Commentary
The Price of Security
“Our priority is to protect the American people,” said President Bush to reporters as he unveiled his administration’s $2.9 trillion 2008 budget proposal. “And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs.”
Yes, in the new Hot War (on terrorism), the nation’s resources must make a dramatic shift toward securing the homeland. Of course, this comes at the expense of providing health care, education, and environmental protection to the people who live in it.
The global war on terror is proving to be very pricey indeed — close to $427 billion has been channeled through the Defense Department since the first bombs fell on the Taliban in December 2001. Mr. Bush’s new budgetary requests would tack on an additional $93.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to fund them through the end of this year, on top of $70 billion already approved.
Fiscal 2008 will require an additional $141.7 billion to keep the twin fires raging — the good news is that 2009 is projected to siphon only $50 billion from the Treasury’s overstretched credit lines. No estimates were given for 2010 and beyond, and thus it seems as if the President is sending a mixed budgetary message to the terrorists. If the amount of money allocated to fight these conflicts cannot be projected with certainty, doesn’t that then suggest a lack of commitment to win this war on the part of the United States?
There certainly is no lack of loyalty to the Pentagon. The White House has proposed a “basic” defense budget of $481 billion. This number surpasses what Congress allocated for 2007 by $49 billion. The new budget request on behalf of the military represents a 62 percent increase over 2001 spending levels — and this does not include money spent fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The President, in addition to promising Americans continued security at home, promised that the federal budget would fall into balance, with the possibility of a small surplus by 2012.
This will somehow be achieved while extending the 2001 tax cut package beyond its expiration date of 2010. The administration argues that the strong economic growth that has been delivered by the tax cuts will continue, with only a slight decline, of .1Â percent, in taxes and fees collected in relation to overall GDP.
Mr. Bush’s budgetary magic, therefore, relies heavily on spending cuts. According to his projections, overall government spending would decline by almost 2 percent of GDP by 2012. The spending cuts would be centered on reducing Medicare and Medicaid outlays by $96 billion over five years, and would include trimming the budgets of eight federal agencies — education, environment, and interior department spending would fall below 2006 levels.
And none of this would happen without the Iraq and Afghanistan wars falling off the budget request list after 2009. If current war spending levels were tacked on to the projected 2012 budget projection, the magical surplus would transform into a very real $150-$200 billion deficit.
According to the President, America must stay the spending course in order to live in a secure homeland. Unfortunately, the land he wants so desperately to protect will be increasingly scarred by environmental degradation, and will be inhabited by a growing number of people lacking in education and basic health care – if his budgetary desires are granted. And if the tax cuts that were devised with the owners of this nation’s assets in mind are extended beyond 2010, the gap between rich and poor will widen beyond today’s already unacceptable levels.
The hope is that the new Congress will not roll over like the old one did so many times before. It is time for elected officials to address the real fears that consume so many Americans today — such as ever-rising health insurance premiums and overburdened public school systems. Providing security goes far beyond what little can be procured from the barrel of a gun.
Tags: Main Marbles
- No categories
Discussion
No comments for “The Price of Security”
Post a comment