Amy Goodman: Way to win budget battle is to end wars

[marmar]

from the Capital Times (Madison):



AMY GOODMAN | national columnist
madison.com


Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Idaho ... these are the latest fronts in the battle of budgets, with the larger fight over a potential shutdown of the U.S. government looming. These fights, radiating out from the Wisconsin Capitol, are occurring against the backdrop of the two wars waged by the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. No discussion or debate over budgets, over wages and pensions, over deficits, should happen without a clear presentation of the costs of these wars -- and the incalculable benefits that ending them would bring.

First, the cost of war. The U.S. is spending about $2 billion a week in Afghanistan alone. That’s about $104 billion a year -- and that is not including Iraq. Compare that with the state budget shortfalls. According to a recent report by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “some 45 states and the District of Columbia are projecting budget shortfalls totaling $125 billion for fiscal year 2012.” The math is simple: The money should be poured back into the states, rather than into a state of war.

President Barack Obama shows no signs that he is going to end either the occupation of Iraq or the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Quite the opposite; he campaigned with the promise to expand the war in Afghanistan, and that is one campaign promise he has kept. So how is Obama’s war going? Not well.

This has been the deadliest period for civilians in Afghanistan since the U.S.-led invasion began in October 2001. Sixty-five civilians were reportedly killed recently in Kunar, near Pakistan, where mounting civilian casualties led to increasing popular support for the Taliban. 2010 was the deadliest year for U.S. soldiers as well, with 711 U.S. and allied deaths in Afghanistan. Soldier deaths remain high in 2011, with the fighting expected to intensify as the weather warms. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_aac2939b-b6d0-563c-b803-411daff68b26.html

[riverwalker]

1. it's the elephant in the room

that no one will address.

[JBoy]

4. That and the defense budget in general.

Even without the wars, anyone who suggests spending less on defense is painted as a wimp, not "supporting the troops", and probably a friend of al qaeda.

[Catherina]

2. Wars to protect capitalism and the weapons industry are killing this country . Rec'd n/t

[WatsonT]

3. The numbers don't lie

wars are expensive.

Now granted much of that money would go towards maintaining a peacetime army too: paychecks, basic maintenance, etc.

But we could maybe no solve the budget deficit but at least make a big dent if we weren't involved in any wars.

Reducing our foreign obligations, bringing most troops home, and reducing the size of the military in general (particularly in areas where we're geared to fight the "Last War") would go a long way.

[Marr]

5. But the wars make money for the same people who want to

bust unions at home.

We need to make "wartime" profits either illegal, or so marginal that it's the last thing they want.

[upi402]

6. And Glenn Beck has a national cable show with promo??????????

No wonder we're stuck on stupid if O'Liarly and Hannity have ratings and promoted shows with big budgets... budgets to scrub truth and NOT investigate facts like Amy Goodman does.

[mdmc]

7. ..