Deadly Priorities
This week, President Bush presented his proposed budget for 2006. The budget would increase the already astronomical military budget by 6.9%, to $439.3 billion, and would also increase spending on “homeland security” to $30 billion. To pay for the increase in military spending, Bush has proposed potentially devastating cuts in funding to already under-funded social services. Medicare would be gutted by $36 billion over the next five years, and aid to children’s hospitals would be reduced, as would be the budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a government organization which works to prevent the spread of disease and combat health hazards. The proposed budget cut from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention occurs in the midst of panic regarding the spread of avian flu, which, experts fear, could kill hundreds of millions of people if its mutates into a form which is easily transferable between humans.
To put the US government’s colossal military budget in perspective, consider this: at the end of the 20th century, the United Nations estimated that the cost of providing universal access to basic education, health care, reproductive health care, adequate food, clean water, and safe sewers was only $40 billion dollars, [i] approximately 9% of the proposed US military budget for 2006, and between 2 and 4% of the estimated amount of money to be spent on the invasion of Iraq, according to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
The justification for the astronomically large military budget that is currently in vogue amongst elite pundits is that the
If the US government was serious about fighting terrorism, it would immediately put an end to its policies interventionism and imperialism, which are increasingly terrorism,[ii] and would invest a mere $40 billion providing universal access to basic education, health care, reproductive health care, adequate food, clean water, and safe sewers. If people saw the
The sad truth of the matter is this: our country could invest its immense wealth caring for the sick and injured and preventing disease in our country and around the world, but instead, our government invests its wealth on programs which are causing more health problems by the hour, like the war in Iraq, which has already wounded between 15,000 and 48,100 American soldiers[iii] and countless Iraqis. Our country could be using its wealth in the interest of advancing peace, but the American government continues to devote the vast majority of its resources to fighting unjust wars and participating in other less overt campaigns of imperialist violence. Our country could use its wealth to permanently eradicate global poverty, but our government instead uses its wealth and power to exacerbate and perpetuate the problems of poverty and economic inequality.
Bush’s proposed budget for 2006 epitomizes the priorities of
[i] United Nations, cited in the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (www.transnational.org) article, World Statistics: The Global Humanitarian Crisis. These statistics are slightly dated, but I was unable to find more recent statistics of this nature, and, in any case they are still representative of the situation.
[ii]. For instance, the number of terrorist attacks tripled between 2003 and 2004, from 175 to 655. CS Monitor, “Global terror attacks tripled in 2004”
[iii] Antiwar.com, “Casualties in
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
You're definitely right in that if the United States were simply interested in security they could easily divest a portion of their resources (a dozen or so bombers) to fighting the problems that you mentioned above. This would do more for American's safety than anything else, yet of course it doesn't accomplish the true goal, which is (like you said) to acquire markets and resources so that the wealthy in our country can become even wealthier and extend their control over a wider area.
But damn, you're 16? I wish I were that perceptive at that age. Good post.
Comment by Delta— 2006/04/23 @ 04:07 PM — (Reply)
he's been 16 for 2 years now.
Comment by — 2006/04/23 @ 04:20 PM — (Reply)
Oh I see, then maybe it's not so impressive
Comment by Delta— 2006/04/23 @ 05:58 PM — (Reply)