CREATE A "PRIORITIES" (RICH AND MILITARY) TYPE STATS-FILE(?) ADD: FROM WRL POSTER FROM JL'S DOOR. ALSO, SEE "STATS" FILES AT "RESOURCES" SUBDIR. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jobs with Peace (JWP) Campaign, 76 SummerSt., Boston, Mass. 02110 I recently came across a Vermont American Friends Service Committee pamphlet which stated that "military related spending as a share of the federal tax dollar, ahs increased from 46% in Fiscal Years (FY) 1980 to 56% in FT 1987" and that National defense is a legitimate need but some analysts say that as little as 13% of the military budget does for direct defense of the United States (for coastal defense and retaliatory nuclear forces). Much spending goes for other purposes: nuclear and conventional competition with Soviet Union and Third world military intervention. We must not let a certain kind of patriotic shouting drown out a needed debate on these issues which figures are attributed to calculations by the Jobs with Peace (JWP) Campaign. "For a research kit, write: [above address]" ------------------------------------------------------------------ "The top 5% of U.S. households earn about $650 billion a year. Jumping their tax rate to a measly 38 percent (it was 70% under Nixon and Ford) would raise $65 billion this year -- ample to meet all the requirements for deficit reduction" [From: The Nation, Oct 22, 1990] ------------------------------------------------------------------ "In a Time/CNN poll 2 weeks ago, 3/4 of Americans said they favored an increase in the income tax rate of the wealthiest in America... similar percentages were opposed to a freeze in Social Security benefits or to increasing the gas tax" Non Social Security domestic spending, as a percentage of GNP, declined during the Reagan years from 9.8% to 7.3% [Source: Citizens for Tax Justice] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - According to the Center for Defense Information, military spending could easily be reduced by $100 billion per year, without in any way affecting security. [Above are from: ITT, 3/28-4/3, 1990] ################################################################## - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cost to build a mile of urban highway: $100 million; cost to build a mile of light rail mass transit:$ 15 million; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - change in federal funding for mass transit from 1981 to 1989: -50% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - reduction in Department of Energy budget for renewable energy between 1981 and 1989: 90% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [SEE STATS FILE(S)] ################################################################## A cartoon found in In These Times: At a big table sit a woman, a child/infant, a man in a hard-hat, a black youth, and an old lady, with empty plates in front of them, waiting for their share at the dinner table. In the middle, with the big pie in front of them are Bush and "Congress", with these two fellows pointing and shouting at each other, with the "budget" pie in front of them. Under the table both are handing a giant, voracious dog, the military slices of the pie as they continue their "heated debate," and while the others at the table continue waiting. The point of course is that genuine cuts in the military are not even on the table (for discussion) so that the really important programs must all compete in a "zero sum game", ie, one's gain equals another's loss: "The obstacle, of course, is military spending. In the rejected budget deal the Pentagon was given $297 billion for 1991, not including the $15 billion that our Iraq adventure may cost. that was $14 billion more than the House had appropriated for the military in its August budget bill. "The House figure ($283 billion) would have translated into a saving of some $60 billion over five years, which just happens to be the amount Medicare was to be cut in the rejected deal.. "with all the talk about fairness..a deathly silence greets any proposals to cut back on the military. This, in turn, means we face a zero-sum situation in which we are told everybody must sacrifice..and it also means that when deals are cut away from the public's view, the wealthy and the military contractors -- the sponsors and buddies of the president and the congressional leadership -- are the gainers and everyone else the losers" [From: In These Times, Oct 17-23, 1990] ------------------------------------------------------------------