Making sense
of $700 billion
By James
Carroll
How
much is 700 billion? The mind registers the number with such
imprecision as to
make it meaningless. One blogger proposed this way of grasping the
figure: As a
stack of $100 bills, it would reach 54 miles high. But who can imagine
that? On
the other hand, someone at the Smithsonian once calculated that
counting to one
billion, at the rate of one digit per second, would take 30 years. By
that scale,
counting to 700 billion would take 21,000 years.
Come
again? That stretch of time takes us back to the cave painters of
Lascaux, the
glacial age, the last Neanderthals. The mind is not helped.
By
a nice coincidence, though, the U.S. financial rescue package of $700
billion
duplicates a number that was also in the news last week - the Pentagon
budget.
In the fiscal year just beginning, the U.S. Defense Department will
spend $607
billion on normal military costs, and an additional $100 billion on the
wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. (As of June 30, 2008, Congress had appropriated
$859
billion for the wars; Congressional Budget Office projections assume
further
costs of $400 billion to $500 billion as the wars wind down). But for
the
coming year, $700 billion is the Pentagon's nice round number (this
includes
neither Homeland Security nor intelligence costs).
Step
back. All of last week's hand-wringing hoopla over the emergency
bailout stands
in stark contrast to the utter indifference with which politicians
approved an
equivalent layout for the military - an approval so routine that it was
ignored
in the press and by the public.
Barack
Obama has no issue with current Defense expenditures. The annual
American
military budget is at least 10 times larger than the military budgets
of Russia
and China; it is 20 times larger than the entire budget of the U.S.
State
Department. But last week's demonstration of anguish over the historic
financial rescue figure throws an entirely new light on the nearly
identical number
that will fund the Pentagon for one measly year.
This
is not a matter merely of comparison. Here is the question that no one
is
asking about America's grave financial crisis: By fueling corporate
profits,
jobs, and private-sector growth for two generations with massive
over-investment in the military, has the United States gutted the real
worth of
its economy?
One
needn't be an economist to know that spending money on war planes,
missiles and
exotic weapons systems, not to mention combat operations, creates far
less
social capital than spending on education, bridges, mass transit, new
forms of
energy - even the arts.
The
genius of America's most brilliant minds has been yoked for more than
half a
century to the invention of ways to kill and destroy. ("I saw the best
minds of my generation destroyed by madness." - Allen Ginsberg's
"Howl," 1956) What if those minds had been put to work imagining
alternative futures - the rescue of the environment, the ending of
disease and
poverty, the artistic fulfillment of new media, the teaching of
children? It's
a question as old as Eisenhower ("The cost of one modern heavy
bomber," he said in 1953, "is this: A modern brick school in more
than 30 cities." Leaving office, he said, "We cannot mortgage the
material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of
their
political and spiritual heritage." That's us.)
The
$700 billion bailout aims to rescue the world's economy, but that, too,
raises
questions about the Pentagon's prior effect there. Because America has
put
military invention at the heart of its enterprise, the exporting of
weapons to
countries that do not need them and cannot afford them has become a
main mode
of America's being in the world. (The Arms Control Association reports
that in
2007 the Pentagon sent $40 billion worth of arms to two dozen nations;
that is
double the 2007 appropriation for US foreign aid.) Unneeded weapons
spark
unnecessary wars.
That
the majority of humans are in dire straits and that the planet itself
is
groaning are issues treated like givens of nature, yet they are results
of the
ways creativity is channeled and resources are shared. $700 billion for
rescue.
$700 billion for war. Something is wrong with this picture, and last
week that
coincidence of numbers told us what.