To paraphrase the words of former President Bill Clinton, it’s the war economy stupid. According to the latest CNN News poll, fully 71% of Americans believe that the war is partially to blame for the current economic problems. So, on the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, let’s take a look at the economic impact of the war, whose costs have reached total spending of $504 billion. Now, If you are like me and you don’t even know how many zeroes are in a billion, I thought I would break those numbers down a bit, based upon figures supplied by the National Priorities Project (www.nationalpriorities.org).
So far we have spent an average of $100 billion per year. Translated to a more personal level that means each and every man, woman and child in America have personally contributed $1,680 or for a family of four, their five year contribution totals $6,720. To those families facing foreclosure due to increased mortgage costs, that could go a long way to help pay down some of their debt.
As a country, what could we have done with these war funds which have all been paid for through borrowing against future generations. The annual war spending totals $100 billion, or $1.9 billion a week, and on a daily basis we are spending $27 million. If that sounds like a lot of money it is because it IS! What else could that money have bought? Based upon the figures provided by the National Priorities Project, and a few simple calculations, we see how far that much money can go if it were focused on human needs and not war.
One hundred billion dollars a year can buy:
Health insurance for all 47 million uninsured people, and
One million college scholarships at $6,000 each, and
One thousand new or refurbished elementary schools, and
Fifty thousand elementary school teachers, and
One million units of affordable housing, and
Five hundred thousand Head Start spaces, and
Fifty-five billion dollars left over for infrastructure repairs on bridges, highways, mass transit improvements and retrofitting public buildings for energy conservation, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
March 19, 2008
It's The War Economy....
March 18, 2008
Low Income Working Families
Urban Insitute: facts and nonpartisan perspectives on the issues
With the economy a top issue for voters this election year, the Urban Institute can offer information about the nation’s most vulnerable households, including low-income working families. These families are above the poverty line but still struggle to make ends meet. A sudden job loss or health crisis could derail them.
Institute researchers can provide facts and nonpartisan perspectives on who these families are and what can be done to help them thrive.
With the economy a top issue for voters this election year, the Urban Institute can offer information about the nation’s most vulnerable households, including low-income working families. These families are above the poverty line but still struggle to make ends meet. A sudden job loss or health crisis could derail them.
Institute researchers can provide facts and nonpartisan perspectives on who these families are and what can be done to help them thrive.
KEY FACTS:
Low income is generally defined as twice the federal poverty level, or $40,888 for a family of four in 2006.
There were 11 million low-income working families at the beginning of 2007.
Sixty-one percent, or 6.7 million, of these families had at least one full-time, year-round worker in 2006.
The median wage for workers in low-income families was $9.62 an hour in 2006, compared with $17.55 for workers in all families.
Low-income workers with children are more likely to be young, Hispanic, live in one-parent families, and report being in fair or poor health, compared with the average worker.
In 2006, only 36 percent of the heads of household in low-income working families had any education beyond high school.
One-third of families with children lack sufficient income to cover the basic costs of everyday living, including housing, food, child care, health insurance, transportation, and taxes.
Work supports, such as tax credits, food stamps, and child care subsidies, help but often don’t close the gap between earnings and basic needs.
The latest reports by the Urban Institute ( a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization) can be accessed at: http://www.urban.org/toolkit/newreports.cfm
March 9, 2008
Your Grandchildren’s Children’s War
The Three Trillion Dollar War
According to a new book by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Professor Linda Bilmes, the true costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will total more than $3 trillion. President Bush has endeavored to hide the costs of the wars by financing them outside of the federal budget, thereby funding them through debt. But Stiglitz and Bilmes argue that the true costs of these wars are wildly underestimated. They consider all factors associated with the waging of these wars including interest on the debt, future borrowing to cover costs, the ongoing costs of a military presence and the staggering costs of lifetime health-care and mental health services for veterans.
In spite of the administration’s misleading pledge of a “self-financing” war, the reported spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, to date, total $646 billion, all of which is financed through debt. In addition to these direct costs of the war, Stiglitz and Bilmes estimate that future costs for veterans including social security, disability and medical care will add up to a staggering $717 billion in the long-term.
Additional costs that are not reported as war costs are the death benefits that are paid to families of soldiers killed in action. According to the authors, the US pays each family a $100,000 death gratuity and a $400,000 payment in lieu of insurance for an unexpected death. To date there have been over 4,400 combat deaths, totaling $2.2 billion.
Other hidden costs for the military include recruitment, combat pay, hardship benefits and reenlistment bonuses. According to the authors, “the average number of military personnel deployed to the region in any given period has grown by 15 per cent – but the costs have skyrocketed by 130 per cent. Similarly, the intensity of operations is estimated to have risen by 65 per cent during the period – half the rate of the cost increases.
The authors also point to the increased use of private contractors providing support services for the troops as another factor driving up costs. Currently there are more than 100,000 private contractors, who, according to the authors, are “increasing operational expenses far more than if we had relied solely on the military.”
The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict
By Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes
W.W.Norton and Co., Inc. 2008
According to a new book by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Professor Linda Bilmes, the true costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will total more than $3 trillion. President Bush has endeavored to hide the costs of the wars by financing them outside of the federal budget, thereby funding them through debt. But Stiglitz and Bilmes argue that the true costs of these wars are wildly underestimated. They consider all factors associated with the waging of these wars including interest on the debt, future borrowing to cover costs, the ongoing costs of a military presence and the staggering costs of lifetime health-care and mental health services for veterans.
In spite of the administration’s misleading pledge of a “self-financing” war, the reported spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, to date, total $646 billion, all of which is financed through debt. In addition to these direct costs of the war, Stiglitz and Bilmes estimate that future costs for veterans including social security, disability and medical care will add up to a staggering $717 billion in the long-term.
Additional costs that are not reported as war costs are the death benefits that are paid to families of soldiers killed in action. According to the authors, the US pays each family a $100,000 death gratuity and a $400,000 payment in lieu of insurance for an unexpected death. To date there have been over 4,400 combat deaths, totaling $2.2 billion.
Other hidden costs for the military include recruitment, combat pay, hardship benefits and reenlistment bonuses. According to the authors, “the average number of military personnel deployed to the region in any given period has grown by 15 per cent – but the costs have skyrocketed by 130 per cent. Similarly, the intensity of operations is estimated to have risen by 65 per cent during the period – half the rate of the cost increases.
The authors also point to the increased use of private contractors providing support services for the troops as another factor driving up costs. Currently there are more than 100,000 private contractors, who, according to the authors, are “increasing operational expenses far more than if we had relied solely on the military.”
The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict
By Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes
W.W.Norton and Co., Inc. 2008
February 29, 2008
One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008
A recent report by Pew Charitable Trust Documents the increase in incarceration rates across the United States, bringing the current prison population to more than 2.3 million, the largest number of people incarcerated in any country in the world.
Excerpt from the Exectuive Summary:
Three decades of growth in America’s prison population has quietly nudged the nation across a sobering threshold: for the first time, more than one in every 100 adults is now confined in an American jail or prison. According to figures gathered and analyzed by the Pew Public Safety Performance Project, the number of people behind bars in the United States continued to climb in 2007, saddling cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill afford and failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall crime.
For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling. While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine. Gender adds another dimension to the picture. Men still are roughly 10 times more likely to be in jail or prison, but the female population is burgeoning at a far brisker pace. For black women in their mid- to late-30s, the incarceration rate also has hit the 1-in-
100 mark. Growing older, meanwhile, continues to have a dramatic chilling effect on criminal behavior. While one in every 53 people in their 20s is behind bars, the rate for those over 55 falls to one in 837.
Prison costs are blowing holes in state budgets but barely making a dent in recidivism rates. At the same time, policy makers are becoming increasingly aware of research-backed strategies for community corrections—better ways to identify which offenders need a prison cell and which can be safely handled in the community, new technologies to monitor their whereabouts and behavior, and more effective supervision and treatment programs to help them stay on the straight and narrow. Taken together, these trends are encouraging policy makers to diversify their states’ array of criminal sanctions with options for low-risk offenders that save tax dollars but still hold offenders accountable for their actions.
The full report can be accessed at:
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/One%20in%20100.pdf
Excerpt from the Exectuive Summary:
Three decades of growth in America’s prison population has quietly nudged the nation across a sobering threshold: for the first time, more than one in every 100 adults is now confined in an American jail or prison. According to figures gathered and analyzed by the Pew Public Safety Performance Project, the number of people behind bars in the United States continued to climb in 2007, saddling cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill afford and failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall crime.
For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling. While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine. Gender adds another dimension to the picture. Men still are roughly 10 times more likely to be in jail or prison, but the female population is burgeoning at a far brisker pace. For black women in their mid- to late-30s, the incarceration rate also has hit the 1-in-
100 mark. Growing older, meanwhile, continues to have a dramatic chilling effect on criminal behavior. While one in every 53 people in their 20s is behind bars, the rate for those over 55 falls to one in 837.
Prison costs are blowing holes in state budgets but barely making a dent in recidivism rates. At the same time, policy makers are becoming increasingly aware of research-backed strategies for community corrections—better ways to identify which offenders need a prison cell and which can be safely handled in the community, new technologies to monitor their whereabouts and behavior, and more effective supervision and treatment programs to help them stay on the straight and narrow. Taken together, these trends are encouraging policy makers to diversify their states’ array of criminal sanctions with options for low-risk offenders that save tax dollars but still hold offenders accountable for their actions.
The full report can be accessed at:
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/One%20in%20100.pdf
February 28, 2008
Immigration and Crime: Myth and Reality
A recent report released by the Public Policy Institute of California demonstrates that the immigrant population of California, slightly more than one-third of the state's adult population make up only 17 per cent of the prison population. In fact, the report found that native-born Californian adult males are incarcerated at a rate of ten times that of foreign-born adult males. Further contradicting the scare tactics of those attempting to criminalize and demonize all immigrants, the report found that "on average, between 2000 and 2005, cities that had a higher share of recent immigrants saw their crime rates fall further than cities with a lower share. This finding is especially strong when it comes to violent crime."
One of the report's authors suggests that immigrants are less likely than native-born Californians to commit crimes because they are coming here for economic reasons, to find work and to increase their incomes. Commenting on the report, Salvatore Bustamante, director of a state-wide immigrant advocacy group stated that "A lot of people have painted immigrants as the criminal element in our society, and that isn't the case." He further explained that immigrants come to the US to find work and as a result stay "under the radar of authorities" and avoid criminal activity to prevent being deported.
The authors of the report conclude that the "findings suggest that spending additional dollars to reduce immigration or to increase enforcement against the foreign-born will not have a high return in terms of public safety. The foreign-born in California already have extremely low rates of criminal activity."
The full report titled:
Crime, Corrections, and California What Does Immigration Have to Do with It?
can be accessed at:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_208KBCC.pdf
One of the report's authors suggests that immigrants are less likely than native-born Californians to commit crimes because they are coming here for economic reasons, to find work and to increase their incomes. Commenting on the report, Salvatore Bustamante, director of a state-wide immigrant advocacy group stated that "A lot of people have painted immigrants as the criminal element in our society, and that isn't the case." He further explained that immigrants come to the US to find work and as a result stay "under the radar of authorities" and avoid criminal activity to prevent being deported.
The authors of the report conclude that the "findings suggest that spending additional dollars to reduce immigration or to increase enforcement against the foreign-born will not have a high return in terms of public safety. The foreign-born in California already have extremely low rates of criminal activity."
The full report titled:
Crime, Corrections, and California What Does Immigration Have to Do with It?
can be accessed at:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_208KBCC.pdf
February 18, 2008
Study Shows Stress Caused by Poverty Impedes Brain Development in Children
At the annual meeting in Boston on February 15th of the American Association for the Advancement of Science it was reported that neuroscientists found a direct correlation between poverty and impaired neural development in children. Researchers found that children in very poor families experience hormone levels produced by stress that impairs their neural development. They further found that the imapct of this is added to any damage that may already have been casued by improper nutrition and environmental toxins.
As important as a study like this is for public policy it received a mere 127 words in the United Press International dispatch. A Lexis-Nexis search found only three print media outlets that picked up the story. The Financial Times (of London) reported the story under the headline Poverty Mars Formation of Infant Brains, devoting a mere 474 words. It was also picked up by the Sydney Morning Hearld in Australia which devoted 430 words, under the headline Study Shows Stress Affects Brain Growth.
The only outlet in the United States that even bothered to address this important story was the NY Times, but in the opinion section. Even the venerable NY Times did not deem this an important news story. Instead of reporting it as news, it was left to Paul Krugman to address this in his Op-ed column Poverty is Poison.
Krugman's column can be accessed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html?ref=opinion
Perhaps this was not reported in the United States, although the conference took place in Boston, becasue of the obvious impact such a study would have on social policy as indicated in the Financial Times article referring to the remarks of Jack Shonkoff, one of the reserchers:
"Well-tailored programmes can help, Prof Shonkoff agreed. But in the end, the only way to remove the “toxic” impact of poverty on young brains is to abolish poverty itself, he said"
As important as a study like this is for public policy it received a mere 127 words in the United Press International dispatch. A Lexis-Nexis search found only three print media outlets that picked up the story. The Financial Times (of London) reported the story under the headline Poverty Mars Formation of Infant Brains, devoting a mere 474 words. It was also picked up by the Sydney Morning Hearld in Australia which devoted 430 words, under the headline Study Shows Stress Affects Brain Growth.
The only outlet in the United States that even bothered to address this important story was the NY Times, but in the opinion section. Even the venerable NY Times did not deem this an important news story. Instead of reporting it as news, it was left to Paul Krugman to address this in his Op-ed column Poverty is Poison.
Krugman's column can be accessed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html?ref=opinion
Perhaps this was not reported in the United States, although the conference took place in Boston, becasue of the obvious impact such a study would have on social policy as indicated in the Financial Times article referring to the remarks of Jack Shonkoff, one of the reserchers:
"Well-tailored programmes can help, Prof Shonkoff agreed. But in the end, the only way to remove the “toxic” impact of poverty on young brains is to abolish poverty itself, he said"
February 15, 2008
The Middle Is Falling Out of the Economy
What has happened that has so changed the economic life of the American people? And what changes in public policy can our government undertake to remedy the fact that so many Americans do believe that our best days may be behind us?
Read Harold Meyerson's* recent testimony ( as published on the blog of the American Prospect Magazine) before the Labor Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, addressing the long term state of the economy, rising inequality, the dearth of good jobs in the middle of the economy, and America's changing role in the world economy.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_middle_is_falling_out_of_the_economy
*Harold Meyerson is executive editor of The American Prospect and a columnist for the Washington Post.
Read Harold Meyerson's* recent testimony ( as published on the blog of the American Prospect Magazine) before the Labor Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, addressing the long term state of the economy, rising inequality, the dearth of good jobs in the middle of the economy, and America's changing role in the world economy.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_middle_is_falling_out_of_the_economy
*Harold Meyerson is executive editor of The American Prospect and a columnist for the Washington Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
