Military Spending

On April 17, I will be protesting war taxes at Baltimore's main post office. I realize that taxes fund many good programs - education, environment and diplomacy. But sadly when 57 percent of the federal budget goes to the Pentagon, the government's priorities are out of touch with the pressing problems facing its citizens. Instead of investing in a clean energy future and prioritizing human and environmental needs, we are somehow still caught in the outdated and dangerous thinking of the past.

I don't understand why taxes keep going up. They say it's for schools and infrastructure, but if the United States would just cut back on military spending, the money for schools and roads would be there without having to raise taxes on Americans. We have troops in almost every country in the world, but why? We probably only need to be in half of them, and on top of that we're spending massive amounts on technology. Perhaps if we pulled out of a couple of countries and cut military spending a little, life at home would improve.

I keep a household budget. If I spend more that I take in, I'm in trouble. Why can't the federal government figure this out too? If the wheels of our economy are grinding to a halt, then it makes sense to cut expenses. But why is our humongous military outlay never on the table? We're engaged in three wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. We have bases all over the world. We have a huge fleet of aircraft carriers and other vessels. In fact, when I shop at Safeway on Boston Street, I can see two large gray military ships docked across the harbor.

On April 17, I will be protesting war taxes at Baltimore's main post office. I realize that taxes fund many good programs - education, environment and diplomacy. But sadly when 57 percent of the federal budget goes to the Pentagon, the government's priorities are out of touch with the pressing problems facing its citizens. Instead of investing in a clean energy future and prioritizing human and environmental needs, we are somehow still caught in the outdated and dangerous thinking of the past.

I don't understand why taxes keep going up. They say it's for schools and infrastructure, but if the United States would just cut back on military spending, the money for schools and roads would be there without having to raise taxes on Americans. We have troops in almost every country in the world, but why? We probably only need to be in half of them, and on top of that we're spending massive amounts on technology. Perhaps if we pulled out of a couple of countries and cut military spending a little, life at home would improve.

BEIJING -- China, its national budget already awash in a record amount of red ink, plans this year to increase its military spending and largely stick by its huge subsidies to sinking state enterprises in a costly effort to maintain political stability.The net effect of these political decisions, announced yesterday during the annual meeting of China's powerless legislature, probably means unprecedented deficit spending for a nation struggling to extricate itself from an economic morass while keeping a lid on unemployment, inflation, social unrest and perceived threats from anti-socialist elements abroad.

BEIJING -- China announced yesterday a 17.8 percent jump in military spending for 2007, its largest in a decade, less than two months after an anti-satellite missile test sent shock waves through foreign capitals. The increase occurs after repeated criticism from the Bush administration that Beijing has not been adequately forthcoming in explaining its long-term military objectives. Jiang Enzhu, a government spokesman, told reporters at the Great Hall of the People that China's latest $44.9 billion budget was in line with economic growth and did not threaten the rest of the world.

WASHINGTON -- Lost in the debate about the nation's dwindling defense budget is this little mentioned fact: The United States will spend more on its military next year than it did in 1980, at the height of the Cold War.You remember 1980, when the aging Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev ordered 30,000 troops into neighboring Afghanistan, when thousands of Warsaw Pact tanks were poised to invade Western Europe and the Berlin Wall stood guarded by shoot-to-kill East...

WASHINGTON - President Bush's budget for next year would boost defense spending by $19 billion, or about 5 percent, including more money for missile defense, special operations forces to fight terrorism and protection against chemical and biological warfare, officials said yesterday. The military budget, which makes spending projections for the next six years, shows a decrease in spending for major weapons programs, including the Air Force's F/A-22 stealth attack aircraft and Navy ships.

CIA Director Leon Panetta becomes secretary of defense Thursday, taking over Washington's largest and most powerful bureaucracy with a budget that amounts to nearly 60 percent of discretionary federal spending. He will be stepping into the shoes of the most influential member of the Obama administration, Robert M. Gates, who has been canonized for his efforts over the past five years. For the past two months, Secretary of Defense Gates has been on a farewell tour of U.S. think tanks, universities and military academies, advocating policies that will make Mr. Panetta's job extremely difficult.

Weapons-makers, ideologues and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are busy whipping up fears in reaction to scheduled reductions in our bloated military budget. Don't be fooled. These cuts will not put our security at risk, though they will cut into profits and executive pay at certain defense-establishment corporations. In this time of debilitating unemployment and financial disaster, our slavish devotion to military spending undercuts our opportunity to rebuild America. Military expenditures have doubled in constant dollars since 2001.

I was a guest at a recent high school reunion for members of my sister's class of 1961 and, in conversations with some of the men, noted that each had served in the military. They had either been drafted or they had enlisted to avoid the Army. One had gone into the Navy, eventually becoming a SEAL; another had become an Air Force pilot. They spoke of the draft as a fact of life - something no Americans have experienced for nearly 40 years now. These were Cold War warriors - high school graduates in the year of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba and the year barbed wire and machine gun nests went up at the border of East and West Germany.

I would like to respond to Roz Ellis ("Cut military spending, not entitlements," Readers Respond, July 30). Our humongous military outlay is never on the table because it is not humongous. The cost of national defense accounted for approximately 19 percent of the federal 2009 budget. In contrast, the cost of Social Security, Medicare and other social programs accounted for approximately 55 percent of the budget. It may be prudent to scrap old ships and cut the defense budget, but these things will not solve our financial problems.

I keep a household budget. If I spend more that I take in, I'm in trouble. Why can't the federal government figure this out too? If the wheels of our economy are grinding to a halt, then it makes sense to cut expenses. But why is our humongous military outlay never on the table? We're engaged in three wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. We have bases all over the world. We have a huge fleet of aircraft carriers and other vessels. In fact, when I shop at Safeway on Boston Street, I can see two large gray military ships docked across the harbor.

CIA Director Leon Panetta becomes secretary of defense Thursday, taking over Washington's largest and most powerful bureaucracy with a budget that amounts to nearly 60 percent of discretionary federal spending. He will be stepping into the shoes of the most influential member of the Obama administration, Robert M. Gates, who has been canonized for his efforts over the past five years. For the past two months, Secretary of Defense Gates has been on a farewell tour of U.S. think tanks, universities and military academies, advocating policies that will make Mr. Panetta's job extremely difficult.

I am extremely disappointed in Rep. John Sarbanes' opposition to an amendment that would have insisted that cuts to the Pentagon budget be a significant part of any effort to control deficit spending. The House is attempting to make sweeping cuts in federal government spending for the rest of this fiscal year, including cuts in domestic spending, diplomacy, development and international assistance. Why should the Pentagon budget be exempt from cuts? Military spending has doubled in the past 10 years and the Pentagon has a history of enormous cost overruns.

I would like to respond to Roz Ellis ("Cut military spending, not entitlements," Readers Respond, July 30). Our humongous military outlay is never on the table because it is not humongous. The cost of national defense accounted for approximately 19 percent of the federal 2009 budget. In contrast, the cost of Social Security, Medicare and other social programs accounted for approximately 55 percent of the budget. It may be prudent to scrap old ships and cut the defense budget, but these things will not solve our financial problems.

Pleas to spend the so-called "peace dividend" from reduce military spending to cure America's domestic ills such as poverty, homelessness and illiteracy rang through St. Francis of Assisi Church Roman Catholic Church on Harford RoadAbout 400 people attended the Baltimore Development Commission's fourth annual conference.In a vote using pennies as "tax dollars" and ballots, education and housing needs received overwhelming support.Military spending, meanwhile, was held to a minimum despite the success in the Persian Gulf war, said Sister Katherine Corr, director of Jobs With Peace, which organized the meeting.

Now that the primary election is over, it is incredible how few voters and politicians failed to make any connection between the $700 billion we spend every year on defense and the government deficits and financial crisis the U.S. is facing. The Bush administration added nearly $5 trillion in costs for wars which directly went into unpaid U.S. debt. Since 2001, military spending has doubled, and even then it was already more than any other country's. Now it is more than the rest of the world combined.

BEIJING -- China announced yesterday a 17.8 percent jump in military spending for 2007, its largest in a decade, less than two months after an anti-satellite missile test sent shock waves through foreign capitals. The increase occurs after repeated criticism from the Bush administration that Beijing has not been adequately forthcoming in explaining its long-term military objectives. Jiang Enzhu, a government spokesman, told reporters at the Great Hall of the People that China's latest $44.9 billion budget was in line with economic growth and did not threaten the rest of the world.