Cut the military, fund social needs!

    By Reginald Johnson

    Democrats fight for a lot of good things --- steps to combat climate change, a saner immigration system, a more equitable tax system, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, ending racism and controlling guns. Check, check, check.

  But where Democrats keep falling down is on the question of whether to cut the bloated military budget --- a budget that dwarfs the military spending of many countries around the world combined.
 A number of  Democrats, including presidential candidates, vacillate on this crucial issue. They talk of possible cuts in the defense budget but don’t take a strong public stand on the matter, and sidestep critical votes.  Others actually support massive increases in the war budget, and back President Trump on Pentagon spending.

  According to an August 2^nd story in the World Socialist Website, Senate Democrats recently gave strong support for a record $738 billion defense budget outline, a plan backed by President Trump.  Democrats voted 38-5 for the plan, which won passage in the Senate.  Self-described “Democratic  Socialist” presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said previously he would vote against the budget, but did not bother to return to D.C. to actually cast a vote against it. Candidates Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and  Kamala Harris also were absent for the vote.

  Why didn’t they go back to Washington, blast this wildly excessive spending plan and cast their votes in opposition? These people are going around the country demanding that we rebuild our infrastructure, invest in education, fund health care and build more affordable housing. They denounce Trump for not addressing  critical social needs. But the huge amount of spending on the military siphons billions of dollars away from funding domestic programs.  In fact, the massive outlays for the military year in and year out make it impossible for domestic needs to be adequately addressed.

  People like Sanders and Warren have to know this fact. But apparently, out of fear they’ll be labeled as “weak” on national security or afraid they’ll lose votes and contributions from defense contractors and their workers, they hedge on the issue of reducing the Pentagon budget.

   Other leading figures in the Democratic Party are voting in favor of Trump’s war spending.  Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand, for instance, voted in favor of the Trump budget.
   Also backing Trump's war budget was freshman Congress Member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has been in the headlines continuously for the past year condemning Trump’s immigration policies and calling for the president’s impeachment.  Her vote helped the House of Representatives pass the budget overwhelmingly. Apparently Ocasio-Cortez didn't care that this obscene budget steals money from domestic needs like education and housing, which are vitally important to the constituents in her mostly poor Bronx-Queens district.

  You expect Republicans to go along with sky-high defense spending proposals, year in and year out. You wouldn’t think Democrats would be so supportive.

  But they are, and this support undermines the promise by Democrats they will create a government that is more compassionate and addresses domestic needs.

  Democrats have to overcome this contradiction, otherwise they cannot continue to claim they are  “the party of the people.”

   The U.S. military budget is by far and away the largest of any country in the world and exceeds the total military spending by many other nations --- including China, Russia, France and England --- put together.

   Our military budget should be cut by at least 30 percent. There won’t be the slightest fall-off in U.S. security.

  Thirty percent of $738 billion is about $220 billion. Think of what that money could do for building new schools, new infrastructure and new housing.

  It’s time for Democrats to step up to the plate.

  Cut the military budget!  

 

  

  

   

       

       

Sanders Confounds Skeptics

By Reginald Johnson




                  That was a very impressive showing by Bernie Sanders in Iowa.

                  A man who just six months ago was thought to have little or no chance of winning Iowa against the much better known establishment candidate Hillary Clinton, came within an eyelash of pulling off the upset. Sanders finished with 49.5 percent of the vote, to Clinton's 49.9 percent.

            While Clinton technically won the caucus in Iowa, Sanders also won, in that he proved he is very much a viable candidate to win the Democratic Party nomination and that his message of bringing fundamental change to the American economy is resonating with thousands of voters, young and old, men and women.

          He moves on to New Hampshire, where he is way ahead in the polls. If the Vermont senator scores a resounding victory there, he may well have the momentum to go to South Carolina and again, do much better than expected in that state's primary. Given that many in South Carolina's large African-American population favor Clinton, this will be a challenge for Sanders. But he's shown already he has the ability to win people over with his message about economic equality, and I think he can start gaining support among black voters in the South.

       When Bernie Sanders first announced his candidacy for president in April of last year, he stood at only 3 percent nationally among Democrats who said they would for him. Today, his level of support has shot up to over 36 percent.

     In Iowa, the Democratic Socialist started his campaign a full 40 points behind Hillary Clinton in the polls. But with a relentless campaign in which he repeatedly drew huge crowds, Sanders completely closed the gap, and finished in a "virtual tie" as he called it, in the state's caucus.

   When Sanders began his national campaign for president --- amid widespread doubt that he could make any headway at all --- he cautioned, "don't underestimate me."

   I don't think anyone is underestimating Bernie Sanders now.

    

       

   



        .