|
|||
|
Afghanistan MIA From Deficit DebatePosted on Mar 15, 2011
While Republicans race to cut spending, including outlays for education, health care and social services, they never mention one of the real reasons for the deficit: the cost of the war in Afghanistan and the mess we’ve made in Iraq. President Barack Obama ignores it, too, as he cautiously moves to the right, proposing minor reductions, letting the Republicans control the debate. Aiding and abetting them are cable news, Internet news outlets and most of the print media. The Republican goal is clear. It has nothing to do with America’s longest war. While young men and women are fighting and dying in Afghanistan—1,500 Americans have been killed there—the Republicans are trying to dismantle protections that will assist veterans returning to civilian life and help their families. In addition, the Republicans aim to starve government, destroy protections that created a middle class and leave us with a country of rich and poor and a powerless middle class. In their single-minded pursuit of this goal, they don’t mention the war. For a real lesson on the impact of the war, visit an informative website, costofwar.com, part of the National Priorities Project, a Massachusetts-based progressive research organization. Looking at this site is a technologically dazzling and emotionally depressing experience. The running cost of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is there, increasing in what looks like milliseconds, broken down to the last dollar, totaling more than $1.165 trillion. The last time I looked, Iraq was $779.4 billion-plus, Afghanistan $386.4 billion-plus, both rising fast. In the current year, according to a report by the Congressional Research Office, Obama is asking for $51.1 billion more for Iraq and $119.4 billion for Afghanistan. The Afghanistan request alone, according to the National Priorities Project, is enough to provide health care for 55 million low-income children for a year or hire 1.6 million teachers or furnish Veterans Administration health care for almost 14 million vets. Advertisement The deficit is much simpler for journalists to cover. Almost to a woman and a man, they have accepted the dubious premise that the deficit is caused entirely by government domestic spending. They accept the notion that it should be slashed even though the country is barely recovering from a deep recession. For example, columnist Robert J. Samuelson wrote in The Washington Post in January that the cost of government is rising mainly because of “exploding spending on the elderly—for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—which automatically expands the size of government.” He also recommended “downsizing other programs, including defense, and raising taxes.” Nowhere in his analysis did he recommend stopping the Afghanistan War. This is pretty much how the great majority of news outlets cover the budget. And they’ve found another villain: public employees. Picking up on a Republican theme, many stories have centered on the wages and benefits given to public employees, benefits that have been won largely through collective bargaining with their government employers. A chief target is those doing a difficult job under trying circumstances, schoolteachers. Critics include Republicans such as Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Democrats like Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, who supports inaccurate testing methods to weed out teachers not up to vague standards. He also backs larger class sizes. Duncan told an educational forum sponsored by the conservative American Enterprise Institute last November that he favors “modest but smartly targeted increases in class size.” This is playing into Republicans’ hands. So was Obama when he said of the deficit, “Both sides are going to have to sit down and compromise on prudent cuts somewhere between what the Republicans were seeking that’s now been rejected and what the Democrats had agreed to that has also been rejected.” In effect, Obama is validating the Republican rhetoric. He’s ducking the war, too. As the Medill on the Hill website noted, Obama devoted just 136 words—“falling between the word range of a tweet and a text message”—to the Afghanistan War in this year’s State of the Union message. I’d like to know why he didn’t say more. I would like him to answer for sending soldiers to destroy and conquer and then abandon villages unheard of except by those in the immediate vicinity. Let him explain this war, village by village. I’m waiting for an honest explanation of why we are propping up the crooked Hamid Karzai. I’m curious about why the Republicans ignore the war while holding Joe McCarthy-style hearings designed to inflame sentiment against Islamic Americans. I’d like the media to answer for playing along with this. The answer to the deficit problem is in the mountains of Afghanistan, not in Social Security, medical aid or schoolteachers’ salaries. New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
By Hollywood Russ, March 23, 2011 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment
Bill Boyarsky hits the nail on the head on this one. Why is our country propping
Report thisup Karzai? That he is a crook is well known. He rigged the last election. He’s an
old crony of Dick Cheney. Enough said. Attacking teachers and firefighters will
backfire on the Tea Baggers, just as it did on Arnold when he sponsored a
group of initiatives that would have crippled nurses, teachers and firefighters
that are on the public payroll. Gee, given that half the state erupts into flames
every years, one would think he’d fund the organization that would keep all his
expensive properties here in California from burning down. In a sense this
exposes the self-destructive nature of the Tea Baggers (formerly the
Republican Party). Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. The
problem is, the last time this happened, during 6 of the 8 years of Bush 2’s
term, he and his operatives were able to drag the country through the mud and
leave it gasping for air at his exit. Anyone who thinks Bush 2 was a decent
president should read “his” book, Decision Points. What a load of crap! It’s
almost as if they found the one monkey in front of a typewriter who would
eventually type a semi-coherent tome. The tea baggers are all too wealthy to
send their children to public school, so they are fine with cutting education.
They are too rich to worry about medical bills or retirement, so cut, cut, cut and
let the middle class sink into penury while the upper 2 percent continue to
accumulate the limited amount of wealth left in this country.
By felicity, March 18, 2011 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment
So Afghanistan is running us about $2 billion/week,
most of it being funneled into the coffers of the
black marketeers and the pockets of the 167,657
private contractors working the angles. So that’s
about $104 billion/year going nowhere but out the
window.
(Nor are they mentioning this little fact about the
Report thishealth care consortia racket: According to the
latest Harpers, “Amount Massachusetts has allocated
since 2000 to decrease class size and increase
teacher pay: $1,200,000,000. Percentage of that
allocation that has gone to cover rising health-care
costs: 100.”)
By exploitedtimes, March 18, 2011 at 11:01 am Link to this comment
Raylan,
Corporate profits have soared since the crash to well beyond record levels and they are sitting on over a trillion in cash. They are sitting on it because there is no demand. Your comment about lack of capital, cash is 100% economically void of reality. War, defense spending is over half of US total spending, so it is absolutely true that while this spending could fund so many above mentioned programs, halting the military industrial complex would totally and immediately erase the US economy and beyond, just as would halting oil dependence. These are inextricably connected until death due them part, and it will. That is why the US depends on war - without it there basically is no US, sad but true.
Report thisBy RayLan, March 17, 2011 at 7:34 am Link to this comment
rollzone
Report this“the whole deficit stinks. it
did not cause the recession, it only profited from
it;:
The deficit profits?
The corporations profited because government carried them. But most of these hand outs were paid back. Social services are a subsidy program. Our children will have their services paid for by past taxes. Social Security is paid by those currently paying FICA.
Just as the seniors who are collecting it were paying for those who were collecting at the time.
SS is paid for by personal income tax - it is not just an entitlement any more than unemployment insurance.
By RayLan, March 17, 2011 at 7:06 am Link to this comment
slick
Report thisTDoff’s post was satirical.
By slick, March 17, 2011 at 6:13 am Link to this comment
TDoff your comment is so hopelessly full of bullshit that to comment on everything in it would take to much time.
Report thisBy rollzone, March 16, 2011 at 8:22 pm Link to this comment
hello again. handing debt to our children is
Report thisconscripting them into supporting federal programs of
our choosing. they will have their own needs, and
will be less able to progress because of us. bankers
making money off debt fees from national finance is
unnecessarily becoming standard practice, to the sole
benefit of Wall Street. the whole deficit stinks. it
did not cause the recession, it only profited from
it; and yachts and mansions do not fuel job growth.
the deficit is a misuse of tax payer dollars. we do
not entrust government with our monies to abuse the
privilege. taxes may need dramatic corrective
adjustments. government can go back to operating from
donations.
By RayLan, March 16, 2011 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment
There is a good argument to be made that the crash was not a government deficit/spending crisis but a private sector monetary crisis.
That being the case, how is the adjustment of a long term government deficit (given that such deficit is as serious as is doomed) supposed to grow GDP and solve what is essentially the unavailability of capital in the form of ready cash ? Also the global economy is NOT waiting on tender hooks for the US to balance its budget.
Report thisBy rollzone, March 16, 2011 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment
hello. our leader is not present. all animus is
Report thisdirected towards Republicants. Tea Partiers have gone
back to their jobs. we gear up for the next non-
election with an improving economy, and less control
over politics than before the last go ‘round with
Republicants shouldering the blame. but now,
government trampling our liberties and freedoms is
all we have left to fight for. government has damaged
everything else, and in doing so grows impotent, and
weak. this is what a present vote signifies:
unaccountability. he just wants to get along, get
through it, not take any more stands, party on. we
could ignore him, were he not our President. he is
not even accounted for; present in title, absent in
direction: a rudderless stooge of wimpy words. thank
God he is not alone. war masters demand, he complies.
By berniem, March 16, 2011 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment
The republicans ARE FASCISTS inching continuously towards the madness that was in the past known as Nazism and it’s variations later under Franco and Pinochet as well as the numerous Central American Reichs we created to keep “democracy” safe from those Commies! Where Hitler was obsessed with physical Liebenstraum our goose-steppers are more for that of the economic variety but employ the same strategy to achieve their ends, i.e. militarism! The whole point of their budget cutting is not to save our economy but to redirect ever dwindling resources to their avaricious pet, the MIC.
Report thisBy Leefeller, March 16, 2011 at 10:34 am Link to this comment
What is with Klugman the economist, he stated cutting defense would not solve the budget problem? I may have misunderstood his comments?
Report thisBy tedmurphy41, March 16, 2011 at 9:10 am Link to this comment
To this bunch of Republicans, these military escapades are sacred cows and must never be mentioned in the negative, and most certainly shouldn’t be curtailed.
Report thisOne always wonders who is paying for such loyalty?
By Mike789, March 16, 2011 at 7:50 am Link to this comment
[“the Republicans aim to starve government, destroy protections that created a middle class and leave us with a country of rich and poor and a powerless middle class.”]
Yeah, not to mention that hedge fund managers are only taxed 11% on their earning because of some lawyered clause in the tax structure and they go off laughing to buy gold-flaked hamburgers at $500 a pop. What a bunch of criminals. They won’t go after them. “Expletive” that.
The Rethug’s most important product is misdirection.
Report thisBy RayLan, March 15, 2011 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment
What can be said to an economically - illiterate populace that buys that the immediate problem is the deficit? -
It’s already accounting/macro-economic nonsense - so the Reps leaving out a huge useless expense like a war of choice - is a detail of the larger ignorance.
On an income statement a loss is incurred from two sides of the ledger - expenses and revenue.
That is, income/loss = revenue - expenses.
It is hardly unprecedented for corporations to operate at a loss because the periodic loss is absorbed by their overall equity.
But the asset side of the balance sheet ought to include such things as tax revenues - which have been cut also.
The principle that one shouldn’t raise taxes during a recession also applies to cutting public sector expenses - as the consumer of last resort.
Otherwise the GDP shrinks due to the resulting reduction of consumption.
It’s stupid to focus only on one account, one side of the ledger at just one period.
What can you do when the people vote for stupid. Or is there such a thing as a smart vote?
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, March 15, 2011 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment
All those strategic minerals there.
No way we’re leaving until there’s blood in the streets of Washington.
Report thisBy TDoff, March 15, 2011 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment
Hey, it’s essential to the US national security that we keep the Afghan war going, full blast.
Can you imagine what might happen if we brought all our brain-washed soldiers home to the US? Not to mention the legions of ‘privatized’ mercenary ‘security forces’, owned and led by corporations like ‘Xe’, and ‘Boo’, many of whom are armed with tactical nukes. (Some of those nukes were privately purchased on the open world market with petty cash vouchers backed by the US government and AIPAC, some given by a grateful Israeli government for keeping the ‘Arab Hordes’ in check).
Hell, those folks get back here in civvie-land, cut-off from most of their dope supplies, no telling what might break-out. Surely a lot of STD’s, and HPV and HIV and AIDS cases, but they’re trained to fight, so they’ll be fighting. And since their commanders are all christian soldiers and preachers, they’ll probably start knocking-off ‘No Faithers’, the atheists, and agnostics, and Muslims, and Jews, and Buddhists, and Quakers and the like.
A word to the wise. If, by some chance, our powers-that-be or fate decides to stop the nonsense in Afghanistan, be aware of what you’re gonna be in for, all you ‘No-Faithers’.
Report this