Many academics, politicians, and advocates say U.S. social programs need the money, while the Senate passed a foreign funding bill this week that would provide billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. is blaming.
It includes $9 billion in international humanitarian aid, some of which could go to besieged Palestinians in Gaza, but it remains unclear when or if the House will vote on the bill. It is unknown.
But in passing the $95 billion emergency relief package by a 70-29 margin on Tuesday, analysts say the Senate has long prioritized guns over housing, health care, education and debt relief needs. It is analyzed that the stance was clearly shown.
Lindsey Khoshgarian, program director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Research, told Al Jazeera she was “extremely concerned” about the total amount in the Senate bill.
“The $95 billion amount is a significant increase in the U.S. federal budget and a significant commitment of resources to the war effort,” she said.
“There are huge differences in where resources are spent.”
On social media this week, some criticized the foreign aid bill by quoting the late rapper Tupac Shakur's lyric, “We have money for wars, but we can't feed the poor.”
“Priorities are distorted”
The Senate bill (PDF) would provide $60 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine, $14.1 billion in security aid to Israel, and more.
Critics of the bill say funding for military supplies amounts to “good money after bad money.” House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated the aid package would not be allowed for a vote in the House because he called for immigration reform as part of the legislative package.
Since the 1960s, when former President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration escalated the Vietnam War and derailed plans to fight poverty, the federal government has increasingly squeezed out social spending while devoting a larger share of its budget to militarization programs. I started spending money on it.
Sixty-two percent ($1.1 trillion) of the federal discretionary budget for fiscal year 2023 was earmarked for these programs, according to a May report from National Priorities Projects.
By contrast, “less than $2 of every $5 in federal discretionary spending was available for investments in people and communities,” including social programs such as public education, housing, and child care.
“We must invest in humanity at home and abroad. Congress should stop funneling taxpayer dollars into endless wars and invest in the housing, health care, education, and social programs our communities need. We must,” Democratic Rep. Cori Bush tweeted Tuesday after the Senate bill passed.
We must invest in humanity at home and abroad. Congress must stop funneling taxpayer dollars into endless wars and invest in the housing, health care, education, and social programs our communities need. pic.twitter.com/3Fdy9cs4Sc
— Congresswoman Cori Bush (@RepCori) February 13, 2024
In particular, the Senate's decision to funnel more military aid as Israel continues its shelling of the Gaza Strip has stoked widespread criticism and raised questions about Capitol Hill's priorities.
“In a situation where the International Court of Justice has stated that genocide may be occurring, [in Gaza]The Senate's decision to approve sending $14 billion in weapons to Israel makes the United States more directly complicit,” said Mike, director of Just Peace Global Policy at the American Friends Service Committee.・Mr. Merryman Lotze said.
Overall, “even by Washington standards, $95 billion is a lot of money,” said William Hartung, a senior fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible States and an expert on the U.S. military budget.
Hartung wrote in Forbes on Wednesday that passage of the Senate bill “reveals the skewed priorities of the federal government.”
“Despite deep divisions, it is possible to gain bipartisan support for a package that primarily includes funding for arms exports. These emergency measures will help address record levels of homelessness. “Don't expect us to support the 1 in 6 American children living in poverty or accelerate investments to curb the climate crisis,” he said.
Promoting employment?
Biden has argued that the bipartisan bill is critical to America's national security interests and sends a clear message that his administration will continue to stand by its allies. The president said the bill would also strengthen the U.S. economy by creating jobs.
“While this bill sends military equipment to Ukraine, it spends that money right here in the United States in places like Arizona, where Patriot missiles are manufactured. And in Alabama, where Javelin missiles are manufactured. , Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, where the shells are manufactured,” Biden said in a speech at the White House on Tuesday.
“And how it works is that we supply military equipment from our stockpiles to Ukraine and then to replenish that stockpile so that our military can access those stockpiles. “It's about spending money. The stockpile is being built here in America by workers here in America,” he said.
“This not only supports American jobs and American communities, but also allows us to invest in maintaining and strengthening our own defense manufacturing capabilities.”
But other types of government spending, according to the study, follow what one researcher described as Washington's pattern (PDF) of “feeding one wolf, a militarized economy, to the detriment of other wolves.” This has been shown to be more effective in promoting employment than other methods.
Military spending supports 6.1 jobs per million dollars spent, Heidi Pelletier, a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs and program director of the Cost of War Project, said in a June report. writes.
By comparison, the report found that healthcare creates 11.6 jobs per million dollars, nearly twice as many, and that a $1 million investment in primary and secondary education creates 21 jobs, more than three times as many. It turns out that we are creating jobs. The same investment in wind and solar would create 9-14% more jobs.
Make better use of $95 billion
There are many ways the $95 billion could be better used to help Americans, from funding programs to tackle child poverty and education to addressing housing affordability issues, said Koshgarian of the Institute for Policy Studies. That's what it means.
For example, she noted that the critical federal nutrition program for women, infants, and children known as WIC faces a $1 billion funding gap. “This is a very important program and there are a lot of families that depend on it,” she said. “We could easily come up with $1 billion to make up the shortfall.”
Khoshgarian told Al Jazeera that the U.S. is also failing to meet its climate resilience and green economy goals, and that people “continue to be told that we don't have the money to fully fund these programs.”
Further investment in programs like this, she added, “will pay off in many ways down the road for the people of this country, just like investment in wars overseas.” [doesn’t]”.
“When the United States invests in wars elsewhere, it only perpetuates that instability, and repeated investments in militarism alone will not end the cycle.”
Merriman Lotze of the American Friends Service Committee also said the $95 billion would be better spent on domestic priorities like the environment and education.
And if the United States really wants to address the root causes of conflicts overseas, it could do better than spend money on weapons, he added.
“The United States' approach to conflicts and issues has become highly militarized, whether it responds to domestic crime through police and prisons or responds to conflicts abroad by relying on military force. “It's something,” Merryman-Lotz said. Al Jazeera.
“Most of the time, the first thing we turn to is the military, the police, violence, guns. That's the way our system has been built for decades, that force makes us feel safe. We need to break free from our addiction to the idea that this is the way to bring about.”
