catapult magazine

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/bush.budget/

So is it going to take a another Democratic president to clean up the fiscal mess left by another militaristic Republican? I know lots of you won’t like that wording, but what is it with Republican hypocrisy when it comes to fiscal responsiblity?

When you highlight gaping holes in my arguements it’s hard for me to sound credible.
…
Withdrawn.

No matter what level of government it comes from, the origin is still the pockets of people. The fact that only 1/3 of norbert’s education budget comes from the federal government also goes to show that a re-evaluation of federal spending could mean more money for education.

My main argument is that America’s current crisis (threat from terrorism) can’t be solved by spending more money on the military. If you think that approach works, just look how successful Israel has been in the last 3 years. Funny how all those suicide bombers just keep popping up from all over the place even though Israel is the most militarized country in the world. You can’t fight terror with terror. Well, you can, but it’s ugly.

Correction Dan: in Wisconsin, the remaining 1/3 of school funding comes from property taxes, NOT the federal government.

I just like the details of everyone’s arguments to be neat and tidy. Carry on.

Thanks mrsanniep! norbert’s argument just keeps getting stronger and stronger. If the federal government currently funds virtually no part of the country’s education system, think of what a difference federal spending on education could make! Maybe it would mean that poor states could start to raise their educational systems to the level of rich states. Oh, sorry, that does begin to sound like socialism. Horrors.

Socialism and Christianity are completely irreconcilable, although, as Dostoevsky pointed out in The Brothers Karamazov, it’s very easy to confuse the two.

Anyhow, I think what no one has pointed out yet (but everyone’s alluding to) is that DEFENSE and EDUCATION are two (of many) discretionary spending categories that make up about 32 percent of federal spending. It is up to Congress and the President to decide how the money is appropriated.

So, my point is, the federal pot for both education and defense is already small. Why must it be a debate between defense versus education? What about the other 68 percent (roughly) of mandatory spending? Where’s that money go – and how might those programs be streamlined in order to give the government more money to spend on both education AND defense?

The other 68 percent is the money the federal government spends because of permanent law, unless the President and Congress change these laws. Mandatory spending includes: interest on the national debt and entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. I think both of these latter programs are in need of tweaking, myself.

Why does the United States have such a high national debt? Maybe because we’re helping everyone else out? And if you give me the argument that our “help” is not really all that welcome or needed, I say GREAT! Disband NATO. Really.

And going to war without the French is like going duck hunting without an accordion. (thanks, Charlie Sykes)

okay, before we go off on a tangent here about socialism and christianity, i started a new thread for that discussion (because i think it, in and of itself, is very interesting): ../discussion/index.cfm?frmid=6&tpcid=366

i think you’ve pointed out part of the problem, annie. most americans, for lack of education, don’t know where their money is being spent. and an uneducated populace is very dangerous in a democracy (or, in our case, a republic).

Just how much of the budget really DOES go to foreign aid? I think that goes along with the delusion that the American populace is under—that of not knowing where the country’s money is being spent, and thus constructing illusions about where they think it’s going. And how does the level of funding for foreign aid and for military compare? I know that back in the mid-90’s, less than 1% of the budget went to foreign aid. I think other countries WELCOME our help in this way—in ways that don’t tear apart their country.

How do we distinguish foreign aid from giving money to puppet regimes? Certainly, it’s obvious most times, but our best intentions do often backfire. I agree that much U.S. foreign policy has been based on short-sightedness, especially when it comes to financial support to foreign governments. But this is an extremely difficult task, figuring out where to put your money and hoping it will be used properly. If the U.S. has gotten into trouble before for being a bank for the world, why would America be any better at giving more money to other countries in the form of “foreign aid”?

I was surprised to hear that Bush’s administration plans on sending food aid to the North Korean people, despite their government’s unruly behavior. I really like the idea. There does seem to be a trend in this direction. Bush wants to spend more in Africa as well, thanks to Bono’s coaxing. But I’m afraid that the underlying problem with both supporting puppet regimes and giving foreign aid is that we think throwing money at a problem is going to fix it. No doubt money can be used very powerfully, but only with very hands-on strategies and effective structural changes. If we really want America to do more for the world, then, it must become more involved in making sure its money is put to good use. But then the U.S. would have to become more involved in other people’s business, and isn’t this what most of the world wants to avoid?

Also, I can see how the military and education are intimately connected to the government. The school system makes the citizens and the military protects them. But how do we justify the government’s involvement in so much of life? It seems that if the schools are doing what they’re supposed to do, turning out good citizens, we wouldn’t need the government to support programs for the poor etc., because our good citizens who have profitted from democracy will have been trained to want to give back to others for the good of democracy (well, that was the ideal of liberal democracy, anyway).

I know this thread has been dead for over a month, but the pastor of our church here handed me something interesting. It was originally printed in the newsletter of Peace Evangelical Lutheran Church in South Haven, Michigan.

“A General’s Reflection in a Time of War

Dwight David Eisenhower, World War II general and, after the war years, President of the United States, reflected on the tragedy of war in his later years. This bit of reflection and worldly wisdom is attributed to President Eisenhower:

‘Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who are hungry and not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.’

On the congressional agenda in the last days of March and in early April will be funding $80-90 billion for the war effort in Iraq. That does not include any of the funding that will be needed for relief or for the reconstruction of a nation. And it does not begin to approximate the human cost we will continue to record as the loss of life and limb, that which is the true cost of this war. May God forgive us for the atrocity of war, plant in us the seeds of hope-filled reconciliation, enliven us with a sense of mission in the world and renew us as a people seeking to bring about the Kingdom of God through our ministries of advocating for justice for all people. Pray for peace."

No matter what our position is on the validity of this war, I think we can all feel the grave sorrow of what’s happening. There are values we can all affirm at all times—living peacefully and loving our neighbors by simply meeting their needs.

We need to be careful when we affirm the appropriation of money for life-taking activities instead of life-giving activities, even when we believe those life-taking activities will eventually lead to better lives for many. So what does this “being careful” look like? I don’t know.