Increasing
military spending justified
More money is needed to protect U.S.
people
COMMENTARY
Eugene Chu
In
the last several months, the media has questioned
President George W. Bush and his spending priorities.
One recent Washington Post article criticized President
Bush’s proposed budget that would reduce domestic
social funding in order to increase defense funding.
While the media is entitled to its opinion, certain
facts have been omitted. People need to remember that
the United States is still involved in an expanding
war on terror. Along with the dangers of war and terrorism,
the historical trends of spending also need to be
examined. In this current environment, the United
States needs “guns” more than “butter.”
The Taliban may not rule Afghanistan now, but remnants
of the regime still continue to fight and pose a threat
to the delicate Afghan democracy. The Afghan National
Army is still in the early stages of development.
The U.S. military remains in Afghanistan in order
to defeat the remaining Taliban and prevent the former
regime from retaking control. Afghanistan continues
to be an armed conflict that requires funding and
support. Along with Afghanistan, the United States
may expand this war to other countries in order to
prevent another Sept. 11.
Two countries in President Bush’s “Axis
of Evil” — North Korea and Iraq — have
taken belligerent action against the United States.
North Korea has restarted a nuclear reactor, expelled
U.N. inspectors and withdrawn from the Nuclear Proliferation
Treaty. According to a Jan. 9 CNN story about Iraq,
U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix believes the Iraqi
government already violated previous U.N. resolutions
by importing missile engines in 2002. While negotiation
may be possible, North Korea and Iraq seem determined
to produce weapons of mass destruction. As these countries
pose a bigger threat to the United States, an increase
in defense funding is justifiable. Before criticism
mounts over diverting “money for the poor”
to fund the military, we should contrast the levels
of government funding during times of war.
Many people incorrectly perceive that President Bush
plans to drastically increase defense funding by drastically
cutting domestic social funding. According to budget
documents from (www.whitehouse.gov), funding for social
spending (Health and Human Services, Social Security,
Medicare, etc.) is set to increase from $1.31 trillion
in 2002 to $1.39 trillion in 2003. Funding for national
defense is set to increase from $347 billion in 2002
to $379 billion in 2003. While previous budgets did
contain larger social spending increases, this year’s
increase should still be applauded. If critics are
truly looking for a dramatic social spending decrease
and defense spending increase, they should look at
the federal budget during Franklin Roosevelt’s
administration.
According to historical budget documents from (www.whitehouse.gov),
during World War II from 1941 to 1945, funding for
social spending plummeted from $4.15 billion to $1.89
billion. In that same period, funding for national
defense skyrocketed from $6.43 billion to $82.96 billion.
In World War II, President Roosevelt properly prioritized
the need for social funding along with the need for
defense funding. In the war on terror, President Bush
is simply trying to do the same.
The thought of reducing defense funding and increasing
domestic social funding is noble. Unfortunately, since
Sept. 11, malicious enemies to the United States have
reappeared. Like it or not, the United States is fighting
a war right now to stop its enemies from hurting innocent
Americans. There are times in history when defense
funding needs to be cut and social funding needs to
be increased. However, the present day is not one
of those times.
Eugene
Chu is a junior political science major from Arlington.
He can be reached at (e.t.chu@tcu.edu).
|
Bush’s
proposal is wrong, helps rich
New bill gives break to rich, taxes the poor
COMMENTARY
Brandon Ortiz
If
you are moving into a new house, it’s common sense
to ask the strongest mover to carry the heaviest furniture.
If you are serving a meal, it’s common sense to
give the biggest piece of chicken to the hungriest person
at the table.
But in Washington, and especially the White House, such
common sense seems to fly out the window.
As our country is in the midst of a crusade against
terrorism and a war in Iraq looms, President Bush has
called for a spending freeze on domestic programs other
than homeland security in the yet-to-be-passed 2003
budget.
Bush is expected to call for similar steps in the 2004
budget. The administration says it wants to avoid trying
to have both guns and butter — or supporting a
large military while at the same time trying to fund
expensive social programs.
On the surface, this makes sense.
Post-9/11, we live in a dangerous world. The Pentagon
and the Department of Homeland Security are going to
require massive budgets for some time.
Liking it is not a matter of choice.
Unless we want to drown future generations in an ocean
of red ink, we have to make sacrifices. Freezing spending
on domestic programs (which, with inflation and growing
demand because of the recession, actually amounts to
a budget cut) certainly accomplishes that.
But it does so unfairly and inequitably. It is like
you asking your scrawny friend to carry a piano up a
flight of stairs.
Not only that, it contradicts the reasoning behind Bush’s
economic stimulus plan, which heavily favors the wealthiest
among us.
Butter, most experts will tell you, is more than just
social spending. It’s also tax cuts.
And while Bush wants to take butter away from those
who can barely afford it, his plan lavishes it upon
those who own the cows.
“On a pretty thin layer of people, he is spreading
it pretty deep,” said Jim Wright, a Democrat who
represented Fort Worth for more than 30 years and is
a former speaker of the U.S House of Representatives.
“There is a lot of butter on one piece of cake.
But no butter, and probably no bread, for a lot of us.”
The centerpiece of the plan, which will cost $670 billionover
10 years, is the elimination of the tax on dividends
from most stocks. That proposal, even conservatives
admit, will do little to stimulate the economy in the
short term.
According to calculations by the center-left Urban-Brookings
Tax Policy Center, a family in the middle 20 percent
of income earners — or the middle, middle class
— would see an average cut of only $265.
Earners in the top 1 percent: $24,428.
Even more disturbing, those in the bottom 20 percent
— the people who need a pick-me-up the most —
would see an average “stimulus” of $5.
Yes, five big ones. That’s not a typo.
Wright gave the following illustration: Imagine a young
couple who recently graduated college and is trying
to make it on their own. They both work hard and together
make $55,000 a year — every dime of it taxable.
Then picture a fortunate young man (or woman) who inherited
several investments. He doesn’t work, but lives
off the $55,000 a year he receives in dividends.
None of that would be taxed, at least not by Uncle Sam,
under Bush’s proposal.
“Is it fair to these working people who work their
hearts out and pay taxes?” Wright asked.
No, it’s not.
Bush is asking the poor and middle class to make do
with less in the name of war, while at the same time
he pushes more tax cuts for the very wealthy.
The whole notion of shared sacrifice, apparently, doesn’t
exist at the White House — where those with the
weakest backs are asked to carry a heavier load, and
the strongest are offered yet another break.
Opinion
Editor Brandon Ortiz is a junior news-editorial journalism
major from Fort Worth. He can be reached at (b.p.ortiz@tcu.edu).
|
