integrity of every single one."
Obama's comments were welcomed by Estonian President Toomas Hendrick Ilves, who said the U.S. commitment to his country has "helped set an example for other NATO allies." Still, he continued to push for a more persistent NATO military presence in his country, something some allies have been loath to do because of a 1997 agreement with Russia in which the alliance agreed not to put permanent bases on Russia's borders.
"I would argue this is an unforeseen and new security environment," Ilves said.
Obama was to depart Estonia Wednesday evening for Wales, where a high-stakes NATO summit will get underway Thursday. The alliance is expected to approve plans to station more troops and equipment in Eastern Europe, with the aim of building a rapid response force that could deploy within 48 hours.
Separately, Obama announced that he was sending more Air Force units and aircraft to the Baltics, and called Estonia's Amari Air Base an ideal location to base those forces.
Obama is the second sitting American president to visit Estonia, following President George W. Bush, who traveled here in 2006. Upon his arrival, Obama wrote in a guest book that it was an honor to visit "a nation that shows what free people can achieve together."
The Baltics were invaded by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany during World War II. After the Soviet Union crumbled, the Baltic countries turned to the West and joined the European Union and NATO in 2004, much to the chagrin of Russia.
"One of the biggest causes of our soaring debt and economic insecurity ends up being Pentagon spending. The budget for the Pentagon consumes more than half of our discretionary spending."
Dennis Kucinich on Monday, January 24th, 2011 in
Rep. Dennis Kucinich says defense spending consumes more than half the discretionary budget
Share this story:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich argues the United States is financing wars with borrowed money.
President Obama submitted his 2012 budget proposal to Congress on Valentine's Day, but the debate on efforts to cut spending started weeks earlier. Rep. Dennis Kucinich opened it with a call to question the cost of wars.
"We can have a strong defense, but we are spending so much money that we are undermining our ability to be able to provide for the American people here at home," he said.
"One of the biggest causes of our soaring debt and economic insecurity ends up being Pentagon spending. The budget for the Pentagon consumes more than half of our discretionary spending."
PolitiFact Ohio wondered about that and took a closer look.
We turned to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan, liberal-leaning think tank that analyzes data to show how tax dollars are spent.
The federal budget has two types of spending, discretionary and mandatory.
Mandatory spending, also called direct spending, refers to outlays required by law. It includes such entitlement programs as Social Security and Medicare, veterans' benefits, food stamps, education and health programs.
Mandatory spending is about two-thirds of the total budget. The problem of dealing with the politically charged entitlements is why balancing the budget is so difficult.
Discretionary spending is the part of the budget governed by the annual appropriation process and debated by Congress. That category includes "defense" (which does not include all military-related spending), security, agricultural subsidies, education, health programs, highway construction and housing assistance.
Discretionary defense outlays in fiscal 2010, which ended in October, were $689 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Non-defense outlays were $677 billion, or less than half the total.
For fiscal 2011, the CBO projects an even larger percentage of the discretionary budget -- 58 percent -- is military.
Discretionary spending on the military has been trending up for more than a decade. From 2001 to 2010, it increased by 71 percent -- almost three times the rate of increase in domestic discretionary spending, which rose about 24 percent.
Nonsecurity-related discretionary spending accounts for only about 15 percent of the $3.5 trillion total budget.
We leave the question of whether that’s good policy for others to debate. But as to Kucinich’s statement, we rate his claim as True.
"We can have a strong defense, but we are spending so much money that we are undermining our ability to be able to provide for the American people here at home," he said.
"One of the biggest causes of our soaring debt and economic insecurity ends up being Pentagon spending. The budget for the Pentagon consumes more than half of our discretionary spending."
PolitiFact Ohio wondered about that and took a closer look.
We turned to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan, liberal-leaning think tank that analyzes data to show how tax dollars are spent.
The federal budget has two types of spending, discretionary and mandatory.
Mandatory spending, also called direct spending, refers to outlays required by law. It includes such entitlement programs as Social Security and Medicare, veterans' benefits, food stamps, education and health programs.
Mandatory spending is about two-thirds of the total budget. The problem of dealing with the politically charged entitlements is why balancing the budget is so difficult.
Discretionary spending is the part of the budget governed by the annual appropriation process and debated by Congress. That category includes "defense" (which does not include all military-related spending), security, agricultural subsidies, education, health programs, highway construction and housing assistance.
Discretionary defense outlays in fiscal 2010, which ended in October, were $689 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Non-defense outlays were $677 billion, or less than half the total.
For fiscal 2011, the CBO projects an even larger percentage of the discretionary budget -- 58 percent -- is military.
Discretionary spending on the military has been trending up for more than a decade. From 2001 to 2010, it increased by 71 percent -- almost three times the rate of increase in domestic discretionary spending, which rose about 24 percent.
Nonsecurity-related discretionary spending accounts for only about 15 percent of the $3.5 trillion total budget.
We leave the question of whether that’s good policy for others to debate. But as to Kucinich’s statement, we rate his claim as True.
More than 50% of US Government Spending Goes to the Military
2010 US Spending Priorities
[This article was first published by Global Research in April 2010]
Recently, Live Science published a chart showing that the US spends about one-fifth of its budget on the military. But this aggregate view hides how Congress prioritizes spending, when you consider what is discretionary and voted upon each year. A more salient view of these figures segregates ‘discretionary’ spending from ‘mandatory’ spending. During the severe economic downturn of the past two years, how has Congress prioritized spending?
When it comes to discretionary spending, Congress gives 58% to the military. Here are US budget charts for the years 2009 and 2010, according to the National Priorities Project (NPP):
NPP describes these charts this way, explaining the difference between ‘mandatory’ and ‘discretionary’ spending:
“[These charts show] the breakdown of the proposed federal discretionary budget for fiscal year 2010 [or 2009] by function area.“The discretionary budget refers to the part of the federal budget proposed by the President, and debated and decided by Congress each year. The part of the budget constitutes more than one-third of total federal spending. The remainder of the federal budget is called ‘mandatory spending.’ Fiscal Year 2009 will run from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009.“Note that this chart includes the war-related spending requested by the administration as supplemental to the regular budget proposal.”
Note, too, per NPP:
“Federal Discretionary and Mandatory Spending“Congress directly sets the level of spending on programs which are discretionary. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year….“About half of the discretionary budget is ‘national defense,’ a government-defined function area that roughly corresponds in common parlance as ‘military.’ However, this category does not include foreign military financing, security assistance, and other programs commonly thought of as military. Other types of discretionary spending include the budget for education, many health programs, and housing assistance.
“Mandatory spending includes programs, mostly entitlement programs, which are funded by eligibility rules or payment rules. Congress decides to create a program, for example, Food Stamps. It then determines who is eligible for the program and any other criteria it may want to lay out. How much is appropriated for the program each year is then determined by estimations of how many people will be eligible and apply for Food Stamps.“Unlike discretionary spending, the Congress does not decide each year to increase or decrease the Food Stamp budget; instead, it periodically reviews the eligibility rules and may change them in order to exclude or include more people.“Mandatory spending makes up about two-thirds of the total federal budget. By far the largest mandatory program is Social Security which makes up one-third of mandatory spending and continues to grow as the age demographic of the country shifts towards an older population. [See more at National Priorities Project.]
Also see discussion at How Are Our Federal Tax Dollars Spent? which shows that the military budget is one-fifth (21%) of our total budget:
But, which is the more realistic view of military spending? Which captures how Congress prioritizes spending? Which is more relevant to us?
Arguably, discretionary spending is most relevant to ordinary citizens, as we continue to suffer under rising unemployment, increased foreclosures, bankster bailouts, million dollar industry bonuses while the minimum wage remains below poverty, all amid a global financial crisis.
And what does that 58% of discretionary spending amount to? In 2010: $1,027.8 billion, or over a trillion dollars, according to Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, at Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think: more than $1Trillion a year.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten