|
|
 |
|
|
 |
The
WAND News Bulletin is posted on the
web site monthly.
When it appears, WAND sends out a condensed
version via email. If you would like
to receive these email Bulletins, please
let us know.
I'd
rather pay for ____________ than war.
The fabulous Oregon WAND chapter had
these signs printed up, and invited
folks to fill in their preferences for
their tax dollars. Howzabout you?
What would you like to buy with
your federal tax dollars? |
| Table
of Contents | Click
to move to content within the Bulletin. |
Capitol
Hill Update, April 2007
 |
We
don't like nuclear weapons.
We don't think the U.S.
should build new ones. We're
working to deny funding
to the administration's
plan to do so.
(We
like our kids and our parents
and our friends, and want
them to stay, well, alive.)
You can help! |
|
 |
No
new nuclear bomb plant!
No new nuclear arms race!
If you thought the U.S. was
done making new nuclear weapons,
think again.
Then get in touch
with Congress to say: don't
start a new nuclear arms race.
| More here. |
In-District
Lobby
Days |
May 28 – June 1
As part of
coalition
efforts
to
prevent a U.S. military attack
on
Iran, organizations
are joining
together to call
for
“In-District Lobby Days” during the
Congressional recess May 28-June 1, 2007.
During this time, Members of
Congress
will be in their home districts. This
presents an effective opportunity for
grassroots
activists to
meet with their
Members of
Congress.
This coalition
has
prepared a toolkit,
with information on how to schedule
a meeting, talking points,
tips for successful lobby
visits, and a meeting debriefing
form. Contact cong@armscontrolcenter.org
for
more
information.
Iran update from Capitol
Hill, April 17
We
were not successful in our efforts
to incorporate language into the
FY07 supplemental appropriations
bill requiring Congressional authorization
before a military strike on Iran.
Iraq is the huge issue on the supplemental
and it was not possible to address
Iran at the same time.
However,
many Members of Congress are pressing
to include language limiting military
action against Iran in legislation
scheduled for future consideration.
That legislation could include
the FY08 defense authorization,
the FY08 defense appropriations
bill, or others. Advocates are
also working to incorporate language
into legislative vehicles calling
for emphasizing dialogue and diplomacy
with Iran. |
 |
Notes
from the WAND News Bulletin
editor
I'm
paying for war this April
15. War. Bombs,
guns, tanks, jets, bullets,
missile defense boondoggle.
|
|
|
I
don't want to pay for war.
I don't want to think that
what makes our country great
is that fact that we can
pulverize our opponents.
I don't want to think that
the lobbyists for the defense
contractors/arms manufacturers
are shaping our federal
budget.
But
I gotta face facts. And
the fact is, when our jets
go screaming over a city
and drop bombs onto houses
and shatter the bones and
flesh of the people inside:
I paid for that.
And
when the levies break because
we didn't invest, and thousands
of poor people are flooded
out of their homes; and
nine million kids don't
have health insurance: I
didn't pay for that.
That's
my money! When do I get
to say where it goes? Howzabout
soon?
|
|
 |
Tax
Day! Do you know where your tax
dollars are going?
When
I put that whopping check in the
mail on April 15, I like to think
of... small
children getting free lunch at
school... young men rebuilding
houses for poor people on the
Gulf Coast... health services
for our veterans... But
that's NOT where most of my money
goes.
This
year, why not do something about
it? |
Download
a nice version of the pie chart:
In
color | In
black and white
(These are PDF files.) Copy
and distribute all you like! Thanks.
|
This
April, the National Priorities
Project brings you Where
Do Your Tax Dollars Go?,
a breakdown of how the federal
government spent the average
household's 2006 tax payment
in each state and over 200 cities.
Here's
the bottom line: nearly 40 cents
of your income tax dollar went
towards past and present military
spending. Spending
on preventive security measures
such as diplomacy and economic
development assistance amounted
to only three-quarters of a
penny. Hundredths of a penny
went towards investing in renewable
energy and conservation. Basic
needs such as affordable housing,
education and nutrition got
only a few pennies each.
All this while the taxpayer
cost for the Iraq War climbs
to nearly half a trillion dollars.
If
you want to find out how the
federal government spent your
individual 2006 tax payment,
go to our Interactive
Income Tax Chart.
|
|
Progressive
Taxation: Some Hidden Truths
by George Lakoff and Bruce Budner
| CommonDreams.org
Full
article here.
...Taxes
are part of our common wealth,
what we all share. Protection
and empowerment serve the common
good. Because of our common
wealth, we are all protected
and America’s empowering
infrastructure is available
to all. That is a fundamental
America value: the common wealth
should serve the common good.
It benefits everyone.
Citizens are
financially responsible to maintain
this common wealth. If we shirked
this responsibility, we could
not maintain our roads, fund
our schools, protect ourselves
from military threats, enforce
our laws, and so on. Equally
importantly, we could not create
prosperity for ourselves, because
we would have no protection
of our intellectual property,
no oversight of our markets,
no means to enforce our contracts,
no way to educate most of our
children.
Several
main progressive values support
the idea of progressive taxation.
One is the belief that the common
wealth should be used for the
common good. Another is responsibility,
the responsibility that citizens
have to pay for the benefits
we receive from our common wealth.
And still another is fairness.
These values intertwine on the
question of progressive taxation.
|
|
|
|
Sharing
The Burden of War and Taxes
by David Abromowitz and Joan
Ruttenberg
The Boston Globe, April
9, 2007
TAX
DAY is coming. For most Americans,
it’s merely a reminder
to get that paperwork done.
But for many years, tax day
reminded Americans that war
means sacrifice. Since Sept.
11, 2001, President Bush has
often invoked a spirit of sacrifice
and dedication to the greater
good. Yet this call to sacrifice
has not made it into the administration’s
economic and tax policies.
In
past wars, those who could most
afford to pay did so.
During World War II, marginal
tax rates on the wealthy reached
over 90 percent. During wars
in Korea and Vietnam, and throughout
the Cold War, the most fortunate
among us contributed almost
as heavily to the national effort,
paying at marginal rates of
over 50 percent. Economic sacrifices
were shared.
But
now the Bush White House insists
that those making $300,000 and
up — already paying the
lowest tax rates in 50 years
— needn’t bother
to pay a penny more toward national
needs. This, despite
stepped-up national security
needs, active wars in both Afghanistan
and Iraq, and the devastation
of Hurricane Katrina.
In fact, since
top tax rates were cut to 35
percent in 2003, millions of
fortunate families, including
our family, now pay many thousands
of dollars less per year in
taxes than we did before Sept.
11. Where’s the sacrifice
in that?
|
Soak
the rest of us
The
Boston Globe, April 15,
2007
...It
just so happens that Piketty,
an economist at the Paris School
of Economics, and Saez, who
teaches at the University of
California at Berkeley, have
published another paper, in
the current Journal of Economic
Perspectives, that examines
how all taxes -- from payroll
taxes through income and estate
taxes -- affect Americans at
each income level, and how tax
burdens have changed over the
past generation. Their short
answer: The rich are paying
less than ever.
What's
more, Piketty and Saez's data
suggest that we're approaching
a historic threshold: Should
current trends continue -- from
higher payroll taxes to the
potential impact of the Alternative
Minimum Tax on middle-class
earners -- the US system could
tip from progressive to flat
in a matter of years, at least
for the top half of earners.
|
|
Abandoned
homefront
By Brian McGrory, The
Boston Globe | April 11,
2007
...Suppose Boston got
to keep just one-tenth of the
money it sent off to Iraq. Ten
percent of $855 million is $85.5
million, give or take a few
rubles. What might we have done
with that?
We
were driving through Roxbury
in his sport utility vehicle
when I asked Menino that exact
question the other night. "We
could do a lot of things,"
he said solemnly. "Extended
school hours, poverty programs,
workforce development programs,
all these things. There's so
much you could do. And we wouldn't
have to go begging."
For
that amount of money, the city
could fund an additional 170
police officers, salary and
benefits, for the next five
years. Or it could fund 100
additional officers and have
$45 million to hire outreach
workers, build the Rev. Gene
Rivers his boxing gym, put thousands
more kids in summer jobs.
|
Northern
Indiana WAND making noise
again!
From
the April 12 meeting with
Cindy Sheehan at St. Mary's
College in South Bend.
(l to r): Cindy Sheehan,
Karen Jacob (Chair of
WAND National Board),
Wes Liggett, former Marine
who is against the Iraq
war (he did 3 tours there).
|
|
Oregon
WAND would rather pay
for signs than WAR!
On
Tax Weekend, WAND and
Taxes for Peace Not War
organized a march from
the IRS building to the
Free Speech Plaza at 8th
and Oak in Eugene. Susan
Cundiff of Oregon WAND
reports: "We had
great fun even though
we got drenched and chilled.
We will probably repeat
the ice cream and cookie
demo this summer without
the march. People enjoyed
filling in the signs."
Also
in Eugene, the now traditional
tax day "Penny Poll"
outside the downtown Eugene
post office took place
on April 16.
|
|
Report
on CEDAW (Treaty for the
Rights of Women) this
Mother's Day
www.womenstreaty.org
- While the Treaty for
the Rights of Women has
always had bi-partisan
support, it has never
reached the floor of the
Senate for action. Now
– with women in
the United States taking
on greater leadership
roles, supporting their
families and voting in
record numbers –
it is time for us to stand
with women and girls who
are fighting for their
rights and urge all Senators
to ratify the treaty.
Women
are winning important
reforms by using the treaty
– against sex slavery,
domestic violence and
trafficking; girls are
receiving primary education
for the first time, women’s
lives during pregnancy
and childbirth are being
protected and women have
secured the right to own
or inherit property.
Mother’s
Day is the right time
for us to affirm the universality
of the human rights of
women and be on their
side of the fight for
the rights of women.
Take action today.
- Honor
your mother and women
around world. Write
or call your Senators
and urge them to place
statements in the Congressional
Record supporting women’s
human rights and calling
for the ratification
of the Treaty for the
Rights of Women (CEDAW).
- Join
the “Umbrella
Photo Petition”
campaign for this Treaty
at www.amnestyusa.org/women/cedaw.
|
 |
UN
Report: April 2007
by Sayre Sheldon, WAND representative
on the NGO Working Group
for Women, Peace and Security
View all Sayre's recent
UN reports here. |
|
Men Recognizing
Women's Work for Peace
WAND's presence on the
NGO Working Group for
Women, Peace and Security
provides us with a link
to the entire international
women's peace movement,
and in particular the
support for Security Council
Resolution 1325. At
this year's United Nations
Status of Women meetings
there was a new emphasis
on the increasing participation
of men in the implementation
of 1325.
For the full report, click
here.
|
|
Rep.
Jessica Farrar of Austin,
Texas, WAND Education
Fund board member,
is featured in a photo
and article in the spring
issue of MS magazine!
“Lifesaving
Politics” (p. 12
) is about the relatively
new vaccine for adolescent
females to prevent cervical
cancer. Jessica had to
leave the WAND October
2006 board meeting several
times to prepare, and
then appear, on CNBC about
the signing into law of
her legislation on this
new vaccine.
|
|
RRW?
Really Really Wacky
Redundant Retro Weapons
Regressive Rotten Way
Ridiculous Ruthless Warmongering
It's
true. The W administration wants
to spend YOUR money on building
new nukes. At the same time, they
want to threaten to spend your
money on military action against
Iran -- because Iran may build
new nukes.
Figure
that one out. Or not. It's the
kind of twisted illogic that we've
come to accept from this administration.
Do as we say, not as we do.
The
administration is requesting funds
for what they like to call "Complex
2030" (some good innocuous
branding there). We like to call
it "Bombplex," cuz that's
what it's really about. Nuclear
bombs. Nuclear bombs.
You
thought we learned our lesson
and put them safely away, right?
Ha. Not only are they still around,
but we're going to make more of
them. And this time, better, smaller,
more usable.
That
ain't right. Just. Not.
WAND's
action
alert.
Some
things
various experts have to say
about that.
|
No
new nuclear bomb plant!
No new nuclear arms race!
If you thought the U.S. was
done making new nuclear weapons,
think again.
Then get in touch
with Congress to say: don't
start a new nuclear arms race. |
|
|
U.S.
Nukes Plan Viewed as Provocative
Eli Clifton | Inter
Press Service News Agency
WASHINGTON, Mar
22 (IPS) - The announcement earlier
this month that the United States
will pursue the design and construction
of new nuclear weapons has not
been warmly embraced by the rest
of the world.
In fact, most
people outside the country view
the move as more evidence of a
policy favouring unilateralism
and the pursuit of absolute military
superiority, according to a report
written last December but just
released Wednesday on global perceptions
of U.S. nuclear policy.
|
|
Complex
2030: The Costs and Consequences
of the Plan to Build a New Generation
of Nuclear Weapons
by William D. Hartung and Frida
Berrigan April 2007
Report on Complex 2030 | Click
here.
The
Bush administration’s nuclear
policy has been marked by dangerous
inconsistencies. It has taken
a strong rhetorical stand against
the spread of nuclear weapons,
which President Bush has described
as “weapons of mass murder.”
But in the mean time, the administration’s
Nuclear Posture Review calls for
the development of new nuclear
weapons.
This “do
as I say, not as I do” approach
to nuclear weapons has undermined
U.S. efforts to curb nuclear proliferation.
Beyond this central contradiction,
the administration’s approach
to the issue has ranged from launching
a preventive war against a country
that did not have a nuclear weapons
program (Iraq), to threatening
a country that most experts agree
is years away from developing
them (Iran), to delaying a critical
dialogue with a country believed
to have the beginnings of a nuclear
arsenal (North Korea). To its
credit, the administration has
recently come to agreement with
North Korea on initial steps that
could lead to the elimination
of Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal.
The centerpiece
of the administration’s
move towards developing a new
generation of nuclear weapons
is “Complex 2030,”
a multi-year plan that would build
new or upgraded facilities at
each of the National Nuclear Security
Administration’s eight nuclear
weapons-related sites.
The plan also calls for building
a new nuclear weapon, the Reliable
Replacement Warhead (RRW). While
current plans call for developing
the RRW without nuclear testing,
this attitude could change if
the program moves towards deployment.
In addition, the RRW program will
establish the infrastructure needed
to develop new warheads with new
capabilities in the future. As
the Department of Energy notes
in its own summary of the Complex
2030 plan, one of the major goals
of the effort is to “improve
the capability to design, develop,
certify and complete production
of new or adapted warheads in
the event of new military requirements.”
This
report focuses on the economic
and budgetary costs of the Complex
2030 plan, the interests that
stand to benefit from it, and
the domestic political debate
that is likely to determine the
future of this initiative.
|
|
Congress
cool to nuclear warhead plan
By H. Josef Hebert,
Boston Globe | March 29, 2007
WASHINGTON
--An administration proposal to
build a new generation of more
reliable nuclear warheads to replace
the current stockpile was met
with skepticism Thursday from
key lawmakers who will decide
how much money to give the program.
Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., chairman
of the House Appropriations subcommittee
with jurisdiction over nuclear
weapons programs, said he was
"troubled by the giddiness"
at the Energy Department over
development of the new warhead
program.
The
panel's ranking Republican, Rep.
David Hobson, R-Ohio, said he
was worried the warhead development
was aimed not so much to meet
the military's requirements but
"to prove that we can still
design nuclear weapons."
Separately,
three experts on nuclear nonproliferation,
including a former defense secretary
and former Sen. Sam Nunn, said
that building a new warhead --
even if only a replacement --
sends the wrong message to the
world and could make all the more
difficult the resolution of the
nuclear problems with Iran and
North Korea.
|
|
Dianne Valentin
will be attending DC Days this
year. She is an Atlanta WAND member,
a past attendee in IEER's workshop
on ENERGY, has represented WAND
in partnership with ECO-Action
at last year's Precautionary Principle
Workshop in Baltimore, and is
also active with the US Social
Forum.
With
nuclear power, hopes turn to ashes
By
DIANNE VALENTIN | Atlanta
Journal Constitution | 04/02/07
After World War II and the U.S.
bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
nuclear technology was supposed
to be used for peaceful purposes.
We
were promised that nuclear power
would be "too cheap to meter"
and that the lethal, radioactive
waste produced each day from reactor
operation would be long gone.
A safe investment in the future,
and a clean form of energy?
|
| The
long road to end the Iraq war:
Report from Capitol Hill
From our good friend Carly Chomer
at Win Without War
Congress
returned to Washington this week
to begin negotiations on the Iraq
war supplemental appropriations
bill. At the end of March, both
the House and Senate passed versions
of the funding bill that set timelines
for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
While the Senate language would
require the redeployment of U.S.
troops to begin in 120 days from
enactment, it sets a goal of having
all combat troops out of Iraq
by March 2008. The House, on the
other hand, does not have a firm
timeline for initiating withdrawal
but requires most U.S. troops
to be redeployed by October 2008.
The
chosen negotiators from both the
House and Senate will come together
in conference committee early
this week to begin the process
of reaching a consensus on the
bill’s language. Once a
compromise is reached, the bill
will go back to both chambers
for final passage before heading
to the president’s desk.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), chair
of the conference committee, recently
indicated that he intends to complete
the supplemental process by the
end of next week.
While
the president continues to threaten
Congress with a veto on any legislation
with a timeline for withdrawal,
the leadership in Congress and
the American people remain committed
to ensuring a debate on Iraq and
finding a date to bring our troops
home. The debate on the
supplemental will likely continue
through the end of April, but
in early May, the next opportunity
for Congressional action on Iraq
will present itself with the authorization
and appropriation bills that will
fund the Defense Department in
FY08.
|
That's
our good friend Darcy Scott Martin!
|
Every
week, the Anti-War Room on www.StandUpCongress.org
- a website dedicated to helping
citizens brave the Congressional
labyrinth of crucial Iraq legislation
- features online briefings with
the latest information on Iraq
coming from Capitol Hill. The
briefings are hosted by Tom Andrews,
National Director of Win Without
War, and Darcy Scott Martin, former
Washington Director of WAND!
WAND
is an active partner in the Win
Without War coalition; and with
StandUpCongress.org, and we remain
committed to keeping you informed
of all the developments on Iraq. |
|
Retired
Generals Robert Gard and John
Johns Join Senator Harry Reid
Speak Out Against Iraq War
View
the video of the press conference.
“The
Iraqi people understand the situation
there better than those who are
advocating to continue the current
course,” said Lt. Gen. Gard.
“We have lost the support
and the confidence of the Iraqi
people and you can’t win
without it."...
Gen.
Gard concluded with a striking
comparison to Vietnam, a conflict
in which he and Johns both served:
“The current situation
is reminiscent of the spring of
1968 in Vietnam. Both the then
Secretary of Defense and the President
knew the war was unwinnable militarily,
but because the President didn’t
want to be tarred with losing
a war, he continued on for five
more years and 34,000 more combat
deaths.”
|
|
Tenet's
Tell-All Is a Slam Dunk to Provoke
Invasion's Architects
By
Al Kamen | Washington
Post | April 16, 2007
The
drums have begun sounding for
the long-awaited book by former
CIA director George Tenet, in
which he gives his take on pre-9/11
days and on Saddam's huge cache
of weapons of mass destruction.
And
the drums are saying that Tenet
is not going to get too many Christmas
cards from Vice President Cheney's
office after they read "At
the Center of the Storm."
Folks from down the river at the
Pentagon, including former deputy
secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz--
a guy who's already going through
a rough patch -- and former defense
undersecretary Douglas Feith,
might also get some heartburn...
Tenet
will be interviewed on "60
Minutes" on April 29.
|
| | | | | |
