In fact, the only year that sees a drop in spending is 2013, with a baseline number of $525 billion, $6 billion less than 2012. On top of that the administration asks for $88 billion for “overseas contingency operations”, which include the war in Afghanistan. Spending is then projected to increase every year, with the baseline rising to $567 billion by 2017, and the additional overseas contingency ominously marked as “TBD” from 2014-2017.

There are some good things in this budget, like moving two army brigades out of Europe. Taxpayers for Common Sense has a great breakdown of the positive steps made as well as some of the more glaring examples of lard left in this budget. A lot of the real savings in 2013 come from withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. But this administration’s proposal, which brings spending down by 8% from what we were projected to spend over the next 5 years, is far more modest than previous presidents’ post-war build downs that reduced military spending by as much as 30% — especially given the massive buildup in spending over the last decade. Here’s some historical context from Robert Dreyfuss:

Thanks to the Project on Defense Alternatives, we have a pretty good idea of what the long-term trends look like. Base-budget spending skyrocketed 55 percent between 1998 and 2010, adjusted for inflation. (Unadjusted, Pentagon spending pretty much doubled in twelve years.) And “base budgets” don’t include the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on war in Iraq and Afghanistan. As PDA notes, Panetta’s new budget plan sets 2013 spending at $525 billion, which is 46 percent above the 1998 level.” Some cut!

Members of Congress are already putting out proposals to undo even these minor reductions. Given the hyper-partisan reaction to any discussion of cuts, even this modest progress made in the Pentagon’s proposal could be reversed. Fortunately, public opinion and the climate of budget cuts are on our side. We’ll be watching the budget battles in 2012, and will alert you when your action can make a difference.

On a related note, David Dayen and Spencer Ackerman note the strategic shift to covert ops and drones represented in this budget. It’s an important reminder that the new face of war, as practiced by the Obama administration, isn’t any prettier than the old one. From Dayen:

During the Obama Presidency we’ve seen the advance of the new American way of war, with covert ops taking precedence over conventional forces. Drones and Navy SEALs are the future; counter-insurgency and its need for large masses of troops may be the past. Basically you’re moving the military from an accountable to an unaccountable position where they have plausible deniability for all their activities.

While many advocates and experts focus on the numbers I think this shift commands a bit more attention.

The New York Times reported, however, that the Pentagon hadn’t even made contingency plans for cuts because they were afraid they would leak to the media and prove that it is in fact perfectly reasonable to make significant cuts to the Pentagon’s budget. The experts in the Sustainable Defense Task Force managed to identify nearly a trillion dollars that could be cut in the next decade without detrimental effects on US security. (You can read our recommendations to the deficit super committee here.)

Today the New York Times has a new tool that gives you the opportunity to show just how doable it is to cut $450 billion from the Pentagon budget. Do you think you can do better than Leon Panetta in finding waste in the Pentagon budget? Click here to use the tool and find out.

Photo Credit: Jill Karjain

As I marched jubilantly with tens of thousands of my closest friends, one refrain on our lips was the classic, “show me what democracy looks like, THIS is what democracy looks like!” Indeed.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last month, you have probably heard about a little movement that is currently taking the country by storm. Occupy Wall Street has captured the imaginations of hundreds of thousands across the United States who are standing up against economic inequality and the unbridled power of transnational corporations and massive banking institutions. Its impassioned message, surprising momentum, organic growth and non-hierarchical structure have been hard to ignore recently—especially here in Oakland.

A mere 8 blocks from Peace Action West’s main office, the Occupy Oakland encampment has stepped into the spotlight as the current epicenter for the grassroots movement. In response to the violent crackdown on a group of protesters October 25th that left Iraq veteran Scott Olsen hospitalized  with a fractured skull, our city, drawing on its activist roots and defiant spirit, has come together in a remarkable way to denounce police brutality and demand a more fair economy. Last Wednesday, tens of thousands took to the streets in solidarity with the poor and downtrodden here at home and across the globe in a citywide general strike and day of action- the first that has been called in this country since 1946.

With homemade signs in hand, throngs of protesters from all walks of life converged on downtown Oakland at several points throughout the day to march on big-name banks. Those of us in the office that day took a break from our hard work occupying US foreign policy to join in solidarity around noon. The day of action culminated with a stunningly huge march to and occupation of one of the country’s largest ports, successfully shutting it down for the evening. Estimated numbers ranged from 7,000 to nearly 100,000 – as someone who was in that sea of people, I can attest to the latter figure.

As was the case with the New Deal, civil rights legislation and the winding down of the Vietnam war, grassroots “street heat” is often the fire that fuels change; the momentum that such movements generate has the potential to push politicians into actions they wouldn’t otherwise take. In a month and a half, the Occupy Wall Street movement has already shifted the political conversation on Capitol Hill despite the censorship of an unfriendly media.

The advancement of ideals however, has to go beyond a movement and beyond a particular historical moment. Within our democratic system, lasting change is made when movements like OWS intersect with the current legislative process, leveraging passion and numbers to hold politicians accountable and make specific changes to policy. This is where Peace Action West and the crucial work that our members make possible come in. As an intermediary between the people and the politicians elected to represent them, PAW has the unique ability to translate the political climate into legislative change RIGHT NOW.

One of the novel, exciting, and, to the mainstream media, confounding aspects of the OWS movement is its lack of a specific set of demands or political platform. While OWS is not a peace movement per se, it is safe to say that the teachers, nurses, veterans and young people on the streets are there at least in part because of perverse spending priorities in this country. One need only glance at the discretionary budget for 2011 to understand how cuts to the massive military spending in this country might fit in.

No one can say what the ultimate effect of the Occupy Wall Street movement will be, but the energy of OWS can have a synergistic effect on our work and may amplify our ability to end wars and reduce military spending. This is why, when we were done marching for the day, the PAW team cam back to the office, got on the phones and back to the important work of pressuring the super committee to cut military spending, invigorated by the prospect of a new season of opportunity. This is also what democracy looks like.

Casey, Michael, Kol, Mary and Orion the Great Horned Owl

The deficit super committee’s deadline is fast approaching, and so far there is little information about where they are leaning in coming up with a plan to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion. The opponents of smart reductions in military and nuclear spending have been grossly exaggerating the impacts of reducing the Pentagon budget, so this is a key time for us to push back. You’ve been emailing, calling, and writing to the super committee, and this week we took your message directly to Sen. Murray’s staff in Washington State.

Peace Action West supporter and Washingtonian Mary Parmenter put together a great delegation to meet with Sen. Murray’s local staffer. We started out with Kol Medina of the West Sound Wildlife Shelter. He shared how the economic downturn is hurting donations to their shelter, which rescues, treats and released injured and orphaned wildlife. Michael Pratt brought Orion, a beautiful Great Horned Owl whom he uses in educational programs. It was amazing to see this animal up close, and Kol told how decreases in education funding mean that fewer kids in public schools are able to interact with animals and learn about wildlife and environmentalism through their programs. It’s not every day that you get to see a Great Horned Owl in someone’s living room, and hopefully the experience will stick in Sen. Murray’s staffer Kristine’s memory.

Casey Pleskun from the Kitsap Housing Authority shared letters from families who have benefited from their programs to build and fix homes. The very home we met in benefited from one of Kitsap Housing’s programs, in which they weatherize homes and make them much more energy efficient and affordable to heat. Casey said that community development block grants they rely on from the federal government are on the chopping block, and they already have 70 people on their waiting list for services. Not only does Kitsap Housing help people in need; it also pumps money into the local economy and provides much-needed jobs.

I handed Kristine postcards to the super committee, and told her that many of the messages you all have written express support for cutting the military budget precisely because you want to save programs like the ones we talked about in this meeting. We encouraged Sen. Murray to push back against the hyperbolic language used by opponents of cutting the military budget, and offered her specific suggestions of where the super committee to cut to save billions of dollars over the next decade.

In these last few weeks, we need to keep the pressure coming. If you haven’t yet, please click here to send a message to the super committee urging them to cut wasteful military and nuclear spending.  

Click here to tell the super committee to support a plan that ends the wars, cuts wasteful military and nuclear spending and protects alternatives to war. You will be redirected to their public comment page, where you can fill out your information and personalize the sample message.

Supporters of our bloated Pentagon budget are not taking this fight lying down. The defense industry has launched a massive lobbying campaign, dubbed “Second to None,” urging people to oppose cuts to the military budget. Super committee member Sen. Jon Kyl threw a temper tantrum and threatened to quit if military budget cuts were even on the table. Everyone from members of Congress to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are making unfounded claims about doomsday scenarios that would occur if the military budget decreases.

We need to push back. Click here to tell the super committee to protect our real priorities by cutting wasteful military and nuclear spending.

There are only a few weeks left to influence the super committee if they are going to meet their November deadline. We are pulling out all the stops, generating phone calls, postcards and emails and directly meeting with super committee members’ offices in DC and their districts.

Help us amplify our message before the super committee deadline. Click here to take action.

We sent the letter below to super committee members to clearly outline the balanced security budget Peace Action West’s supporters would like to see. You can tell the super committee that you support these priorities by clicking here.

On behalf of Peace Action West’s 50,000 supporters, I am writing to urge you to produce deficit reduction recommendations that make Americans more secure by balancing our security budget and preserving domestic programs that contribute to security and prosperity at home.

Reduce wasteful military spending

The base Pentagon budget has increased by more than 50% in the last decade. Pentagon spending, including Overseas Contingency Operations, accounted for 58% of the FY2011 discretionary budget. Any serious plan to reduce the deficit must address wasteful military spending, especially when that spending competes with funding for priorities such as healthcare, job creation, and education.

Our safety is not best measured in dollars spent, but rather in the strategy served by our budget. There is room for substantial reductions in military spending without detriment to US national security. This could include:

·      Reducing all DOD contracts by 10% and freezing hiring of civilian DOD employees

·      Bringing troops home from Europe and Asia and reducing ground forces to pre-9/11 levels

·      Eliminating unnecessary weapons systems such as the F-35, the MV-22 Osprey and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle

·      Curtailing national missile defense

The Sustainable Defense Task Force report offers details on a potential $960 billion in savings over the next ten years.[i]

Military withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan

US taxpayers have spent more than $1.2 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in direct costs.[ii]  The Eisenhower Study Group projects the long-term costs of the wars, including such costs as veterans’ care and interest payments, will reach $3.2-4 trillion.[iii] There have also been opportunity costs, such as lost jobs and lack of public investment in infrastructure. The macroeconomic impacts have also been significant; the average homebuyer paid an additional $600 in mortgage payments last year because of the increase in interest rates due to borrowing money for the wars.[iv]

The administration is reportedly considering keeping 3-10,000 troops in Iraq beyond the agreed-upon withdrawal deadline. The current plan for Afghanistan leaves nearly 70,000 troops on the ground in the fall of 2012, with no clear end date for withdrawal. With fewer than 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, there is no longer a compelling national security rationale for maintaining a massive military presence in Afghanistan. The raid that apprehended Osama bin Laden demonstrates that policing and intelligence are much more effective approaches to protecting Americans from the threat of terrorism.[v] There are several plans available with recommendations for reduced troop levels.[vi] Accelerating withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.

Reducing spending on nuclear weapons

With the Cold War over and a national security strategy that decreases reliance on nuclear weapons, the United States cannot afford to spend $700 billion over the next decade on nuclear weapons programs.[vii] In a 21^st century security environment, nuclear weapons are more of a liability than an asset; funding for weapons and delivery systems competes with more effective security priorities such as nonproliferation. Cuts could include:

·      Stopping construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Facility in New Mexico, saving $3-5 billion

·      Delaying the New Long Range Penetrating Bomber, saving $3.7 billion

·      Rightsizing the ballistic missile submarine fleet to eight boats, saving $27 billion over ten years

·      Canceling the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant, saving an estimated $4 billion

Avoiding disproportionate cuts to the international affairs budget

The international affairs budget accounts for only 1% of the federal budget, yet it has faced disproportionate cuts in the current budget battle, bearing nearly 20% of all discretionary funding cuts in FY2011. These cuts are even more devastating after years of neglect that have weakened our civilian engagement tools. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed out, the entire Foreign Service does not include enough people to staff one aircraft carrier.

These programs are essential to preventing costly military intervention, promoting stability and saving lives around the globe. Shortsighted cuts in international affairs funding would further the imbalance in our current security budget and could have detrimental impacts on US engagement and security in the future.

Peace Action West’s supporters strongly urge the super committee to develop a deficit reduction plan that reflects a smart security budget as outlined above. Feel free to contact me for more details on any of these proposals.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Griffin

Political Director

Peace Action West

[i] http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf

[ii] http://costofwar.com/en/

[iii] http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

[iv] http://costsofwar.org/article/macroeconomic-impact-military-spending

[v] http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

[vi] http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2011/06/the-afghan-troop-number-game.html

[vii] http://ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/What%20We%20Spend%20on%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20092811.pdf

Friday, October 15: March and rally for Jobs Not Cuts

October 6-29: Windows and Mirrors

There will be a number of events throughout the month organized around an exhibit of forty-five murals exploring the experiences of Afghan civilians.

Depending on whom you ask, the Pentagon either got a free ride or the deal decimates the military budget. Given the leverage that Republicans had in this debate, it’s not surprising that the Pentagon got off easy in the first round of cuts.

First of all, military and civilian spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the budget category known as Overseas Contingency Operations) is off the table in the first round of cuts.  This is a disappointing move given the enormous cost of the failed military strategy that could be reallocated to domestic programs that could revitalize the economy and create jobs.

You’ll hear some people talk about the Pentagon making $350 billion in cuts over the next ten years, but the leadership found a way to dilute this so they could bring more Republicans along. The deal imposes a spending cap on “security spending,” which lumps Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the international affairs budget in with the Pentagon. Even this is incredibly vague, as even Armed Services Committee leaders Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain have no idea what the deal actual means for the Pentagon.

To meet the spending cap for 2012, the House will need to cut an additional $10 billion from these budgets beyond what they already slashed. That could easily be made up by cutting into the $17 billion increase the House gave the Pentagon, but given how hawks have pitched a fit about even modest military budget cuts, they are likely to go after these other security areas to make up the difference.

That could be devastating to key diplomacy and development programs. As I wrote earlier this week, the House already made massive cuts to the international affairs budget, and it is ludicrous to expect this chronically underfunded area to bear the brunt of further budget cuts when there is much waste to be found in the Pentagon budget.

In the short term, the Senate is our best bet for shifting this imbalance, as they have not marked up their version of the 2012 budget yet. The next few weeks will be crucial in pushing senators to put forward a budget that reflects a more balanced approach to security and take a hard negotiating stance with Republicans in developing a final product.

As for the years ahead, the fate of these budgets will lie with the “super Congress” made up of 12 lawmakers appointed by House and Senate leadership. They will be tasked with finding another $1.5 trillion in cuts or revenue. If Congress cannot pass their recommendations, it will trigger an automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts, including $600 billion from Pentagon spending. This trigger mechanism is meant to serve as an incentive to pass an alternative plan. This process will provide us an opportunity to push for serious cuts to wasteful Pentagon and nuclear weapons spending, and make sure the international affairs budget doesn’t get the short end of the stick.

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.

The elected leaders of our local municipalities could not agree more. In a resolution passed at the annual US Mayor’s Conference in Baltimore, the nation’s mayors have called on Obama to redirect funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to struggling American communities.  The resolution, which passed with an overwhelming majority, called to:

end the wars as soon as strategically possible and bring these war dollars home to meet vital human needs, promote job creation, rebuild our infrastructure, aid municipal and state governments, and develop a new economy based upon renewable, sustainable energy and reduce the federal debt.

This is the first time since the Vietnam War that the Mayor’s Conference has passed a resolution addressing U.S. foreign policy, when it then urged President Nixon to end the war within 6 months. While the current resolution is a bit more sedate, it sends a strong message to the administration that the American people are well aware of the connection between $4 trillion spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to date and the lack of funding for domestic programs and job creation here at home. In a country where 75 of 366 metropolitan areas expect to have double digit unemployment rates by the end of the year and 53% of its metropolitan areas expect levels over 8%, local communities are anxious to see not only their brothers and sisters but their tax dollars come home.

USCM President and mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa put it this way:

It’s time for Congress to get on with the serious business of legislating short and long-term solutions to our jobs crisis…. We need to stand for a new world order in federal spending. It’s time to bring our investments back home. We can’t be building roads and bridges in Baghdad and Kandahar, and not Baltimore and Kansas City. Not when we when we spend $2.1 million on defense every single minute. Not after nearly $1.2 trillion spent and over 6,000 lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ironically, the lead sponsor of the bill, Eugene, OR mayor Kitty Piercy was not able to attend the conference, explaining in an interview on Democracy Now:

the last three years, we’ve cut $20 million from our city budget. And when we’re asking our employees to take furlough days and make all kinds of sacrifices, I’ve really limited my travel to necessity.

Nonetheless, she has been outspoken in her promotion of local organizing to end the war:

I think the mayors of this country, who see everyday people every day and see how federal policies affect families’ lives and the struggles that people are having, I think they are just the voices that need to be heard and to join together to work hand in hand with our federal government to try to find a way to get this country back on track.

Obama’s planned drawdown is a small move in the right direction, but it is still completely out-of-step with the record number of Americans who want our troops home NOW. Reducing troop levels to 68,000 by the end of 2012 is simply not going to cut it. Last month we heard President Obama say,

Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource – our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy.

In the coming months leading up to the 2012 elections it will be up to us to hold him to such statements and be clear about what it will take to make them meaningful: a far more rapid, substantial and complete withdrawal of our troops from the region, and complete abandonment of a counterinsurgency strategy that has not and will not work.

Many representatives used the bill as an opportunity to offer amendments cutting the military budget and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Libya. Thanks to all of you who took the time to call your representative in support of these important amendments.

Some highlights with links to see how your representative voted:

Military spending 

• Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) offered an amendment to limit the number of US troops permanently stationed in Europe to 30,000. Failed, 113-307.
• Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) led a group supporting an amendment to cut the Pentagon’s increase in half, by $8.5 billion. Failed, 181-244.
• Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) offered an amendment to freeze the Pentagon budget at 2011 levels, cutting $17 billion. Failed, 135-290.
• Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) offered an amendment to cut a $5 billion Pentagon “slush fund.” Failed, 114-314.
• Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) offered an amendment to cut $297 million in funds for a new nuclear bomber. Failed, 98-322.

Afghanistan

• Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) offered an amendment that would have cut funding for the war by $33 billion, leaving enough money for the safe and responsible withdrawal of US troops. Failed, 97-322.
• Rep. John Garamendi’s (D-CA) amendment would have cut $20 billion from war funding, mandating that there be no more than 25,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan by the end of 2012. Failed, 133-295.

Libya

• There were several amendments offered to cut funding for operations in Libya. The one that received the most yea votes was offered by Reps. Kucinich (D-OH) and Amash (R-MI). Failed, 199-229.
• The House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Cole (R-OK) prohibiting military assistance to the rebel forces in Libya. Passed, 225-201.