[Peace-discuss] From WarIsACrime.org

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Lawmakers Call For Cuts In Military Spending
	By Lucia Graves | Huffington Post

As the budget crisis worsens, some lawmakers are looking where others dare not - 
at defense spending. In a letter to the National Commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility and Reform, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle despaired at 
"the apparent absence of discussion about the efficacy, the extent, and cost of 
overseas U.S. military commitments."

The statement authored by Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Ron Paul (R-Texas), 
Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked commissioners to 
scale back America's global military commitments. The effort comes just weeks 
after Frank appointed his own bipartisan commission to look at ways to reduce 
America's bloated military budget.

"At a time when our nation is facing serious economic problems, when it is 
borrowing trillions of dollars from foreign nations of varying degrees of 
friendliness, and it must deal with the rising costs of tens of millions of 
retiring baby boomers, we believe meaningful deficit reduction requires that no 
element of existing federal spending can be excluded from consideration," wrote 
the congressmen in their letter to the Commission. "So while we have differing 
political views and party affiliations, we are united in the belief that your 
Commission must rethink the nature and scope of every category of federal spending."

Frank lamented that the deficit-reduction debate plays out as if there are only 
two options -- raising taxes or cutting social programs, like Social Security 
and Medicare...
	
	This Is What a United Front Looks Like
	By David Swanson

The "supplemental spending bill" in the House has peace groups against it 
because it funds the escalation of a war in Afghanistan that a majority of 
Americans oppose, makes us less safe, and kills human beings. It also has 
environmentalists against it because it subsidizes nuclear power, the industry 
that cannot compete in a free market except in the arena of catastrophes, where 
it may out-do BP some day. But the peace groups and environmental groups are not 
exactly coordinating together as they could be.

Then there's the teachers who support the bill because it could fund teachers, 
and the labor movement which supports the bill because it would fund jobs, and 
the victims and those concerned for the victims of all variety of disasters who 
support the bill because it contains aid...

	90 Congressional Candidates and National Organizations
	Oppose War Spending No Matter What Lipstick Is Applied to It

Sixty-six congressional candidates and 24 national organizations are opposing 
any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, no matter what unrelated 
measures are packaged into the same bill, and no matter whether the bill appears 
likely to pass or not. This position contrasts strongly with that of most 
incumbent congress members who "oppose" and "criticize" the wars. The new 
Coalition Against War Spending is inviting more candidates, including all 
incumbents, and national organizations to join. The 66 candidates who have 
already signed on are from 25 different states, and include 22 Greens, 19 
Democrats, 19 Libertarians, 3 Independents, 1 Republican, 1 Socialist, and 1 
Peace and Freedom Party member (and more may be added to the website by the time 
you read this). Fifty-six are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, 
and 10 for the Senate...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.