Skip to main content

Why is the national debt like ice-cream? A political opinion by Frank Ellsworth Lockwood

Why is the national debt like ice-cream? When I was a kid, I would fill up real fast on green beans and corn. "Have some more, Frankie?"

"No thanks."

Funny thing; when they brought out the desert I still found room for ice-cream! Politicians are like that: They always find room in the budget for their own projects.
Odd how some Politicians always favor government austerity programs, always that is, until the guts affect own favorite programs. For war hawks, the austerity stops when it is time to cut bombs, guns, military spending, and what is euphemistically named "national defense." Most people probably have no idea how much so-called "defense is costing them," nor do they seem to care that it is the biggest driver of national debt. If it has been a while since you have done so, I recommend taking another look at the national spending-pie, the budget. (See link at the end of the article.) In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion. Military spending includes: all regular activities of the Department of Defense; war spending; nuclear weapons spending; international military assistance; and other Pentagon-related spending. Social Security (which is always under attack) for example, consumes only three percent of the national budget! Yet there are those who want to abolish it or turn it over to for-profit organizations so these carrion companies can pick the bones. Veterans benefits, six percent and, get this, EDUCATION only six percent! Over a nine year period, education spending was reduced from the previous year a total of four times. Sometimes the amount was increased the next year, only to have the increases removed in succeeding years. All Presidents since Reagan's phony "A Nation At Risk" report (on allegedly failing schools) have loudly promised that they will make schools better and better, but is that really the trend? Most states have actually reduced school spending in recent years. How this makes them "better" must be a national secret. According to U.S. News (June, 2015), Republicans had hoped to dis-invest from efforts to turn around low performing schools, many of which have failed kids for generations. The School Improvement Grants, or SIG, program, which funds exactly these types of initiatives are also commonly under attack. Republicans have at times tried to completely eliminated them Republican legislation would also freeze funding for the Title I program, which supports schools serving high proportions of students in poverty. Funding for that program is already $1 billion less today than it was in 2010. Republicans had aimed to cut 80 percent, over $160 million, from the Institute of Education Services, an organization that demonstrates what works and what doesn't in education.

As noted in Study.com back in 2007: "What if the Money Spent on Financing the War was Instead Spent on Education? The war in Iraq has cost a whopping $443.7 billion."

Of course, the cost far exceeded that, as the war is still ongoing, with ISIS holding territory, largely a factor of our inadvisable invasion.

I would argue that spending more on education could result in a nation that is well informed on foreign affairs; it might even make many wars altogether avoidable. And next time you hear how "weak" America has become, ask yourself, "Is this budget request really "green beans," or is it "ice-cream"?

End Sources: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/ and http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/06/25/why-the-gops-education-funding-bill-gets-an-f https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 #militaryspending #nationaldebt #politics #education #usapolitics

http://study.com/articles/Iraq_War_Spending_vs_Education_Spending.html


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

8 Facts About the Circle of Fifths that you May Not Already Know

I love all child refugees but … where will the money come from? Part III

Quote from a Facebook friend:

“Much as my heart breaks for the children who want to come here because circumstances are better … circumstances will not be better here if we allow more people to live here than we can afford to support.”

So says one of my Facebook friends.

Green Party is not red, is not blue, is not the oligarchy.

Green (Is not Redis notBlue)Kennewick, Washington 
Political Opinion
By Frank Ellsworth Lockwood

Some people have been pushing the notion that if you are a member of the Green Party you should vote for a Democratic, but there is another side to this argument. If you are a Green, then you are no more a Democrat than a Republican is.
Green is for things that the Red and Blue oppose: While Green Party is for peaceful coexistence, Republicans and Democrats have supported wars-for-profit for all of my life. (I am 75; they will not be changing any time soon.)

Green is for live and let live, while Red and Blue are about greed and conniving, and this is no exaggeration when both of the above have always supported the overthrow of democratically elected socialist governments, replacing them with puppet governments, dictators and tyrants who practiced suppression-for-profit.

Green is for racial and economic equality as well as for recognition of tribal rights. Our 2016 Presidential candidate, Jill …