SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
military spending
It's No Accident That Trump's Iran War Steals Money From Healthcare and Education
Trump is currently asking for a $1.5 trillion military budget—a 64% increase in military spending since last year—which provides the budgetary pressure needed to justify gutting necessary programs that have been on the books for decades.
Apr 16, 2026
Ronald Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman, spoke candidly years ago about why Republicans like tax cuts so much. In his 1986 book, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, he confided that tax cuts served the purpose of creating budget deficits that could then be used to justify spending cuts on government programs. Typically, administrations only cut spending for a program if it’s no longer necessary, and the resultant surplus may then be used as a tax cut to stimulate the economy. However, Stockman turned this on its head by using the tax cuts to create a budgetary crisis that would then require cuts in spending regardless of whether the programs were necessary or not.
In other words, Stockman used tax cuts to create a revenue problem that the Reagan administration could then mask as a spending problem. This is known as “starving the beast.” The administration starves the beast—important government services—of important tax revenues in order to slash government spending.
Stockman himself admitted the failure of this strategy since budget deficits during the Reagan administration did not bring down public spending in a meaningful way. This failure, however, didn’t stop the next generation of conservatives from making it a key part of their larger political project. In 2001 and 2003, for instance, George W. Bush pushed through massive tax cuts meant to impose a “fiscal straitjacket” on Congress. This then prompted Bush’s Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 to gut government programs.
Republican lawmakers attempted this again after they took control of the House of Representatives during the Obama administration in 2010. At the time, the US economy was struggling through the Great Recession, which congressional Republicans blamed on government profligacy and “out of control spending.” Not only did they hold the debt ceiling hostage to prevent future spending, but they urged more tax cuts to stimulate the economy. In general, starving the beast has become a more common, and outright underhanded, stratagem by which lawmakers have gone about cutting federal spending.
What happens when conservative lawmakers want to cut more government spending in healthcare or education? Will they manufacture a national security crisis to justify cuts in those social programs?
This strategy has also functioned as a form of class politics: Wealthy elites are often the main beneficiaries of the tax cuts financed by cuts in social services on which the average American is more likely to depend. For instance, Reagan’s 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act slashed top marginal tax rates from 70% to 50%, a rate that only the top 2% of Americans paid (those rates dropped even further to 28% in 1986). This cut was largely paid for with reductions in Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, Medicaid funding, student loans, and other social services. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 served the same agenda. According to research by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the richest 20% received 65% of the benefits of those tax cuts, while the top 5% received 38%. Spending was then cut under the Deficit Reduction Act by targeting Medicaid, Medicare, the Migrant and Season Farmworkers Program, literacy programs, and others.
The American public is now far more aware of who has, and who has not, benefited from cuts in taxes and spending, and public opinion makes it harder for lawmakers to starve the beast. New polling shows that only 19% of Americans support the idea of cutting taxes on the wealthy, while 58% say the wealthy should be paying more (this number rises to 63% when asked about large businesses and corporations). At the same time, the majority of Americans want the government to maintain spending on the kinds of programs that are usually targeted, such as Medicaid and food stamps, medical and cancer research, federal childcare programs, or the arts in public schools. In other words, Republican lawmakers are going to have a harder time gutting these programs by further cutting top marginal tax rates.
That is why they are finding new ways to starve the beast. The latest strategy has been to leverage the heavy cost of national security issues.
Nowhere is this more evident than through the US and Israel’s joint war with Iran. The bombing of Iran has proven to be even more expensive than the initial stages of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the daily burn rate averaging around $1-2 billion a day. Shortly after launching the war in late February, President Donald Trump sought an additional $200 billion from Congress to fund it. The GOP is now using that price tag to plan massive cuts to important government programs.
In early April, for instance, Republicans proposed a reconciliation bill they claim would save $30 billion but would also drive up the out-of-pocket premium costs and increase the number of people without health insurance. Later that week, Trump candidly spoke of his intentions to slash government spending against the backdrop of a budgetary crisis caused by the war:
We’re a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people, we’re fighting wars […] Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal [level]. We have to take care of one thing: military protection—we have to guard the country. But all these little things, all these little scams that have taken place, you have to let states take care of them.
Trump’s claim that the United States can’t afford these programs are patently false. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid are planned spending that are not responsible for budget deficits.
However, the president’s comments make sense when contextualized against his longer-term plans to rein in federal spending. Through the creation of DOGE, Trump attempted to usher in an era of “government efficiency,” which included sharp reductions in several programs including Medicare and Medicaid. Although technically still operational, DOGE is largely seen as a failure as it never achieved its goal of major spending cuts (in fact, government spending increased 6% in 2025).
The Iran war can complete the job that DOGE couldn’t. Trump is currently asking for a $1.5 trillion military budget—a 64% increase in military spending since last year—which provides the budgetary pressure needed to justify gutting necessary programs that have been on the books for decades. In doing so, Trump is essentially reviving the starve-the-beast strategy by fitting it into a large military project.
Although the strategy to starve the beast has changed, the class politics remains the same. Those affected will be those most reliant on programs designed to provide healthcare, education, and food. However, in this case the consequence are no longer restricted to the American taxpayer. The increase in military expenditures will be used to inflict harm upon vulnerable populations abroad. The strikes in Iran have already killed thousands of people and displaced over a million civilians.
The horrifying reality is that this carries the very real danger of becoming a common finance strategy. What happens when conservative lawmakers want to cut more government spending in healthcare or education? Will they manufacture a national security crisis to justify cuts in those social programs? Trump’s war in Iran establishes just such a dangerous precedent. For this reason, the American people must realize that their livelihood at home requires placing greater controls on what a president can do abroad.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The War on Iran Is a Local Issue
If it isn’t our job as citizens of towns, cities, villages, and indeed, the United States, to challenge those who profit from, clamor for, and send troops to war, then whose role is it?
Apr 07, 2026
The US-Israeli war on Iran is a Vermont state issue. Every dollar spent on bombs, missiles, and the machines that deliver them is a dollar taken away from healthcare, education, highways, public transit, food subsidies, and many more institutions and programs residents of Vermont and every other US state use.
This is true even during the current period, in which President Donald Trump and the US right-wing do almost everything they can to end those programs by cutting federal funding. Furthermore, the rising price of gasoline and other fossil fuels that everyone uses, no matter how far off the grid they might live, affects everybody’s ability to live. More money spent on fuel means less money spent on other items like food and clothing. Those who struggle to pay rent will find that struggle even greater should the price of these fuels continue to rise and not go down in any substantial way. I place my commentary in Vermont because that’s where I live. However, it is applicable to every state in the US.
This war was begun for reasons privy only to certain individuals in the US and Israeli governments. Most readers know that there was an agreement with Iran to prevent that nation’s nuclear power program from building nuclear weapons; that agreement was torn up by the first Donald Trump administration. Although the more recent talks were moving along and—according to most reports—going Washington’s way, the militaries of Israel and the United States launched a bloody and violent attack on Tehran, killing its political and spiritual leader. Israel’s involvement is part of its stated desire to annex much of the region known as West Asia or the Mideast into its expanding borders, creating a considerably larger Israel. Given that Israel is at best an ally of Washington and at worst a colony, a larger Israel would certainly benefit the designs Washington has (and has had) for the region.
Of course, just wishing for a giant Israeli garrison state is not the same as making one. That is where war and genocide come in. That is why Washington supports Israel’s ongoing attempts to destroy the idea of Palestine; it is also why Washington is intent on establishing military relations with the monarchies in West Asia. Once again, these endeavors cost a lot of public money and that money comes from taxes paid by US residents. So, when the Israeli-US alliance goes to war, against the Palestinian people, the Lebanese, or the nation of Iran, the amount of money taken from the US public’s money and transferred to the war industry and the military increases—a lot.
Each registered voter is being asked to give approximately $1,150.00 more to this ill-begotten and incredibly foolish war.
The US military and security apparatus were budgeted over $1 trillion for the current year. Now, after almost a month of war against Iran, the war hawks in Washington, Virginia, and wherever else they lurk want another $200 billion. According to the US Census Bureau, 174 million US citizens were registered to vote, 73.6% of those eligible in 2024. If one divides the sum of $200 billion desired by the war hawks by 174 million, this would mean that each registered voter is being asked to give approximately $1,150.00 more to this ill-begotten and incredibly foolish war. That amount is on top of the amount already being paid. Although $1,150.00 doesn’t buy much on the arms market, it represents a few weeks of groceries for many Vermonters even at today’s prices (prices which will continue to go up, especially if this war continues to expand.)
In the past few years, some Vermont towns have passed referendums or legislation calling for an end to some trading with Israel until it ends its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. Those who oppose these referendums and legislation use an argument that says local governments—state and municipal—should not be legislating about matters of foreign policy because it’s not in their purview. This argument belittles each individual and each government struggling to make ends meet in the face of increasing expenditures on wars and occupation. If it isn’t our job as citizens of towns, cities, villages, and indeed, the United States, to challenge those who profit from, clamor for, and send troops to war, then whose role is it? If it isn’t our role as citizens to oppose our money being used to illegally and violently occupy another land, then whose job is it?
The people of Vermont could make a bold statement by demanding their legislature make it known via a resolution that the majority of the people of Vermont oppose the war in Iran. They could make an even bolder challenge to the war machine by demanding Vermont’s National Guard forces be removed from battle, whether the Guard agrees or not; it is supposed to be the people’s militia, not the war industry’s.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Military Spending; Lower Taxes—Trump Budgets Like Reagan and Bush
His latest spending proposals build on his history of overseeing significant reductions in taxes and dramatic increases in defense spending, in line with core conservative goals.
Apr 07, 2026
Since Donald Trump first broke onto the national political scene, there has been a serious debate among Republicans regarding his commitment to conservative principles. His style was, in a word, flamboyant. His morality was questionable. And his behavior and language were outrageous. None of these behaviors could be identified with the staid “buttoned down” behaviors on display in conservative circles.
In recent decades, Republicans have latched onto a range of social issues like gay marriage, transgender rights, and abortion, or cultural matters like xenophobia and opposition to affirmative action. None of these issues, however, were central to textbook conservatism, which historically has been encapsulated in the mantra “lower taxes, smaller government” and the insistence that the principal role of government ought to be “securing the national defense.” Despite not being cut from the same mold as Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, President Trump has proven his bona fides on advancing these core conservative goals. Mimicking the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, President Trump in his first and second terms has coupled significant reductions in taxes with dramatic increases in defense spending either to expand the Pentagon’s already bloated budget or to underwrite foreign wars fought by us or allies.
This week’s rollout of Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 looks like a conservative’s dream come true. He is asking for a $500 billion increase in the defense department’s budget, amounting to the largest increase (44%) and the largest overall military budget since World War II. This 2027 increase is on top of the $350 billion supplement requested for 2026, presumably to offset the increased costs resulting from the US-Israel war on Iran.
The 2027 budget request also includes increases for Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department (to cover the costs of immigration prosecutions). But the 2027 budget also makes cuts in 10 other government agencies, with sharp reductions for the State Department and international programs; renewable energy projects; research grants in healthcare; and a number of social, educational, and medical programs. When asked by reporters about the impact of these reductions specifically on Medicare, Medicaid, and daycare programs, the president replied: “We’re fighting wars. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these things.”
Because mainstream Democrats have shied away from criticizing past and present wars and excessive defense spending, they’ve allowed Republicans to use the issue of budget deficits to play innocent and instead attack Democrats as “big spenders” who are recklessly spending the US into a hole.
What makes this problematic is that these dramatic increases in defense spending have been coupled with a sharp reduction in revenues resulting from Trump’s signature legislation—the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—that passed last year. That bill included reductions in taxes totaling $4.5 trillion over the next 10 years. In other words, “lower taxes, smaller government” and a singular focus on defense spending—the conservatives’ dream budget.
Two additional benefits to Republicans result from this pairing of decreases in revenues and increases in defense spending. On the one hand, it sharply increases budget deficits, which Republicans have effectively used to call for more spending cuts to social welfare spending. Because mainstream Democrats have shied away from criticizing past and present wars and excessive defense spending, they’ve allowed Republicans to use the issue of budget deficits to play innocent and instead attack Democrats as “big spenders” who are recklessly spending the US into a hole. In reality, however, it was Ronald Reagan’s irresponsible massive tax cuts and huge increases in military spending that caused the budget deficits of the 1980s. And while during the 2012 election Republicans made an issue of the growing national debt, no one pointed out that it was George W. Bush’s tax cuts and the war in Iraq that rang up a bill of trillions of dollars with no new revenues raised to offset the outlays for the war and its aftermath. To date, that war has cost over $7 trillion. Now Trump is following in the footsteps of Reagan and George W. Bush.
There is still another way, that Trump, like Reagan, will try to exploit the crisis created by a skewed budget to his advantage. This week, when reporters asked the president about his budget proposal’s impact on daycare programs, Medicaid, and Medicaid (which will experience cuts or strains), he replied:
(We can’t) send any money for daycare because theUnited States can’t take care of daycare. We’re a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people. We’re fighting wars. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do that on a state basis.
By recklessly reducing the federal government’s revenues and then forcing cuts in needed social programs to make way for increased defense spending, Trump, like Reagan, is forcing the financial cost of daycare, Medicaid, education, etc., down to the state level. Then when Democratic governors are forced to raise taxes to cover these increased costs, Republicans will pounce, criticizing them for raising taxes.
If this president’s policies over the last decade haven’t convinced the conservative elite that he's really one of them or voters that he’s not the radical populist his rhetoric made him out to be, then his 2027 budget should be all the convincing they need.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular