George Monbiot wrote yesterday:
There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich.
Is that even true? In an earlier post, I made the case that through the stimulus package, government was stealing from the poor and giving to the rich — predominantly the financial industry. But the problem is far greater in terms of the arms industry. Government defines itself as the legitimate monopoly on violence and defence in most countries: this means that the arms industry’s main (and often only) client is Government. Now, I am not denying that nations should be capable of self-defence. But the modern state transfers massive wealth from poor and middle class taxpayers and into the hands of defence contractors. Let’s look at a great graphic from the War Resisters’ League showing where your income tax really went in 2009:
Here is a full breakdown of that:
• Military Personnel $129 billion
• Operation & Maint. $241 billion
• Procurement $143 billion
• Research & Dev. $79 billion
• Construction $15 billion
• Family Housing $3 billion
• DoD misc. $4 billion
• Retired Pay $70 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $9 billion
• International Security $9 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $35 billion
• State Dept. (partial) $6 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $5 billion
• “Global War on Terror” $200 billion
• Veterans’ Benefits $94 billion
• Interest on national debt (80%) created by military spending, $390 billion
• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.
• other human resources.
• Interest on debt (20%)
• Government personnel
• Justice Dept.
• State Dept.
• Homeland Security (15%)
• International Affairs
• NASA (50%)
• other general govt.
• Homeland Security (15%)
• Energy (non-military)
• Environmental Protection
• Nat. Science Fdtn.
• Army Corps Engineers
• Fed. Comm. Commission
• Other physical resources
And in light of that, I give you Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961):
Pingback: Gizmodo: “The Pentagon Spends More Money Fixing Rusty Shit Than Canada Does on Its Entire Military” « azizonomics
Pingback: Teabagging for the Military Industrial Complex « azizonomics
Pingback: In Defence of Socialist Healthcare « azizonomics
Pingback: Krugman Calls For Alien Invasion? « azizonomics
Pingback: The Problem With Military Keynesianism « azizonomics
Pingback: Team America: World Police « azizonomics
Pingback: Israel’s Protests: Weapons Ahead of People « azizonomics
Pingback: Israel: In War, Even the Winners Are Losers « azizonomics
Pingback: Obama: Class Warfare Against the Poor « azizonomics
Pingback: Why Elizabeth Warren is Wrong « azizonomics
Pingback: Mitt Romney & American Imperial Decline « azizonomics
Pingback: Bi(polar)flation « azizonomics
Pingback: Romney or Paul? « azizonomics
Pingback: Romneythink « azizonomics
Pingback: Is it Racist to Attack Obama? « azizonomics