Create a diversion

Diverting war spending to green investments is both politically possible and neccesary

Posted by Gar Lipow (Guest Contributor) at 4:23 AM on 02 May 2008

Read more about: politics | climate | climate change mitigation | Congress | environmental movement

Is it possible to divert war spending into green investment? (David is skeptical.) The current military budget for fiscal year 2008 is around 650 billion dollars, not including supplemental requests, which so far have been made every year since the Iraq war started. That $700 billion-plus total compares to the around $400 billion of military spending in 2001. Given the current unpopularity of the Iraq war, would it really be politically impossible to gain public support for reducing our military budget back to pre-Operation Clusterf*ck levels? (I'd like to see much deeper cuts, but let's look a mere $300 billion reduction for the moment.)

Right now, with virtually nobody in Congress campaigning for significant cuts, a public opinion plurality already favors cuts in war spending. That plurality came to its conclusion in spite of a bipartisan consensus by all leading politicians for increasing war spending.

If we are ever going to do something serious against climate chaos, we will have to push for actions nobody seriously supports at the moment. Pushing to divert military spending to green public investment is morally right, but it also has huge political potential. We are talking about huge job potential and huge profit potential. It could be the basis for common ground between a whole bunch of movements that often have trouble coming together. And our military and fossil fuel companies have become so closely tied together that I doubt you can take on one without taking on the other in any case. Years ago, a science fiction writer invented the term "crackpot realism" to describe people who supported a massive bomb shelter construction project as the "realistic" choice. Dismissing out of hand the idea that we might cut the war budget to finance this vital need is a form of crackpot realism.

By some measures, the U.S. now spends 29 times more on war than the nation with the next highest military budget. If the Blue-Green Alliance or Green For All decided to take this on, I think they could mobilize public opinion very quickly. I think the public has grown disillusioned that spending hundreds of billions on murder and torture is the best way to keep us safe. At any rate, if the U.S. keeps piling up the war money and getting into one aggressive war after another, we are not going to be able to do much about solving climate chaos or any other social program. So aside from being a source of money, I think converting the U.S. back to a free civilian nation is not a step you can realistically skip.

For story: Create a diversion
13 Comments | Post a Comment

Maybe

What's more likely is that it's possible to put green spending on the income tax tab. Like military spending. (And all other deficit spending)

by GreyFlcn at 4:43 AM on 02 May 2008

income taxes vs. military cuts?

Grey, you're advocating hitting the middle class as being more palatable than cutting the military. That speaks volumes about the political situation that we're in. In fact, you could even say that we're advocating carbon taxes instead of cutting the military -- notwithstanding the signals to the market that carbon taxes bring, and whatever rebates there are, its quite possible that cutting the military would be easier politically than new taxes, of any kind. However, certainly both political parties and the media would go bonkers, even if there really is support in the country, as Gar notes.

By the way, I heard the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus say that they had proposed that the nonIraq military budget be cut to $400 billion.

by Jon Rynn at 7:54 AM on 02 May 2008

No it's not Gar

Simply diverting 50 billion per year of corporate welfare to fossil, nuclear, and agribizz energy corporations will do the job just fine.

It will attract many times the private capital. Then the multiplier effect through the economy will pay it back many times over in increased tax revenues.

The lower energy prices will power the resulting boom. Gasoline going from 4 bucks per gallon, to being treplaced with renewable electricity at the equivalent of 66 dents per gallon? Would that one effect alone be enough stimulus for us? Yep.

But then there would be the other energy costs going down, for heating/cooling, manufacturing, mass transportation, freight transportation, farming, food processing. This boosts the whole economy right from the base on up.

You don't need the military money nor can you get it Gar. It is political suicide to propose military cuts now. think politics. How would the commercial for this diversion of military spending work? How would pollsters frame it?

"Do you agree that the military budget should be cut to fund renewable energy?"

What would the result be? maybe post it as a poll here Gar?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 8:06 AM on 02 May 2008

You can walk and chew gum at the same time

So go for cutting subsidies, carbon pricing, etc. And see how far you can get with cutting the military -- or, just for yucks, rolling back tax rates on the wealthy to pre-Reagan rates, or making corporations pay 32% of the Federal revenues, like they did in the 1950s, instead of the 7% they pay now. Those are probably also pretty difficult. But try it. Let the ideas be part of the conversation. If progressives won't even talk about it because of their political superego, the conservatives have already won.

by Jon Rynn at 8:17 AM on 02 May 2008

No new taxes

It must be tax neutral too Jon. Any raise of taxes in time of recession? Political suicide.

Carbon pricing will be seen as a tax that corporations pass on to consumers. Taking back corporate welfare can be phrased as tax reform.

Sure corporations will pass that on, but that's where you make the rhetorical stand. They say tax and spend.

We say tax reform and direct subsidies to consumers. Consumers who invest in solar panels for instance, and they only get payed for actual GHG-free kwhs delivered to the grid.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 8:51 AM on 02 May 2008

I don't see how to be revenue neutral

I've never understood how carbon pricing -- by which I mean either carbon taxes or the various cap-and-whatever schemes -- can be revenue neutral. What exactly does revenue neutral mean? For everybody? Taxes should be progressive, that is, the rich should pay more than the middle class should pay more than the poor. It seems to me that cap-and-whatever is an across the board increase in prices, which is regressive.

So you could rebate according to income, but that sounds very messy to me -- does everyone have to keep all of their receipts?

Cap-and-dividend might be more straightforward in being progressive. Carbon taxes, to be progressive, have to be taken away from income taxes in exact proportion, and the income tax would have to increase as people became less dependent on carbon sources.

In all cases, if the middle class is getting hit the hardest, while you have these huge piles of money in the military, superrich, and corporate bank accounts, it just seems unjust to me.

by Jon Rynn at 9:38 AM on 02 May 2008

Progressive carbon taxes

Progressive carbon taxes could work just like cap & dividend. That is, rebate the revenue directly back to the public, rather than doing tax shifting. However carbon tax and dividend & 100% auction & dividend are so similar there is no point in fighting over the difference.

And DRX - capturing those 50 billion in subsidies, and diverting them to renewables might be enough, but only if accompanied by rule based regulation and a price on carbon.

In terms of revenue sources: I'm not saying the military is the only source of revenues. Repealing tax cuts on the wealthy and upper middle class could provide much more. I'm saying that cutting the power of the military in our society is a vital to winning any of these changes. The reason going after the military is my preferred revenue source is that, in my opinion, it is something we have to do anyway.

by Gar Lipow at 9:46 AM on 02 May 2008

what we need...

is a bridge over the 21st century.

i thought maybe we could trick the rest of the biosphere and just change all the calendars to 2109, in january. that would effectively reduce our emissions over the next century to <1%. we'd have to teach plants to count but that might be easier than convincing georgia pols (or anywhere pols) to just-say-no to blood money.

we're thinking of the wrong incentives in some ways. the base conversion thing generally didn't work unless there was economic development associated. you can't just pull the plug on these command economies. they have to understand, like the companies looking (a little like idiots) for signals in future carbon price -- or really, for an accounting change -- before becoming more help than harm, they have to understand how the new system will work and how they will directly benefit. they are in a planned economy and they aren't leaving it without a fight because they know how people get treated when the train leaves the station.

an easy thing to say is that industrial areas gone quiet and farm areas gone military get dibs on new equipment production. don't "cut the military budget" -- build security with turbines instead of tanks.

then everybody gets to share in the new energy system's localized revenue. that's a program, i think.

i've been trying to think of what to call it, as an anchor for a safer economy. the windobahn has such negative connotations. clean'lectricity superhighway is too partisan. dunno.

by hapa at 10:04 AM on 02 May 2008

Tax neutral Jon

It's a phrase I invented? Probably someone else did before me.

It means funding a subsidy or program without raising taxes. How is this possible? Take subsidies from one area, say fossil, nuclear, and agribizz corporations, and divert it to another area. Like direct subsidies of 10 cents per kwh to consumers with solar panels. The utility company meters how many kwh the customer sells back to the grid.

This does price carbon Gar, by taking away subsidies for fossil fuel and agribizz with it's huge methane releases. Per kwh subsidies can then go to farm biogas.

Conservation subsidies could be based on kwhs worth of GHG (coal or oil) avoided or sequestered.

Science measures the kwh and GHG savings. Utilities meter it, and government write the checks. And does random spot checks to keep the system honest and corruption free.

I think it's a good plan. Sell it as tax neutral.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:07 AM on 02 May 2008

economic conversion

hapa, the late professor Seymour Melman was pushing the idea of economic conversion for a couple of decades, that is, that each military firm would form an "alternative use" committee to figure out what the firm could do when the military contracts were cut off. Then, the firms would have a few years to convert to civilian production. A bill was introduced into Congress for many years, and back around 1990 the Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, was going to push it, but -- whaddaya know! the congressman from Martin Marietta, Newt Gingrich, brought Wright down on the basis of some rather trivial charges.

Anyway, there are certainly ways to move engineers and workers to more productive uses -- but even with exciting renewable work, as you point out, people working in planned economies aren't very excited about switching industries.

Amazin -- I wasn't talking about taking away fossil fuel subsidies, I don't even see how that would necessarily be passed through to consumers.

Gar -- so are you saying that if Congress moves toward renewable policies that threaten the oil companies, etc., that the military will work against said renewable policies whether we're calling for military cuts or not? Because that was Dave's concern.

by Jon Rynn at 10:26 AM on 02 May 2008

Oh it would be passed

Then the corporatist mouthpieces on talk radio and faux news would call it a tax hike. Remove a subsidy from any fossil fuel, and industry adds that loss on as an increased cost. Multiplied by the supply chain in each step, depending on profit margin.

No industry will give up any profit margin if they can help it.

Then we counter that investment in renewables and conservation will send energy prices lower across the board as it kicks in, more than offsetting the additional expense to consumers that fossil industry added on.

Either invest in a new energy economy or energy prices and trade deficits and debt will keep spiraling upward. Destroying our economy and eventually our manufacturing and military power. putting the world at the dictatorial "mercy" of china and russia. Russia is growing wealthy and powerfull again from it's oil and gas revenue.

It's debts are payed off, and expansion is ready to take off. All that beautiful wilderness in Siberia is in jeapordy. I'll take rape and plunder of mother earth for 500 Alex. Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:47 AM on 02 May 2008

i had a strange nightmare about that once

i dreamed the "forward defense" strategy's justification was the vulnerability of the energy supply overseas, and the energy system's justification was how well it justified forward defense and intervention

by hapa at 10:50 AM on 02 May 2008

Military

>Gar -- so are you saying that if Congress moves toward renewable policies that threaten the oil companies, etc., that the military will work against said renewable policies whether we're calling for military cuts or not? Because that was Dave's concern.

Yes. One change that Bush really did make is that the military is now in bed with a whole new set of contractors, ones with major fossil fuel ties. We've also had a takeover of the officer corp by right wing Christian ideologues. These days if you are in the U.S. military and want promotion you have to pray with the right people. This has scary implications for what is left of our democracy, but also has implications for anyone who wants to tread softly around the military and hope they will leave you alone.

by Gar Lipow at 3:01 PM on 02 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.