Skip to main content

Just over a week ago, the Senate fell one vote short of overcoming a Republican filibuster to pass a three-month extension of assistance for the long-term unemployed.

The New York Times reported:

Republicans and Democrats, many from the nation's most economically depressed states, had been trying to reach a solution that would allow people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance to continue receiving benefits as long as the government offset the $6 billion cost.

Ultimately, how to pay for the program proved too big a hurdle for senators to overcome.

The question of helping the long-term unemployed is sure to return. And with it, the question will return of how to pay for it.

Many Democrats have objected to the idea that extending unemployment assistance should be paid for with cuts elsewhere. But as a practical matter, Senate Democrats have already conceded this point, and there is no realistic prospect that they will un-concede it; even if they did try to un-concede it, under current arrangements, a bill to extend unemployment assistance needs five Republican Senators and then has to get through the Republican House. So, in the future that we can see, any realistic prospect for extending unemployment assistance, or even getting doing so on the table of serious discussion, will require having an offset.

As good fortune would have it, right now there just happens to be $6 billion in free money lying on the table, about to be wasted, waiting to be used as an offset for some good purpose.

It's in the war budget, otherwise known as "Overseas and Contingency Operations," or OCO. There is currently $5.7 billion dollars in OCO that doesn't belong there by any reasonable account and is about to be wasted on Pentagon contractor pork that the Pentagon doesn't need, if it is not redirected to some useful purpose.  

As the American Society of Military Comptrollers noted on January 17:

The [FY2014 Omnibus Appropriations] bill provides $85.2 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), $5.7 billion higher than the [President's] request. Most of this change comes from the $8.5 billion transferred from the base [Pentagon] budget offset by a $3 billion cut to the request for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.
Translation: Congress put $8.5 billion in the war budget that the President didn't ask for. The reason that Congress did this was to spare Pentagon contractor pork from $8.5 billion worth of cuts, by transferring $8.5 billion in expenditure from the base Pentagon budget to the war budget.

Thus, by Washington's own account, the war budget can be cut by $6 billion (indeed, it could be cut by $8.5 billion) without touching the Afghanistan war, because there's (at least) $6 billion in the war budget that has nothing to do with the Afghanistan war.

Now, of course, cutting actual spending on the Afghanistan war would be a great idea. Every month that we keep an extra 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, we flush another billion dollars down the toilet. One of the great crimes of Washington today is that people who want us to believe that they are very seriously concerned about the national debt refuse to discuss the money that we are flushing down the toilet every month in Afghanistan. Pulling 12,000 troops out of Afghanistan for six months would pay for the extension of unemployment assistance.

However, if we want to cut the war budget, we have to start somewhere. And a great place to start cutting the war budget is by cutting the money in the war budget that was put there for Pentagon contractor pork that has nothing to do with the war in the first place.

Of course, we could ask Congress to cut the war budget simply by reversing its decision to gratuitously add $5.7 billion to the war budget that the President didn't even ask for. But that demand has little juice because it has no specific constituency, only the broad public interest. The only practical path to getting that $5.7 billion out of the war budget is to redirect that money to some useful purpose that the multitude can taste. Why not redirect it to extending assistance to the long-term unemployed?

Reporting on the Senate's failure to extend unemployment assistance, the Times noted:

[Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] said Democrats would keep pushing to extend the benefits, which expired at the end of last year, cutting off more than 1.3 million Americans. That number has since grown to more than 1.7 million.
So, there are 1.7 million Americans who would benefit directly and immediately from redirecting $5.7 billion in Pentagon contractor pork from the war budget to unemployment assistance. What if 1.7 million Americans and their families - and their friends and neighbors - told Congress: "Restore assistance to the long-term unemployed, and take the money from the Pentagon contractor pork in the war budget"? Let's put that idea up the flagpole, and see who salutes.

Robert Naiman is the Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy.


Extend unemployment assistance by cutting the war budget

94%112 votes
5%6 votes

| 118 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  RM - while your proposal makes a lot of sense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robert Naiman

    Trying to extend unemployment benefits by cutting the DoD budget actually makes it harder to have the bill pass the Senate and it would have no chance in the House. To pass the bill there will need to be a carrot for the GOP, or it has no chance in the House. Cutting the "war budge" sounds like a stick, not a carrot, and decreases the chances that unemployment benefits will be extended.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:02:18 PM PST

    •  well, the question is (0+ / 0-)

      what happens when the $5.7 billion Pentagon contractor pork ripoff in the war budget becomes a matter of public debate. It's not controversial now because few people outside the Beltway know about it. If the Pentagon contractor pork people had to say in the public square that they prefer to spend $5.7 billion on Pentagon pork than on extending aid to the long-term unemployed, it might be a very different story.

  •  Nothing like a serious proposal (0+ / 0-)

    Okay, I understand opposition to a never ending war without a clear goal.  So, if you're all for bringing the troops home I'm sure not going to complain.

    But, you just can't "pull" 12,000 troops out of a war for six months.   If you're going to fight the war you've got to listen to your experts on how troops should be deployed, both, to achieve your goals and to fulfill duties that are essential to the safety of the troops left behind.

    Don't get me wrong.  I wish every soldier in Afghanistan was home, but if you're being serious (you're not really being serious are you?) how many more Afghans would be killed by the Taliban and how many more of the remaining troops would be maimed or killed?

    •  Pull them all out (0+ / 0-)

      Most of the troops who are now there are going to come out in any scenario. There are two key questions hanging fire about troop levels:
      1) how many troops will be there after December 31, 2014, if any; and
      2) how fast will troops be drawn down in 2014 to their December 31, 2014 level.

      Thus, there are two ways to save money by pulling out more troops at a faster pace than the Pentagon wants:

      1) leave essentially zero troops in the country after December 31, 2014
      2) pull troops out faster in 2014.

      We could, indeed, pull 12,000 troops out and keep them out.

      Pulling troops out during a drawdown does not lead to those left behind being killed. Look at the stats on What happens during the drawdown is that US troops are leaving the most dangerous parts of the country, and those left behind are engaging in much less combat.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site