Deficit Debate Ignores War, Labor Leaders Speak Out

By Tom Hayden 
LA Progressive 
April 19, 2011

http://www.laprogressive.com/war-and-peace/deficit-debate-ignores-war/

As longtime labor leader Bob Muehlenkamp points out, three
columns in the Washington Post, totalling 2,853 words,
completely ignore the trillions spent on the Long War in
discussing the deficits.

It's ridiculous to claim to be a deficit hawk and a war hawk
at the same time. Here's some good news, from Peace Action
West: Oregon's labor leadership has sent a letter to their
Congressional delegation condemning spending for Afghanistan
while budgets are cut and jobs lost at home.

On strategy, in order to end the Afghanistan War, which is
funded and supported by Democrats, the peace movement has to
build anti-war support from the base institutions of the
Democratic Party, notably labor, but also civil rights,
womens, and environmental groups. If Democrats begin to see
their base constituencies in their districts are taking a
stand against Afghanistan, then it becomes much easier for
elected officials to vote and speak against the war,
including the President.

This is slow and frustrating work. But it's beginning to
happen. The Democratic National Committee has adopted a
resolution by Rep. Barbara Lee calling for a substantial and
significant beginning of withdrawals starting this July, with
the tax dollars transferred to job creation.

For further information, contact U.S. Labor Against the War:
http://uslaboragainstwar.org/

__________

That's 2853 to 0. - The Complete Omission of War from Budget
Commentaries

April 18, 2011

On Monday, April 11, The Washington Post ran three articles
about the federal budget debate.

Zachary A. Goldfarb wrote the lead front page article, "Obama
to offer new approach for reducing deficits." He describes
Obama's effort to go on the offensive, quoting David Plouffe
saying the president will look for cuts "in all corners of
government."

The article runs 1260 words. It never uses the words
"military" or "defense" spending.

E. J. Dionne wrote a column, "Shut down the Government," in
which he describes the Tea Party's "contempt" for government.

The article runs 773 words.  It never uses the words
"military" or "defense" spending."

Robert J. Samuelson' column, "Suicidal politics," describes
how so much of America depends on government entitlements and
tax breaks that "any effort to change the status arouses a
firestorm of opposition that virtually ensures defeat."

The article runs 820 words.  It never uses the words
"military" or "defense" spending.

That's 2853 to 0.

How can a citizenry and electorate be well informed on the
budget deficit debate when respected newspapers and
columnists don't even mention an item that costs over $700
billion a year (up from $300 billion in 2000) and accounts
for 50% of all discretionary government spending??

Bob Muehlenkamp

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate