More Money for War, Less Money for Peace

[bigtree]

from Matthew Cordell at UN Dispatch: http://www.undispatch.com/node/8392


June 9, 2009 - The House Appropriations Committee released budget allocations (the 302Bs) to each subcommittee today for the FY10 budget. The number for State-Foreign Ops, $48.8 billion, is disappointing, nearly $5 billion less than what the President requested and certainly not enough to fulfill his committments to Foreign Aid and the Foreign Service.

On top of that, CQ is erroneously reporting that the subcommittee is "set to receive significant increases above the current fiscal year's spending levels." That simply isn't true. They failed to calculate the significant amount included in two supplemental spending bills (we've been repeatedly told not to expect the same in the future), which brings this year's spending to roughly $50 billion and means the current allocation represents a significant contraction in diplomatic spending right at the moment when it is needed most.

If the $48.8 billion still seems high to you, you would be wise to keep in mind that it represents a only 1.4% of the total budget and just 7% of the total 'national security budget.' The Department of Defense was allocated $508 billion, $20 billion more than last year (an increase equal to 40 percent of the entire State-Foreign Ops allocation).

[gratuitous]

1. And after squandering all this money on war

We're actually less safe than we were eight years ago. And the only solution our brilliant leaders can come up with is to spend more money and lives on war.

[timeforpeace]

2. We should get out of Afghanistan...

instead we are doubling down on what Bush did there, which is fail. Afghanistan has been a quagmire for all foreign armies. President Obama and the US cannot afford that. He has made such a positive start in so many other areas. Why is he escalating the war in Afghanistan?

[bigtree]

3. .