SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Reps Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) introduced a bill Monday that would cut $100 billion from the defense budget--the largest single-year budget cut in Pentagon history.
Lee and Pocan offered a range of ways to spend the $100 billion, claiming it could be used to create over one million green jobs or to provide healthcare for more than 28 million people.
The text of the proposed People Over Pentagon Act says "many of the most urgent threats to the United States are not military in nature," and argues that Americans would be safer if this money was used to pay for major domestic projects.
"It is time that we realign our priorities [to] reflect the urgent needs of communities across the country that are healing from a pandemic, reeling from ongoing economic insecurity, and confronting an international energy crisis, none of which will be addressed by more military spending," Lee and Pocan wrote in a letter to other members of Congress.
The representatives added that the government's budget has long "put profits over people," arguing that "[n]owhere is that more apparent than in our Pentagon topline."
Lee and Pocan offered a range of ways to spend the $100 billion, claiming it could be used to create over one million green jobs or to provide healthcare for more than 28 million people. They added that the priority shift would "ensure that our concept of national security centers our people and builds upon our strengths as a nation."
This messaging could help build support among Democratic colleagues, though some in the military restraint movement worry it could alienate fiscal conservatives who have called for less defense spending but are skeptical about investing in progressive priorities.
Notably, the bill would not try to save money by firing Pentagon employees or cutting their benefits. Instead, the Pentagon would follow a recent Congressional Budget Office report that lays out how America could maintain a strong defense strategy for a lot less money.
The proposal is nothing new for Lee and Pocan, who have pitched major Pentagon spending cuts several times in recent years. If their prior attempts are any indication, the bill is unlikely to become law. But advocates say that attention-grabbing proposals like this provide important opportunities to convince the public that defense spending may not be the best way to keep Americans safe.
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Reps Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) introduced a bill Monday that would cut $100 billion from the defense budget--the largest single-year budget cut in Pentagon history.
Lee and Pocan offered a range of ways to spend the $100 billion, claiming it could be used to create over one million green jobs or to provide healthcare for more than 28 million people.
The text of the proposed People Over Pentagon Act says "many of the most urgent threats to the United States are not military in nature," and argues that Americans would be safer if this money was used to pay for major domestic projects.
"It is time that we realign our priorities [to] reflect the urgent needs of communities across the country that are healing from a pandemic, reeling from ongoing economic insecurity, and confronting an international energy crisis, none of which will be addressed by more military spending," Lee and Pocan wrote in a letter to other members of Congress.
The representatives added that the government's budget has long "put profits over people," arguing that "[n]owhere is that more apparent than in our Pentagon topline."
Lee and Pocan offered a range of ways to spend the $100 billion, claiming it could be used to create over one million green jobs or to provide healthcare for more than 28 million people. They added that the priority shift would "ensure that our concept of national security centers our people and builds upon our strengths as a nation."
This messaging could help build support among Democratic colleagues, though some in the military restraint movement worry it could alienate fiscal conservatives who have called for less defense spending but are skeptical about investing in progressive priorities.
Notably, the bill would not try to save money by firing Pentagon employees or cutting their benefits. Instead, the Pentagon would follow a recent Congressional Budget Office report that lays out how America could maintain a strong defense strategy for a lot less money.
The proposal is nothing new for Lee and Pocan, who have pitched major Pentagon spending cuts several times in recent years. If their prior attempts are any indication, the bill is unlikely to become law. But advocates say that attention-grabbing proposals like this provide important opportunities to convince the public that defense spending may not be the best way to keep Americans safe.
Reps Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) introduced a bill Monday that would cut $100 billion from the defense budget--the largest single-year budget cut in Pentagon history.
Lee and Pocan offered a range of ways to spend the $100 billion, claiming it could be used to create over one million green jobs or to provide healthcare for more than 28 million people.
The text of the proposed People Over Pentagon Act says "many of the most urgent threats to the United States are not military in nature," and argues that Americans would be safer if this money was used to pay for major domestic projects.
"It is time that we realign our priorities [to] reflect the urgent needs of communities across the country that are healing from a pandemic, reeling from ongoing economic insecurity, and confronting an international energy crisis, none of which will be addressed by more military spending," Lee and Pocan wrote in a letter to other members of Congress.
The representatives added that the government's budget has long "put profits over people," arguing that "[n]owhere is that more apparent than in our Pentagon topline."
Lee and Pocan offered a range of ways to spend the $100 billion, claiming it could be used to create over one million green jobs or to provide healthcare for more than 28 million people. They added that the priority shift would "ensure that our concept of national security centers our people and builds upon our strengths as a nation."
This messaging could help build support among Democratic colleagues, though some in the military restraint movement worry it could alienate fiscal conservatives who have called for less defense spending but are skeptical about investing in progressive priorities.
Notably, the bill would not try to save money by firing Pentagon employees or cutting their benefits. Instead, the Pentagon would follow a recent Congressional Budget Office report that lays out how America could maintain a strong defense strategy for a lot less money.
The proposal is nothing new for Lee and Pocan, who have pitched major Pentagon spending cuts several times in recent years. If their prior attempts are any indication, the bill is unlikely to become law. But advocates say that attention-grabbing proposals like this provide important opportunities to convince the public that defense spending may not be the best way to keep Americans safe.