Published: August 30, 2012 by The Worcester Telegram & Gazette

Labor Day and school openings seem to go together. For me, it’s time for the social welfare policy course I teach at the Boston University School of Social Work each fall. Throughout the semester I will hear stories from students about their clients who desperately need jobs, housing, education, food, and health care.

Evidence the students present will show that the services and programs designed to help them climb out of poverty continue to dwindle. The narratives are heartbreaking, and often horrific. They are accounts of people who would do anything to improve their lives, make changes, and leave the poverty, hunger, homelessness, joblessness, and loneliness behind.

When, in 1894, Congress enacted legislation making Labor Day a national holiday, the intention was to celebrate the social and economic achievements of American workers and the contributions workers have made to the prosperity and well-being of our country. The hard truth is that our current national unemployment rate is 8.3 percent. Not all Americans who want to work are working and almost one in four American children is living below our national poverty line. Things clearly need to improve in this country for the unemployed and the working poor in order for all of us to truly be able to celebrate the intended meaning of Labor Day.

These sobering statistics can change if we reprioritize how we spend our federal dollars. Two minutes’ worth of federal spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would pay for two high school graduates to attend Boston University for four years each. Two minutes of war. Two undergraduate degrees.

The $16.6 billion in taxes from Massachusetts that went into the Department of Defense’s FY2012 budget could have funded 1.9 million Head Start slots in Massachusetts for a year. Currently, more than 20,000 children who should be enrolled in Head Start in Massachusetts, are not.

Taxpayers in Boston paid $1.3 billion toward the FY2012 Department of Defense budget. For the same amount of money, more than 16,000 Boston elementary school teachers could be hired full-time for one entire school year.

Some say cutting the Pentagon budget means military industrial complex jobs will be lost. However, a shift in dollars to create jobs in other employment sectors would both increase the number of jobs and employed Americans, as well as increase the value of those jobs to our country. This makes good political and economic sense.

The University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute studied how many jobs could be created with $1billion of federal spending; the reality is that investing our tax dollars in education, health care, mass transit, weatherization, or middle-class tax cuts, creates more jobs than Pentagon spending does.

We are spending more than $30 billion per year to maintain our oversized and outdated nuclear weapons arsenal. There are many expensive weapons that the Pentagon does not need or want, but Congress votes to keep the funds flowing anyway. There are ridiculous cost overruns and wasteful spending on military contractors. Procurement scandals are almost the rule rather than the exception.

This spring, Americans learned of a $17,000 oil pan made by a politically connected defense contractor. Defense lobbyists work for corporate self-interests that result in congressional dysfunction.

Congress needs to stop appropriating limited dollars as pork for well-heeled defense industry contractors.

With automatic “sequester” cuts (a plan to cut federal spending over the next decade) scheduled to go into effect in January 2013, it is time to critically examine our Pentagon budget. It makes up 56 percent of federal discretionary spending and has increased every year since 1998.

Some members of Congress want to exempt the Pentagon budget while domestic programs like public education, mass transit, medical research and clean energy are slashed even further. It is far more important to our security to ensure that our economy is prospering through job creation based on innovation and entrepreneurship, than it is to stockpile nuclear weapons and line the pockets of overpaid defense contractors.

This Labor Day, let’s celebrate our economic achievements as a nation, as we have many. Let’s also shift our priorities as a nation. Let’s move forward with a budget and spending plan that is driven by American values like hard work, equal opportunity, humanitarianism and democracy. Let’s get people trained and retrained, and employed and better employed. Let’s pay for programs and projects that help get people out of poverty and into jobs.

And let’s put an end to this outdated, excessive, militarized spending.

Sharon Zimmerman is the deputy director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), an adjunct professor at the Boston University School of Social Work, and sits on the board of Greater Boston’s Association of Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

Cutting the Overall Pentagon Budget /Cutting Pentagon Waste

The Good News – One Bipartisan Step Towards Budget Restraint

Thank you to those who made calls urging cuts to excessive Pentagon spending. We do have some positive news to report. The Mulvaney (R-SC) and Frank (D-MA) bipartisan amendment to freeze Pentagon spending at Fiscal Year 2012 levels was adopted 247-167 with 89 Republicans voting for it. This is the first time in more than a decade that Congress has been willing to apply any restraint to the Pentagon budget. While it is fair to note that this freeze amendment is a very modest restraint (in fact the Pentagon is still getting more money than the Administration requested), it is a hopeful first step. As Congress moves towards ever more intense end of the year budget battles, this vote should indicate that a strong majority in Congress is unwilling to exempt the Pentagon from fiscal discipline. See House debate on defense bill spending finds one bit of bipartisan light in the Washington Post.

Congressional Women Stars Shine, But Congress Doesn’t Follow the Light

We applaud the women in Congress who offered a number of amendments to make deeper cuts to overall Pentagon spending, or cut wasteful unnecessary programs, or even just require an audit of the Pentagon. Unfortunately, all of these amendments failed and showed a steep partisan divide:

Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment, co-sponsored by Chris Van Hollen (D-MD and Ranking Member on the Budget Committee) and Adam Smith (D-WA and Ranking Member on the House Armed Services Committee), to reduce the overall spending in the bill by $7.6 billion, would have brought spending in line with budget caps that Congress agreed to last year. It was rejected 171-243, July 19, 2012. Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment to reduce the overall spending in the bill by $19.2 billion was rejected 87-326, July 19, 2012.

Lynn Woolsey’s (D-CA) three amendments to cut Pentagon spending by specific amounts were all rejected: 114 - 302 (Roll Call # 481), 106 - 311 (Roll Call # 483), and 91 - 328 (Roll Call # 484), July 18, 2012. (Rep. Lynn Woolsey is retiring this year and noted that this was her last opportunity to offer amendments to cut excessive military spending and shift budget priorities.)

Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Jan Schakowsky’s (D-IL) amendment to withhold a portion of Department of Defense spending until the Pentagon is able to pass an audit fell by a point of order.

Betty McCollum’s (D-MN) amendment to cut funds for military bands, a reduction of $188 million, was rejected 166-250, July 18, 2012.

(And some good amendments to cut offered by men in Congress – also failed …)

Jack Kingston’s (R-GA) amendment, supported by Betty McCollum (D-MN) to cut funds for the military to advertise at NASCAR races was rejected 202-216, July 18, 2012.

Mike Quigley’s (D-IL) amendment to reduce funding for one DDG-151 Destroyer by $998 million was rejected 60-359, July 18, 2012.

Mike Coffman’s (R-CO) amendment to ensure that the President's proposal to remove two Army brigades from Europe and replace them on a rotational basis is upheld, which would limit funding for the continued permanent deployment of the 170th and 172nd infantry brigades in Europe, was rejected 123-292, July 19, 2012.

Cold War Time Warp

When it comes to nuclear weapons and related missile defense spending, it seems that Congress is firmly stuck in a time warp. Common sense amendments to cut back on Cold War era weapons system expenses failed. On top of that, retro amendments to restrict arms control efforts and block nuclear weapons reductions were adopted.

Ed Markey’s (D-MA) amendment to reduce funding for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile defense system by $75 million, bringing the funding level back to the President’s request, was rejected 150-268, July 18, 2012.

Ed Markey’s (D-MA) amendment to limit the fleet of land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) to 300 (currently there are 450 Minuteman III ICBMs) was rejected 136-283, July 18, 2012.

Michael Turner’s (R-OH) amendment to prohibit funds from being used to reduce U.S. nuclear forces to implement the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study, modify the Secretary of Defense Guidance for Employment of Force, or the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, was adopted 235-178, July 19, 2012. 

Rick Berg’s (R-ND) amendment to prohibit use of funds to reduce the number of the nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of the United States including (1) Heavy bomber aircraft, (2) Air-launched cruise missiles, (3) Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, (4) Submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and (5) Intercontinental ballistic missiles, was adopted 232-183, July 19, 2012.

Mo Brooks’ (R-AL) amendment to prohibit funds from being used to share classified information about missile defense systems with Russia was agreed to by voice vote, July 19, 2012.

Afghanistan

While amendments to accelerate ending the war and bring home troops failed, other amendments to cut Afghanistan and Pakistan aid were successful. This confused approach indicates a bumpy road ahead for Afghanistan. Pushing a failed military solution will not work, and the funding and support for a transition doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. We note that Congress should put its focus on supporting a transition towards developing a sustainable peace and Afghan women should play a leading role.

Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment to cut $21 billion from war funding to end the U.S. involvement in the Afghanistan war safely and responsibly, which would limit funding to bringing the troops home, was rejected 107-312, July 18, 2012. 

John Garamendi’s (D-CA) amendment to cut $12.6 billion for the war accounts due to the “steady drawdown” of troops after the surge troops are withdraw in 2012 was rejected 137-278, July 19, 2012.

Walter Jones’s (R-NC) amendment to reduce funding for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund by $412,287,000 was agreed to by voice vote, July 18, 2012.

Ted Poe’s (R-TX) amendments to eliminate the entire $1.3 billion in aid to Pakistan under the coalition support fund program was withdrawn, but a second amendment to cut the account by $650 million was agreed to by voice vote, July 18, 2012.

Steve Cohen’s (D-TN) amendment to reduce the Afghanistan Infrastructure fund by $175 million was adopted 228-191, July 18, 2012.

David Cicilline’s (D-RI) amendment to strike the $375 million in funding for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund was rejected 149-270, July 18, 2012.

In addition to these amendments, on Wednesday, July 18^th, fifteen members of Congress spoke on the costs of the continuing war in Afghanistan and the need to bring the troops home now. The bipartisan effort, led by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC), included statements by four Republicans and 11 Democrats: Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Rep Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY), Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA). See excerpts on YouTube.

-Kathy Crandall Robinson, Public Policy Director

Time to hold a magnifying glass to national security spending

This Fourth of July, as we celebrate our nation’s independence, we need to think about what programs will do the most to guarantee our freedom and strength for years to come. Our nation‘s Pentagon budget has grown unchecked since 1998 at a cost of trillions of dollars to taxpayers. And now the news from Washington is devastating, draconian cuts to essential investments while the Pentagon gets yet another boost.

Pentagon spending includes spending on wars, nuclear weapons, and military construction. Our nation’s greatness and future security are not served by a bloated nuclear arsenal, unnecessary weapons systems, and endless war. Our future will be best served with investments in education, jobs, healthcare, science and technology and a clean environment. To make those cuts we must cut bloated Pentagon spending.

As president of the Women Legislators’ Lobby (WiLL) and a Georgia State Senator, I work with a network of women from across the country. My fellow state legislators are battling budget shortfalls year after year. After 9-11, state budgets have taken on massive new costs for homeland security measures. National Guard and other returning veterans need state and local services. The women state legislators who are a part of WiLL understand that increases in Pentagon spending mean their strapped state budgets get further shortchanged. With the impacts of this great recession and the end of stimulus funding, states cannot afford the devastating cuts that would come with the Ryan Budget or the planned sequestration cuts to nondefense spending.

The Ryan budget increases Pentagon spending for the coming year by $8 billion more than what was agreed to last August in the Budget Control Act. That difference would be paid for by slashing even further every other funding priority.

The House approach also exempts the Pentagon from the looming automatic sequestration cuts by taking more from all of the other programs and investments. Congress will have to slash from k-12 and higher education, national parks and clean water programs, medical and scientific research, clean energy – you name it. Everything would be cut while the Pentagon trough gets filled.

We all want a common defense that works. We agree that veterans and their families deserve the best in recognition of their sacrifice. They also deserve to come home to a strong, vibrant economy with plenty of job opportunities.

What we don’t want are redundant and unnecessary weapons that don’t address today’s security needs, mismanaged projects that go far over budget due to lack of Pentagon audit, and defense industry lobbyists lining their coffers at our expense. Former Defense Secretary Gates says, “We can't hold ourselves exempt from the belt-tightening. Neither can we allow ourselves to contribute to the very debt that puts our long-term security at risk."

What we do want are jobs. Some claim that cutting excessive Pentagon spending means losing good jobs. On the contrary, economic studies have shown that federal investments in any other category, including education, healthcare, or clean energy, create more jobs than federal dollars spent in the military sector. These are the sustainable jobs that we need for our future. Let’s choose teachers, doctors, nurses, first responders, home weatherization, and wind turbines over building bombs that we don’t need and can’t afford.

It’s time to hold a magnifying glass to Pentagon spending. Other domestic spending is equally important to the future of our nation. Jobs, education, health care, a clean environment, safe roads and bridges and mass transit, are all a part of our national security.  These are essential components of fulfilling our nation’s obligation to secure a bright future for America.

Many domestic, religious and nonprofit groups agree and are speaking up. Even fiscally responsible conservatives are mobilizing. If we are ever to rid ourselves of ghastly cost overruns, end exorbitant contractor fees, stop no-bid contracts, and massive, unnecessary weapons systems, shouldn’t we hold the Pentagon accountable for its spending?

Congress must responsibly reduce Pentagon spending. This Independence Day, we will truly let freedom ring if we have a budget that makes investments in the future rather than continuing wasteful Pentagon spending. Let’s send that message to our members of congress.

-Nan Grogan Orrock, WiLL President and state senator in Georgia