meta-roj

This site is currently broken

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

spending priorities

it’s taken me too long to get to this one, but i need to wrap up the blogging for the day and i want to leave on a political (as opposed to spam) note.

last week, the new york times ran an op chart prepared by michael pan, amanda terkel, robert boorstin, pj crowley, and nigel holmes. it’s a graphic presentation of an alternative “safety plan” for america based on the expense of the “make america safer” invasion of iraq to date.

now, if you’ve been exposed to any media at all, i’m sure you realize that america is safer. don’t believe the whitehouse press office? check out the video [quicktime from the daily show, via lisa rein].

in fact, we’re so safe, the administration has started focusing on the other important issues of our time.

back to the op-chart. this is just a proposal for redistributing the $144.4 billion (that’s $500 out of each american’s pocket, by the way) spent on iraq on things that might, in a star trek alternative universe kinda way, make america…. safer.

it’s a graphic, and i’m not sure how long the times will leave it available, so i’ll summarize here:

plan a:
$144.4 billion to invade, occupy and rebuild the nation of iraq.

plan b:
$7.5 billion for port security
$4 billion to expedite upgrades for the coast guard
$2 billion for improved cargo security
$10 billion for anti-missile countermeasures on american airlines
$5 billion for baggage screening machines
$240 million for walk-through explosives detection machines
$7 billion for 100,000 police officers
$2.5 billion for fire departments
$350 million for integrating emergency communications systems
$3 billion to secure major roads and railways
$30.5 billion to secure weapons-grade nuclear material around the world
$2.25 billion to expedite the nunn-luger cooperative threat reduction program
$24 billion to add two divisions to the army
$15.5 billion to double active-duty special operations forces
$8.6 billion to rebuild afghanistan
$11 billion to finance crop conversion in afghanistan
$10 billion for development assistance in the neediest countries.
$775 million for public diplomacy

now, i can’t say i completely agree with these spending priorities, but it’s interesting to see what “plan b” might look like… and then to think about the potential results (or consequences).

the problem is that congress would never approve $144.4 billion in debt-funded spending without a war – so we’d never be able to implement a $144.4 billion “make america safer” effort that looked anything like this at all. and this is why america isn’t, i think, safer.

posted by roj at 3:36 pm