|
|
|
The Costs of War Hit HomeAn elected official of East Cleveland reportedly made a plea at a recent public event for Bush to wage war in East Cleveland, as in Iraq, so that its roads, schools and crumbling infrastructure could then be rebuilt. Though said in jest, her remark reveals the desperate need felt by many states and cities for resources to be spent at home rather than on war.
The nation's governors warn that state deficits are the largest in more than 50 years. In the next year the deficits will run between $60 billion and $85 billion. This is between 13 percent and 18 percent of state expenditures. The New York Times reported that some states have undertaken drastic cost-saving measures--including unscrewing every third light bulb in government buildings, having teachers double as janitors and releasing prison inmates early. Many states also reported having to lay off teachers, raise student tuitions or cut financial aid--sometimes all three. Pressed to the brink of bankruptcy, states, cities and towns across the U.S. are recognizing the devastating costs to taxpayers of a perpetual war economy. In the months leading up to the war on Iraq, more than 160 local governments passed antiwar resolutions decrying the billions of dollars to be spent on the war while vital social programs face severe budget cuts. SOCIAL PROGRAMS CUTLos Angeles' resolution stated that the "cost [of the war] would be borne by the people of the City of Los Angeles, who rely on federal funds for anti-poverty programs, for workforce assistance, for housing, for education programs, for infrastructure and for the increased demands of homeland security." The National Priorities Project (www.nationalpriorities.org) reports that, based on the conservative estimates of $100 billion for the Iraq war alone, taxpayers in Denver would pay $152 million of the war bill from their federal income taxes; in Atlanta, $80 million; in Des Moines, $42 million; in Detroit, almost $180 million; and in New York City, a crippling $2.4 billion. According to the National Priorities Project, the proposed $46 billion increase in military spending for 2003 could be much better spent. California's share could put some 570,000 more children in Head Start; New York state could provide health coverage to almost 750,000 of its uninsured children; Oregon, facing the nation's most severe cuts in public education, could fund 7,000 new elementary school teachers and Mississippi could provide 3,000 affordable housing units to its low-income residents. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the proposed House budget plan includes more than $159 billion in cuts over the next decade to programs for low-income families. Programs such as Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Social Security Insurance, Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and many other programs will all be cut. Alabama will lose at least $1 billion in funding for Medicaid and SCHIP under the proposed budget plan for 2004 to 2013. California will lose almost $10 billion. Further worsening the situation, Congress is in the process of passing a bill giving somewhere between $350 billion and $726 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy. It has just given an additional $80 billion to cover the first month of Iraq war costs. And it is about to agree to a 10-year budget plan that devastates state funding for critical entitlement and low-income programs. Karen Dolan directs the Cities for Peace program at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. |
|
|
War Times/Tiempo de Guerras is a fiscally sponsored project of the |
