Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, March 29, 1991 TAG: 9103290640
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: PATRICIA ROWLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Before that, when defense allocations ranged from 50 to 80 percent of the federal budget (during World War II and postwar reconstruction), the budget was based on funds raised from personal and corporate income taxes. It included only discretionary spending, about which a real decision could be made by Congress. Trust-fund monies (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, the highway trust fund) were not counted, because Congress has no control over how they are allocated. They are financed separately, administered separately, and must be used for their intended purpose.
During the Johnson administration, trust-fund monies were put into the pot along with income taxes. The apparent percentage for military spending then magically declined by about 50 percent.
This method still is used to effectively hide the fact that, of the discretionary monies, Congress and the administration are choosing for the current fiscal year to spend 61 percent for military purposes. Quite a difference from the 18 percent that Mr. Ellis claims!
I believe these facts also refute his contention that "as the percent of the budget spent on defense has declined, the federal deficits have grown." In truth, as the military piece of the pie has increased, the deficit has also increased.
Of course, the corollary to this uncontrolled defense spending is that not much is left to be divided up for everything else. Our nation has a large number of very serious social, economic and environmental problems that cannot even begin to be addressed as long as 61 cents of every tax dollar continues to be allocated for the military.
In the past decade, there have been substantial funding cuts in housing, health care, education, student loans, job training, medical research, alternative energy-sources development and conservation measures, toxic-waste cleanup, drug treatment, and food-assistance programs, to name only a few. Budgetary priorities of that period brought on the crushing federal deficit, a growing trade imbalance, declining competitiveness accompanied by a shift from well-paid industrial jobs to low-wage/no-benefits service jobs, and a growing number of Americans who work full-time and still cannot make ends meet.
Not coincidentally, military spending yields far fewer jobs per dollar than almost any other type of government outlay. The cost in human suffering of our militarized economy is incalculable, and the burden falls heaviest upon women, children, and people of color.
Political leaders as disparate as President Dwight Eisenhower and Dr. Martin Luther King have pointed out the connection between poverty and militarism. This was not welcome news 20 or 30 years ago, and it remains unpopular today, especially among those powerful few who are reaping tremendous profits from our military buildup. These wealthy business interests, whose influence far outstrips their numbers, have been largely successful in controlling congressional appropriations as well as in convincing the rest of us that it is unpatriotic to question current spending priorities.
It is imperative, however, that we begin to do so, and quickly. There are other measures of a nation's health, strength and security besides the size and sophistication of its armed forces and weapons systems, and America is tragically falling behind in nearly every one. The federal budget for fiscal 1991-92 is being prepared, and we need to insist that our government turn its attention homeward and begin to reinvest our tax dollars in America.
by CNB