Obama's comments that U.S. military spending is under threat of "draconian" cuts were met with immediate rebuke from analysts, who say the poor are bearing the brunt of austerity while the war budget remains largely untouched.
Mattea Kramer, research director at National Priorities Project, argues that the Pentagon, in fact, is "crying wolf." When it went into effect in March 2013, sequestration was supposed to cut $54.6 billion from the $550 billion Pentagon budget. But thanks to intervention from Congress, as well as the Pentagon's manipulation of budgeting rules, the Pentagon only ended up cutting $31 billion from its 2013 budget, explains Kramer. The 2014 budget tells a similar story. Sequestration was supposed to slash $54.6 billion from the military budget in 2014, but thanks to a deal between lawmakers, and war funding from other stashes—including extra congressional funds and the "Overseas Contingency Operations" budget—the 2014 budget was only cut by $3.4 billion, less than one percent. "After two years of uproar over mostly phantom cuts, 2015 isn’t likely to bring austerity to the Pentagon either."
Miriam Pemberton, research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies,explained that the "the supposed slashing leaves the military budget higher than all but a couple of years of the budget since World War II."
The U.S. continues to spend more on the military than the next 11 countries combined, and for the year 2015, 45 percent of U.S. income tax money is slated to go to current and past military spending. An Institute for Policy Studies report revealed U.S. spending to address the climate crisis lags far behind military spending: between 2008 to 2013, climate change spending grew from 1 percent of military spending to 4 percent.
Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies explains "The really draconian impact of sequestration cuts have been felt by working people and poor people across the United States far more than it has by the Pentagon."
Mattea Kramer, research director at National Priorities Project, argues that the Pentagon, in fact, is "crying wolf." When it went into effect in March 2013, sequestration was supposed to cut $54.6 billion from the $550 billion Pentagon budget. But thanks to intervention from Congress, as well as the Pentagon's manipulation of budgeting rules, the Pentagon only ended up cutting $31 billion from its 2013 budget, explains Kramer. The 2014 budget tells a similar story. Sequestration was supposed to slash $54.6 billion from the military budget in 2014, but thanks to a deal between lawmakers, and war funding from other stashes—including extra congressional funds and the "Overseas Contingency Operations" budget—the 2014 budget was only cut by $3.4 billion, less than one percent. "After two years of uproar over mostly phantom cuts, 2015 isn’t likely to bring austerity to the Pentagon either."
Miriam Pemberton, research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies,explained that the "the supposed slashing leaves the military budget higher than all but a couple of years of the budget since World War II."
The U.S. continues to spend more on the military than the next 11 countries combined, and for the year 2015, 45 percent of U.S. income tax money is slated to go to current and past military spending. An Institute for Policy Studies report revealed U.S. spending to address the climate crisis lags far behind military spending: between 2008 to 2013, climate change spending grew from 1 percent of military spending to 4 percent.
Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies explains "The really draconian impact of sequestration cuts have been felt by working people and poor people across the United States far more than it has by the Pentagon."
No comments:
Post a Comment