Monday, April 25, 2011

Want To Cut The Budget? Reduce Military Spending

Sorry I missed this when it came out, and thanks to TrueMajority for emailing me a reminder: amazingly, the New York Times is on board with the "Not $1 More" campaign fronted by several progressive groups.

Let's face it: if we're going to leave people jobless and homeless in a quest for more money for rich folks budget reductions, we really ought to recognize two things: one, our military budget exceeds in size the military budgets of all other major nations combined, and two, the horrendous size of that budget... $7.5 trillion over the next decade, apparently not counting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... is so large in part because it addresses force structure and procurement needs for a bloated Cold War context that is simply no longer applicable.

If even The Newspaper of Wreckers recognizes (wreck-ognizes?) the scope of the problem, you know it's got to be bad. If the GOP is serious about deficit reduction (OK, stop laughing; I do know exactly one Republican who really means it, and he's not a happy camper these days), they will cooperate in addressing the item that overwhelms the rest of the budget. If not... very likely IMHO... we know it's business-as-usual into the foreseeable future.

RELATED INFO: Krugman talks about the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget proposal.


  1. (Deleted the message before this one.)

    RMJ, this is beginning to be a bother. Folks, the simple rule for my comment threads is NO SPAM, NO-HOW. Fuck you in the eye with a corkscrew if you spam me anyway.

  2. If we cut military spending back to Clinton real-term levels, then overall federal spending is the same as in 1950 as a percentage of GDP, other than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Social Security is funded to eternity if we uncap the payroll tax, so let's not worry about that one. Medicare and Medicaid have a funding problem, but a solvable one -- simply put *everyone* into Medicare paying into it, not just the oldest most expensive people, call it Medicare For All, and then you're cost-sharing across the entire population rather than across a small population, *plus* can force doctors and hospitals to accept reasonable payment -- no more millionaire specialists, no more hospitals with a 50% profit margin from supplying shoddy care but lots of it to Medicare/Medicaid patients.

    But of course that makes too much sense, so could never happen...

    - Badtux the Healthcare Penguin

  3. One can dream, Badtux... actually, the older I get, the more often I have that dream.



• Click here to view existing comments.
• Or enter your new rhyme or reason
in the new comment box here.
• Or click the first Reply link below an existing
comment or reply and type in the
new reply box provided.
• Scrolling manually up and down the page
is also OK.

Static Pages (About, Quotes, etc.)

No Police Like H•lmes