EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Where The Money Goes
Early this winter, the PBS "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" interviewed the medical director at a community clinic in Northern California. He recalled the sight of military equipment moving along railroad tracks next to his office. "I've joked with my colleagues," Dr. David Katz said, "if we could just get one of those Abrams tanks we could probably fund all the primary care clinics for a year."
The comment didn't make it on the air - it was only included in video on a PBS Web site - and that was unfortunate. We need more public focus on what our tax dollars are buying.
As medical providers and patients struggle with low funding and high barriers to adequate health care, the nation's largesse for war continues to soar. Every day, the U.S. Treasury spends close to $2 billion on the military. Such big numbers are hard to fathom, but it's worth doing the math.
In Yolo County, for instance, where Dr. Katz watches Abrams tanks roll by his beleaguered clinic, taxpayers have already provided the IRS with $449.8 million to fund the Iraq war. That's enough to provide health care to 168,154 children for a full year.
Those figures come from the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan group with a nifty - and often chilling - online calculator (www. nationalpriorities.org). Type in the name of your locality, and huge military costs suddenly hit close to home.
More than 40 percent of federal tax dollars go to military spending. The outlays buy a mighty war machine while depleting our own communities.
In San Francisco, taxpayers have already sent the U.S. government $2.2 billion for the Iraq war - enough to provide health care to 828,378 children for a year. In Oakland, the figure is $826.7 million, costing out to a year of health care for 309,036 children. In San Mateo County, taxpayers' tab for the war in Iraq has reached $2.6 billion, enough to cover a year of health care for nearly 1 million kids.
To make matters worse, this money wasn't just squandered. It financed warfare that damaged - often fatally - the health of Americans and Iraqis.
When the National Priorities Project crunched the numbers for the entire Bay Area, it found that taxpayers have already sent the IRS a total of $22.6 billion for the Iraq war. In retrospect, other options for that money are heartbreaking. For a full year, it could have provided 9,284,504 people with health care. Or it could have paid for 67,522 affordable housing units.
In pursuit of green goals, the Bay Area's share of expenditures for the Iraq war could have provided upward of 10 million homes with renewable electricity for four years.
Mostly, the dividing line between foreign policy and domestic economy has narrowed to the vanishing point. As we know from our personal lives, priorities - whether openly examined or not - are pivotal. And government budgets tell the tale of social priorities writ large.
Here's a fact worth pondering: If the money that taxpayers in the state have already provided for the Iraq war - $83.1 billion - could somehow be magically rerouted to the state government's coffers, the lawmakers in Sacramento would now be faced with the problem of what to do with a massive surplus.
We shouldn't expect that a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq will do much to slow the rocketing costs of America's global military ventures. The Obama administration plans to double U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan by early 2010, which will set a new deployment baseline in that country for years to come. And a significant boost in the overall size of the U.S. armed forces is on the bipartisan agenda in Washington.
Meanwhile, along the railroad tracks near Katz's clinic in Yolo County, the Abrams tanks are likely to keep rolling. Each one has a price tag of $4.3 million. And we're paying for it.
What a community could buy for the cost of a war
To use the National Priorities Project calculator, visit: http://www.nationalpriorities.org
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


15 Comments so far
Show AllI bought your war made easy, Norm. Good work.
But, you supported the candidate Mr. Obama at the Demo convention in Denver. Any regrets, yet?
There are no technological reasons that anybody should lack adequate food or medical care. Political decisions determine who gets food and medical care and who does not.
During the 2008 election, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and others supporting single-payer health insurance were not even allowed to debate.
I will no longer support organizations such as the DNC and AARP that censored the debates, thereby assuring that meaningful health care reform would not be addressed in the debates.
By the most conservative estimate (from the Institute of Medicine) 18,000 people suffer preventable deaths each year due to lack of medical care in the U.S.: six times the number of people killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Some estimates put the number at 100,000.
Some war on terror, uh.
online Medical News claims 195,000 die from in hospital medical error every year in USA.
There was a medical study done in 2000 on deaths from mistakes made in hospitals. If I remember correctly, an average of 98,000 people die a year from mistakes made in hospitals.
Over one million people have been killed in Iraq since 2003 and almost 900,000 Americans have been killed by inadequate health care since 2000 in hospitals.
I suspect that 100 million innocent Americans will needlessly suffer and die
so that one million innocent Iraqis can needlessly suffer and die.
This is what our corporate controlled government calls protecting America and freeing Iraq.
You summed it all up very neatly!!
SO true. And so stupid to continue this way.
When will we ever learn?
Okay, here's what we gotta do: we change all the names of our cities to Tikrit and Fallujah and Baghdad, and then apply for "reconstruction" money, which, of course, is our money anyway...
The military budget is a product of conservative fear-mongering.
The military budget is a product of FASCIST fear-mongering. There is a difference.
A fascist liberal would be a contradiction. Between fascist and conservative it's a matter of degree. Even our conservative parents voted for Bush like conservatives voted for Hitler. Don't they share the blame?
I just found out that the AARP United Plan is the only one that will furnish one of the drugs on which my life depends - now what do I do? It's a moral dilemma for me - money going to fund my enemies.
Sioux Rose
The monetary figures speak for an allegiance, much like faith or homage, to Mars, god of war. There is certainly NO RATIONAL reason why these monies are so unquestionably devoted to militarism, weapons-building, and actual use of "inventories" to justify the building of the next "generation" of weapons.
A healthy society would never countenance such values, but it takes a lot of programming to turn a society against its own best interests, a set of procedures are required that in many ways simulate the ones used to turn that nice boy down the block into a desensitized, virtual killing machine (via military training with your tax dollars at work).
Every community investment is a sharing of bounty, and all forms of love-based sharing, the ideal of WE over ME, resonate with the energetic imprint of Venus, cosmic counter-balance to Mars. A society's health is seen in its investment in BALANCED priorities, not those that so disproportionately lay homage to Mars.
The Military Industrial Complex is real, powerful, and has a large influence over politicians. I cannot understand why we would escalate in Afghanistan. What is our mission? The MIC must be pushing us in an indirect way there through Obama. I think between the influence of the MIC and the Israeli Lobby, we are headed in the wrong direction.
I sent this article to Jim Lehrer.
I agree wholeheartedly with raydelcamino -- no support for any organization not pushing for single-payer health insurance. HR 676 calls for an expanded Medicar For All. It works! It's less expensive.
We don't need to follow the example of Rome and its Empire. We don't need to protect countries fully capable of defending themselves, such as the European countries where we have dozens of military bases. It is absurd, unless your paycheck comes from the mightly military industrial complex.