Sequestration, Defense, and the EPA

The fiscal cliff looms. Part of that cliff is "sequestration": the political agreement, enacted into law, to automatically cut federal spending across the board by $1.2 trillion over ten years, starting with $109 billion next year. Half the cuts would be in defense, half in domestic spending. These mindless cuts, which nearly all of Congress acknowledges as damaging, would go into effect on January 2nd if Congress fails to reach agreement on an alternative.

 

Shockingly, Congressional Republicans want an even worse outcome—increases in defense spending along with more than double the sequestration cuts in domestic spending to make up the difference. They are particularly gunning for elimination of clean air, clean water, and most other programs run by the EPA. Congressional Democrats want a more balanced approach with at least some of the deficit reduction coming from tax increases on the wealthy, and fewer domestic cuts. Yet the Democrats have failed to unite behind any significant cuts in military spending.

 

Few realize that, even beyond spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, base defense spending rose over 77% in the last decade .* Obama's much maligned "defense cuts" amount to less than 1% in base military spending from 2012 to 2013. Looking forward, our military spending needs to be rolled back much more, not less, than sequestration would require. And we need to protect the EPA and reinvigorate federal programs that help to stave off global warming and environmental disaster.

Ask them to take a balanced approach to reduce the Federal Budget next year and over the next 10 years. Urge them to cut military spending at least as much as sequestration would, and to raise revenues, primarily from the wealthy and corporations, sufficient to prevent devastating cuts in vital domestic programs, especially in environmental protection.

 

Web: www.senate.gov

 

Tel: 202 224-3121 (Capitol switchboard)

 

Mail:

Senator (first & last name)

U.S. Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510  

 

*Base Department of Defense spending, which does not include Overseas Contingency Operations, the nuclear weapons programs of the Department of Energy, or other defense-related funding, rose from $297 billion in 2001 to $528 billion in 2011, according to the Department of Defense, "Fact Sheet: The Defense Budget," January 26, 2012

 

Note: Numerous studies have shown that defense spending is one of the least efficient ways to create jobs. Economist Dean Baker even makes the case that in the long run, more defense spending actually slows economic growth:

“Defense spending means that the government is pulling away resources from the uses determined by the market and instead using them to buy weapons and supplies and to pay for soldiers and other military personnel. In standard economic models, defense spending is a direct drain on the economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs.”

See Dean Baker's full article published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

 

Photo credit: untitled, Tim Barber, www.tim-barber.com

Comments

[Nathan]

Nice work Dave you got him! oh wait then again coal has to mined, then shipped and prsoesced. you can play this game all day long. Transmission losses in the grid are huge when calculating the efficiency of electricity generation. The argument that you burn coal to make gas is horrible you burn coal to make coal, and gas to ship coal etc. etc. etc. Pay no attention to the huge batteries that will someday occupy a landfill, for instance. Yes, PV is great, but it takes some pretty rare substances and chemical processes to manufacture not exactly green , not to mention the power is unreliable and unstable. If you are looking to be green make it all using Nuclear! The problem with these industries is nobody looks at the facts they all just react off ill thought out hate for something they don't understand. This is a great informative agrument by Peter. Peter is saying, there are plenty of reasons for electric vehicles just don't tell me it is because you are green.