Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

A Budget Built on Common Sense

By Rep. Lynn Woolsey, AlterNet. Posted March 8, 2006.


We can repair our threadbare social safety net without a single tax increase or one additional dime in federal spending.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Rep. Lynn Woolsey

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

A decade after coming to power on the promise that they, and they alone, could put us back on the path to fiscal righteousness, Republicans have run the nation's finances into the ground.

With Congress' blessing, President Bush has turned out to be a shameless profligate, throwing fiscal caution to the wind and splattering the nation with red ink. His policies have turned a projected $5.6 trillion surplus (over 10 years) into a projected deficit of $3.3 trillion. That's a staggering $8.9 trillion fiscal reversal. With every second -- every single tick of the clock -- that this administration is in office, it is responsible for adding roughly $680 to the federal deficit. An American child born today will inherit a promissory note -- which might as well be a tax increase -- of more than $27,000.

And yet, for all of President Bush's drunken-sailor spending, precious little of it has been invested in empowering people who desperately need a hand-up from their government to rebuild their lives. Instead, the president has fattened up the Pentagon, ladled out tax breaks for wealthy individuals and pried open the treasury for the oil, insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

It's time to rearrange our federal budget priorities, which have become completely distorted on the Republicans' watch. It's nothing short of scandalous that a nation spending trillions of dollars a year would tolerate a threadbare social safety net. Take it from a former welfare mother like me -- programs like Medicaid and school nutrition are a lifesaving last resort for millions of American families.

It's time to question the hallowed, untouchable status of some of our bigger budget items. For example, it's been an open secret for years that the Pentagon is rife with waste -- remember the $600 toilet seats of 1980s lore? Fifteen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the sclerotic Pentagon bureaucracy is still fighting the Cold War, still procuring weapons systems that have nothing to do with the security threats we face today.

So today, I'm joining my fellow Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Barbara Lee in introducing the Common Sense Budget Act (CSBA), which would divert $60 billion of unnecessary Pentagon spending to underfunded domestic priorities. Among the cuts: $7 billion from the National Missile Defense Program and $13 billion to reduce the American nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads.

These obsolete Pentagon expenditures have been identified by a team of military experts led by defense scholar Lawrence Korb, whose knows a thing or two about what and how the Pentagon spends -- he was President Reagan's assistant secretary of defense for Manpower, Installation and Logistics.

The $60 billion would be reallocated as follows:

  • Children's Health Care: $10 billion annually to provide health care coverage for the millions of uninsured American children.
  • School Reconstruction: $10 billion over 12 years to rebuild and modernize every public K-12 school in the country.
  • Job Training: $5 billion per year to retrain 250,000 Americans who have lost their jobs because of foreign trade.
  • Energy Independence: $10 billion each year to kick the imported oil habit by investing in efficient, renewable energy sources.
  • Homeland Security: $5 billion a year to make up for funding shortfalls in emergency preparedness, infrastructure upgrades and grants for first responders.
  • Medical Research: $2 billion a year to restore recent cuts to the National Institutes of Health budget.
  • Global Hunger: $13 billion a year in humanitarian assistance that allows poor nations to feed 6 million children who are at risk of dying from starvation every year.
  • Deficit Reduction: $5 billion devoted to putting a dent, however small, in the $8.2 trillion national debt.

We can do all that, without a single tax increase or one additional dime in federal spending. And the right wing can save the demagoguery about patriotism and supporting the troops -- this legislation doesn't touch outlays for the war in Iraq or the so-called war on terrorism. Those are funded separately through a supplemental appropriations process. We're simply talking about diverting that fraction of our overall defense spending that is doing nothing to defend us.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Lynn Woolsey represents California's Sixth Congressional District and is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
YES!
Posted by: rsaxto on Mar 8, 2006 3:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lynn Woolsey is such a practical, responsible and moral lady that it's a shame that the current corrupt white house hates decent people like her who want to do good instead of forever killing and maiming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: YES! Posted by: klaus_in_ohio
» RE: YES! Posted by: asque
» Shopping for medical care Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: YES! Posted by: redjenny
» RE: YES! Posted by: neogaia
» RE: YES! Posted by: neogaia
» RE: YES! Posted by: IanA
Good luck
Posted by: MegOnTheMountain on Mar 8, 2006 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's an excellent idea to frame the matter this way - i.e., "trading arms for poverty". And those are all good places to spend that money.

But as a former "welfare mom", couldn't you have thrown a few dollars into that program? You must know that TANF - the last hope for many single parents trying desperately to provide a life for their children while they get back on their feet - is a cruel joke that's only going to get worse soon.

With all the other cutbacks, the new TANF regulations haven't gotten much press. But the new requirements for work participation coupled with the underfunding of child care assistance, will result in higher noncompliance and devastating financial sanctions to families already struggling in deep
poverty.

It'd be nice if the few people in power who have first-hand knowledge of programs like TANF would go to bat for those who are now going through the same troubles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A positive view for the future is nice to see
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 8, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One criticism that can be leveled against people who are fed up with the criminal Bush administration is that "you are all just a bunch of complainers". This article proves that to be completely false. We do have politicians who are loyal to the American people, we do have civil servants and scientists who are not corrupt, and we even have businesspeople who care about their local communities.

These ideas and plans represent a positive way forward into a difficult future - a future beset by global warming, scarcity of food, water and land for a growing human population, and increased conflict over diminishing fossil fuel reserves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, right
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 8, 2006 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where were you Democrats in early '03, when the Bushies were planning the latest military debacle? In bed with them, of course, trying to out-jingo Rush Limbaugh. And it's been Democrats who have enabled the Bush military-budget orgy that began five years ago.

Of course, the military-industrial complex rewards you all with hefty campaign donations.

Your budget-cutting ideas are good, if too modest, and Democrats need to gain a lot more seats in Congress to really wield any clout. To win those elections, how about you Dems unilaterally setting a good example by publicly pledging to refuse campaign donations from all PACS, to refuse any and all gifts, trips and jet travel, pledge not to take jobs as lobbyists EVER and refuse to meet with any lobbyists in private?

If you set that example, maybe your party could reclaim the majority in Congress and really get something done. But I'm not gonna hold my breath . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yeah, right Posted by: JoshuaHolland
deficit is intentional
Posted by: guvdrone on Mar 8, 2006 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree with Lynn's plan I just want to point out that it seems that the intention of the White House is to cripple the US's capacity to provide social programs by reducing the cash on hand to pay for them. It was never their intention to balance the books and free up funds to pay for 'progressive' policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's get real
Posted by: jverner on Mar 8, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I applaud Rep. Woolsey's bill, but let's get real: Bills introduced by Democrats never make it through committee, let alone have hearings, because the Republicans control Congress. Instead of merely introducing this bill, Rep. Woolsey should follow up by raising hell about why she cannot get a committee hearing on it. That's the real problem, and why the Democrats need to win at least one house of Congress to recapture any power at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alright Lynn!
Posted by: bschuhle on Mar 8, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to say that this is the most strongly-worded (beautifully walking the thin line between forcefulness and stridency) and well-thought-out statement of an alternative to the Bush debacle that I've seen from a Democrat since forever. It calls a spade a spade and offers a positive, and totally sensible, way forward. I applaud you, Lynn. You have my support in getting this moving.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Re: A Budget Built On Common Sense
Posted by: darby1936 on Mar 8, 2006 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about a Nobel Prize for Ms. Woolsey in Economics and Peace. The Pentagon has long squandered our resources on implements of war. This has been made possible by the Military/Industrial complex and bought out politicians. And to test these implements of war they need a war. And the war needs to be such that it is able to be prosecuted by a small portion of our population. That way it doesn't matter if its unjust. Few have to sacrifice so few question it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A budget built on common sense
Posted by: badkitty53 on Mar 8, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, this is a good idea and Barbara Lee is my representative, and she knows that I think that our military has dragged the reputation of this country through the mud. Soldiers in Afghanistan, at Guantanamo, and in Iraq are engaged in acts of torture and are participating in illegal wars. The only thing I would give our military money for would be for cleaning up the environmental problems they've created us. The military has endangered us over the past five years far more than it's protected us. But this budget is a start. Too bad it's probably the end, too. Without the military and its bloated budget we might be able to save this country. With it we can watch the United States continue its downhill slide into second rate nation status. Can you believe we're actually paying our military to torture people?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GWB is NOT a Conservative, nor are any of the NeoCons.
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 8, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never thought I would ever say this, but GWB has made Bill Clinton look like a highly effective President and the current Congress is an embarrassment to all Americans. Like many people, I didn't leave the Republican Party-- it left me.

The party with a long history tied to the Land Grant College Act, abolition of slavery, establishment of the National Forest System, critical support of the Civil Rights Act and other landmark changes in our society has been hijacked and corrupted beyond anyone's ability to recognize it. A party that used to be for restraint of government power, spending, foreign entanglements and intrusion into people's private lives has done a 180 and become it's polar opposite.

Just think-- what we have spent the last 6 years by throwing money at 'homeland security' and the 'war on terror' could have easily paid for the Universal Healthcare that supposedly would break the bank. Factor in the tax policies and we could have easily paid for every liberal/progressive program that has been shot down not because of merit, but on cost.

Both parties have shown a predilection for spending more than we can afford, the only difference being priorities. One side is pushing the continued march toward a police state that predicates social policy on "I got mine, you are on your own". The other side has a tradition of supporting environmental protection, at least some compassion for the least of us and is bounded by some sense of fairness and equity.

Bravo Representative Woolsey.
My question is why isn't someone like her in the leadership of the Democrats?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"starving the beast"
Posted by: nise52 on Mar 8, 2006 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This administration is bent on "starving the beast"...the beast being government social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. It started with Reagan and now GWB is pushing thru the rest of the plan. By starving the government of tax revenue (i.e. tax cuts), the government goes into the red. Now the mighty Republicans (decrying the red ink) will start slashing social programs on the pretense that we all must "tighten our belts".

Do a search online for "starving the beast"...it will tell all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only way to balance the budget...
Posted by: signalfire on Mar 8, 2006 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
would be to indict all the Neocon career money grubbers, put them in jail, and raid their bank accounts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Drop in the Bucket
Posted by: peritonlogon on Mar 8, 2006 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I certainly support the proposals of the article $60 billion is a drop in the bucket. The bigger issues are corporate welfare and pork.

Aside from the social safety net that has been dismantled the real big, structural problems in the budget stem from the Republicans being pro big business and pro wealthy elite.

Being pro big business is a prejudice, on they're part, that is the single biggest reason why mean pay and GDP growth are down and why the defecit is up. Historically most all inovations and strong growth come from small businesses, start ups, and companies making IPOs, while nearly no company that was a leader of growth will become one again, those companies downsize and export jobs (RCA, GM, HP the list goes on and on and on). The Republican policy is to use American Tax Dollars to prop up the companies that are no longer competitive and are exporting jobs while decreasing capital available for small business which are creating jobs. Eliminating the tax on dividends is yet another huge example of this since small growing companies rarely pay dividends while old companies do.

Being pro-wealthy elite also takes money away from the overall economy. And it takes money away from taxable sources in 2 ways, the first is the direct... the government can't tax large estates etc. The second is the fact that the opposite of the 'trickle down' theory is actually correct, namely, the more money in the hands of the middle class and the poor, the more money is circulated, the more jobs, the more tax revenue since middle class and poor people spend a larger portion of their money while wealthy people hoard a larger portion of their money and often place it over seas. This creats more capital for business to compete for, which creates more jobs and more tax revenue.

Getting rid of pork spending is another huge strucural problem with the budget that keeps growing.... and it's going to keep growing until we start holding congress responsible which means more letters and less job security for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Intentional Deficit
Posted by: clocksmith on Mar 8, 2006 1:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course the huge budget deficit is intentional! Eventually, it will give the Republicans a good reason to cut Social Security or do away with it altogether. They will also use the deficit to excuse the fact that the American people do not have universal health coverage (the only citizens of any of the leading industrialized nations to lack this coverage). These two examples are just a couple of instances: so many programs to do away with, so little time!
The deficit is a brilliant excuse to get rid of the social programs that the Republicans hated in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]