Military vs. Climate Security: The 2011 Budgets Compared
The gap between federal spending on military as opposed to climate security has narrowed but compared to China our progress is meager.
The gap between federal spending on military as opposed to climate security has narrowed but compared to China our progress is meager.
Voters—Republicans and Democrats alike—are telling pollsters they want, not a modest course correction, not a turned page, but a whole new book.
The United States needs to abandon our ceaseless arms race in favor of investments in rapid renewable energy and an equitable housing system.
Unless the administration changes its approach, these wars will continue to deprive us of the security we actually need.
All of that military funding comes at the direct cost of funding social programs and climate programs.
Lindsay Koshgarian speaks with Sonali Kolhatkar about why it’s past time to question U.S. military aid to Israel.
The package includes $7.2 billion for direct military financing to Ukraine ($1.7 billion), Israel ($3.5 billion), and the Indo-Pacific ($2 billion).
In the face of massive suffering in Gaza and disregard for international law by the Israeli government, the U.S. must not provide additional military aid or weapons that would cause more deaths. Instead, the U.S. should use its considerable diplomatic strength to call for an immediate ceasefire.
The world Eisenhower warned about has materialized. We need more members of Congress to stand up to the arms industry and fight for social investments instead.
Most of us understand the need to cut carbon emissions. But a huge share of our tax dollars are funding the most carbon-intensive institution on the planet.
The budget deal was supposed to slow spending, but the most expensive federal agency didn’t get a budget cut — it got a raise.
“When we invest so heavily in militarism at home and abroad, we deprive our own communities and people of solutions to problems that pose immediate security threats.”