Republicans believe government spending does nothing to create jobs, unless we're spending money on defense. Actually, we're better off spending money on green investments according to Robert Pollin, professor of economics.
In fact, the green-investment agenda is a highly effective engine of job creation, much more so, for example, than two favored Republican forms of spending, military outlay and the oil industry.
Thus, for a given billion dollars of spending, the Obama green-investment program will generate about 17,000 jobs. Spending the same amount on the military will produce only 8,500 jobs, 50 percent less than green investments. Spending an additional $1 billion on the oil industry -- the "drill, baby, drill" agenda advanced by the McCain/Palin campaign -- will produce only 4,500, about one-fourth the total created by green investments.
Pollin says three factors are at play to explain why investment spending devoted to the green economy creates more jobs than military or oil spending.
Relative labor intensity. This means more spending on people and less on machines, buildings, supplies, and energy. In weatherizing a home, the machinery and supplies needed are relatively low, while the demand for construction workers is high. Drilling for oil requires huge amounts of sophisticated machinery and relatively few people to operate that equipment. A military base employs lots of people. But it also involves heavy equipment purchases and consumes lots of energy.
Domestic production versus imports and spending abroad. With Obama's green-investment agenda, well over 90 percent of total spending will occur within the U.S. economy. Energy-efficiency measures, such as building retrofits, public transportation, and upgrading the electrical grid, can only occur on-site. Weatherization projects for buildings in North Dakota can only be done in North Dakota. The New York City subway system must be upgraded in New York. By contrast, the U.S. now imports about 50 percent of all the oil it consumes, and about 20 percent of total spending within the oil industry occurs abroad. The proportion of the military budget spent abroad is even higher.
Differences in pay levels. The average annual pay for employees associated with the green investment, including both wages and benefits, is about $52,000. This is roughly 20 percent below the $65,000 average for both the military and oil industries. This means that a given amount of spending for workers in the green-investment areas yields more job creation at lower average wages -- stretching out a given sum of wage and benefit payments.
That last point about lower average wages isn't actually a bad thing according to Pollin, because many more jobs overall are being created and more money is going into more workers' pockets.
All told, the green-investment agenda still creates far more jobs paying over $16 an hour than either the military or the oil industry does -- 75 percent more than the military and three times more than the oil industry.
And in the green economy, even many of the relatively low-paying jobs in construction and manufacturing offer decent job ladders for entry-level workers. There are fewer such prospects for advancement in even lower low-paying service-sector jobs, such as those of janitors, waiters, and health-care assistants.
President Obama's economic stimulus program includes between $50 billion and $140 billion in clean-energy spending. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the $1339 billion the world spent on the military in 2007, of which we're responsible for 45 per cent of that total, distantly followed by the UK, China, France, and Japan each with 4 to 5 per cent of the world share. Instead of increasing defense spending by 8 percent next year, the President should take the $40 billion or so difference and put it toward green investment. It'll create new industries and put more people to work, and we'll still be a superpower.
Here is a question that has gotten the Conservative world up in arms, and has even upset to some extent Jon Stewart, a notable Liberal. Now this all centers around a Barack Obama plan that would in a effort save money, if Soldiers have Private Insurance, that Private Insurance would pay for the Medical costs. Critics say this is outrageous, that the Government should take care of our Soldiers, since they do fight for our freedom.
Now call me the bad guy, or anti-Military, but I don't really have a problem with the Obama plan, in fact I would like to see this sort of plan expanded to those who get Medicare and Medicaid, who also have other Private Insurances. Let's face it our Government is strapped for money, and we need to save money where we can. One thing that bugs me is when people have a Primary like Blue Cross, and they also use Government Insurance, like Medicaid or Medicare. Many people, including myself have no insurance, and you got people with 2 or 3 different Insurances, this does not seem fair to me. I believe we should take care of our Soldiers, I support increasing wages, I support more funding V.A. Medical Care, but I do think if you have a Private Insurance it is being greedy to use the Government Insurance as well.
Am I wrong? Someone explain to me why people should have both, when we as a Nation are so strapped for cash?
I know our military is stretched thin and recruiters are under a lot of pressure to sign people up, but what happened to Brandon Friedman's mother (Friedman is the Editor of VetVoice and a Captain in the Individual Ready Reserve) is unacceptable and way out of the bounds of common decency in my opinion. In Friedman's words (my emphasis):
My mom called me on Friday afternoon. She was slightly upset, but mostly angry. I asked her why.
She said that two soldiers had come to the house looking for me.
Now, this doesn't surprise me at all. It's not the first time that's happened. In fact, they'd shown up at my parents' house twice before. The Army is so desperate for warm bodies that recruiters and career counselors will pretty much go anywhere if they think they can get somebody to sign up. And I'm still in the IRR, so that makes me a prime target--even though I've already served two tours in combat. But that's not the issue here.
The issue is how these two guys acted. My mom--who rarely gets flustered--explained that the two NCOs who'd come to the house were Army Reserve Career Counselors from the 90th Regional Readiness Command. They had shown up at my parents' house in an attempt to lure me back into a unit. But they didn't just ask.
Instead, according to my mom, they proceed to play good cop/bad cop with her. Sergeant First Class M. played the good cop. He explained that they were just there to let me know what options were available to me, should I want re-join a unit. He handed her his card.
The task of playing bad cop, however, fell to Master Sergeant N. [...]
I'm passing along the following press release for those of you with husbands or wives serving in the military, although this information is not just limited to spouses.
MILITARY SPOUSES FOR CHANGE (MSC) is proud is announce the launch of Military Spouse Press (www.milspousepress.com), a blogging site for the spouses and partners of service members and veterans.
Mil Spouse Press seeks to:
Empower military spouses by encouraging personal and political expression;
Create a space for an honest and open dialogue about the military experience;
Promote awareness about the needs of our military and veteran communities; and,
Inspire advocacy on behalf of our servicemembers, our veterans, our families, and our spouses.
The insight and importance of the military spouse community cannot be over-stated. Our experiences with the military and our familiarity with military policies are second only to the servicemembers, yet we were are not similarly limited when it comes to expressing our concerns to the military, the public, and elected officials. Moreover, we have the unique distinction of bridging the gulf between the civilian community and the military community. As a result, we are not only best equipped to be our own advocates, we are best equipped to be our troops' advocates.
In times of war, the servicemember is not the only veteran in a military marriage: our battles may differ but our war is the same. No married servicemember serves his (or her) country alone. A military spouse may not wear her (or his) servicemember's rank, but we do share his (or her) burden--with tremendous pride. Military spouses are, above all, patriots. Although we may sometimes disagree on the means, we all agree on the ends: protecting our troops, our families, and our country. Until this is fully recognized, military spouses will remain an untapped resource for strengthening our military. The creation of Mil Spouse Press is the first of many steps MSC is taking towards tapping into that resource.
Military Spouse Press wants this information shared, so please pass it along. They also stress that participation in the site is not limited to military spouses, although their primary bloggers and editorial contributors will all be military spouses.
Last month, Iraq war veteran Jordan Fox was asked to return nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus because he failed to fulfill his commitment to serve. That was because Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious, injured his back and lost all vision in his right eye.
Following the ensuing public outrage, the Army backed down and said Fox could keep his signing bonus, but Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) took steps to make sure this would never happen again. He was the primary sponsor of a bill the House passed yesterday:
The House has just passed the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007, which will ensure that members of the armed services who are discharged as a result of combat-related wounds receive the full compensation to which they are entitled by the Department of Defense. According to Department of Defense rules, enlistees cannot receive their full enlistment bonus unless they fulfill their entire military obligation. Unfortunately, members of the armed services who are wounded while on active duty are not receiving their full bonuses because their service was prematurely cut short. The Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act, H.R. 3793, will correct this problem by requiring the Department of Defense to provide veterans who have been discharged due to combat-related wounds with full payment of remaining bonuses within 30 days of discharge.
This is the way to show support for the troops. The bill passed 405-0.
Wow! Blackwater is intent on putting themselves out there as equals to our military. Yesterday, we learned about their paratroopers parachuting onto the field during halftime at the SDSU "Fleet Week" game and today there's this news from Calitic:
Well, now we find out that Blackwater is intending on corrupting the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl (college football game) to be played between Cal Berkeley and the Air Force Academy in Fort Worth, TX on New Year's Eve.
This is a disgrace to our fighting men and women who earn next to nothing compared to these mercenaries who play by their own rules and not those of our professional military forces. I can't believe the university is going along with this either, unless Blackwater slipped them a huge monetary donation. That would make sense. Everything in our country seems to be for sale these days.
Read Calitics suggestion on what we can do about this:
I don't want Blackwater associating themselves with the good name of our military any more, whether it's at Fleet Week or at the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl.
If you don't like it either, pass this around and raise some hell. Ask anyone you know at Berkeley if they're happy that their university will be participating in a promotional event for a lawless mercenary organization.
Even if you don't know anyone at Berkley, it can't hurt to write their administration and let them know how you feel. Before you start raising hell though, check out this YouTube video of a Blackwater parachutist landing on the field at the Fleet Week SDSU game (around the 2:45 mark). He's holding the American flag and his parachute is emblazoned with the Blackwater logo.
President Bush has lost the support and confidence of military families based on a results of a new Times/Bloomberg Poll. From the LA Times:
Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.
And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed. [...]
Patience with the war, which has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II, is wearing thin -- particularly among families who have sent a service member to the conflict. One-quarter say American troops should stay "as long as it takes to win." Nearly seven in 10 favor a withdrawal within the coming year or "right away."
Military families are only slightly more patient: 35% are willing to stay until victory; 58% want them home within a year or sooner.
Here, too, the military families surveyed are in sync with the general population, 64% of whom call for a withdrawal by the end of next year.
The disapproval of Bush is also eroding his Republican base. The poll showed that pro-Republican leanings of military families that began with the Vietnam War have shifted.
When military families were asked which party could be trusted to do a better job of handling issues related to them, respondents divided almost evenly: 39% said Democrats and 35% chose Republicans. The general population feels similarly, 39% for Democrats, 31% Republicans.
Finally, Democrats are no longer viewed as anti-soldier. People feel the entire country is now supportive of the military, even if not of the war. "We support the troops, we don't support Bush," said respondent Linda Ramirez, 52, of Spooner, Wis., whose 19-year-old son is due to be deployed with the Marines early next year. "These boys have paid a terrible, terrible price."
UPDATE: VetVoice chimes in on this poll and points to an article in Bloomberg that covered one soldier's transition from being vehemently pro-Bush administration, to being one of its harshest critics. VV summed it up thusly:
The lesson of the Bloomberg piece is this: On a long enough timeline (and despite what they say), the Bush administration will piss off and alienate every single living member of the United States military and every single living member of their families.
(This Troop Care post is in from Liberal Lucy. Lucy writes at blog at Liberal, Loud, and Proud, and at Michigan Liberal. Thank you for the contribution to Troop Care! - promoted by Christine)
I always get a lump in my throat when I stand up to sing the Star Spangled Banner, but it often seems as if I'm the only one. The daughter and granddaughter of several of America's heroes, I believe that to have given all or a part of your life to our country and what it stands for is truly one of the most self-less acts, ever.
My dad is a Vietnam Veteran, and I will never know exactly what he suffered, or how wet a monsoon really is, or how terrifying the jungles appeared at night. I couldn't tell you what it's like to spend months and years knowing that it could all be over in a flash, sometimes only because you fly a different flag than the guy at the other end of the gun. I don't know what it's like to return to a country only a year or two older than when you left but be aged beyond words. But our heroes can - and those who serve even now, will return with their own age spots, both emotional and physical.
On this Veterans Day, I am sad to see how little respect our veterans have been given by the press, by our government, and by the people in general. Just with those who have lost their lives in the last 6 years, it seems as if we've swept our heroes under the rug of our daily lives. Now grown men and women have to be told to take their hat off while our anthem plays, and too many still don't know all the words to the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm tired of patriotism being played as a campaign card when it's fashionable, and forgotten when it matters most. Our vets are our heroes, those who stand among us with scars that will always linger, and too often, those who are left behind us as we go forward. These men and women deserve so much more than the societal breadcrumbs we throw them when the media spotlight needs a new poster boy or girl.
So how do we honor our veterans and fallen heroes? I think of my dad, and my grandfathers, and I know that the greatest form of respect we can give them is to never, ever forget - what they've given, what they endure to this day, and the battle that they face even now, on our own soil, through finances, education, and health care. Perhaps we all need to stand as a state and a country, remove our hats, and swallow the collective lump that should form in all of our throats. Wipe the tear that forms in the corner of our eye, and turn to salute our veterans, our heroes. Contrary to what many may think, they are what keeps us great, not the other way around.
(This post was originally published on 11/10/06 on my blog, in honor of both Veterans Day and my father's birthday, a wonderful man that God has blessed me with.)
This is a Blogging For Michigan Troop Care post. From November 11 through November 25, 2007, Blogging For Michigan will use 100% of every dollar received in the Troop Care fund to purchase and ship items to Michigan troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Learn more about BFM Troop Care here. Click here to contribute to Troop Care. Contributions are not tax deductible.
