“The Ultimate Weakness of Violence…”

“… is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.

Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.

Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.

Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

–Martin Luther King, Jr.

How have we as a human species not learned this profoundly simple wisdom yet?

Happy Birthday MLK! May your words and deeds continue to inspire us to create peace with justice!

The Endless War Machine’s Toll On Our Troops – Suicides Exceeded Combat Deaths Last Year

The Associated Press reported yesterday the Pentagon’s internal statistics show more U.S. troops committed suicide last year than died in combat in Afghanistan. The Pentagon noted the rate of suicides in the military is below the civilian population – is that supposed to be somehow comforting?

In addition to ending the war now, leaving no residual troops in Afghanistan, not starting any new wars against Iran or anyone else and ceasing drone strikes in countries we are not at war with, the troops need real support, not the platitudes one hears constantly on NFL telecasts. Our sisters and brothers at Iraq Veterans Against the War are providing leadership with their “Right to Heal” Operation Recovery campaign, to stop sending troops on repeated combat tours and get them the treatment and support they need and deserve. Help IVAW out, and spread the word to those you think really want to support the troops.

 

Before the debate, tell Romney and Obama you want to end the war in Afghanistan now!

Tomorrow night’s second presidential debate may, or may not, surface big differences between the two candidates on various foreign and domestic policy issues.

One crucial issue on which we know there is not a lot of space between the candidates is ending our country’s longest war, now beginning its 12th year. President Obama has stated the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan will end in 2014 (though there is not clarity on whether this means the end of 2014, or earlier in the year). Mitt Romney has largely agreed with this.

However, the Administration is said to be negotiating with the Afghan government for up to 25,000 U.S. troops to remain for over a decade. Unlike other countries where U.S. forces are often paid for by the host government, this is likely to all be on the U.S. taxpayers’ tab.

There’s no reason in the world we should pay for that, nor for up to two more years of a miserably failed war. Sunday’s New York Times editorial comprehensively lays out why we should get out as soon as safely possible, not sometime in 2014.

Let the candidates hear, loud and clear, before the debate, that the war needs to end and the sooner the better. Take this quick action – copy and post the link to the Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/time-to-pack-up.html) with a quick comment of your own (“I AGREE – END THE WAR NOW!” would work just fine) to the Obama and Romney campaign websites: Romney http://www.mittromney.com/forms/suggestions  Obama http://barackobama.force.com/questions.

Thanks for taking this simple action, and encourage your friends to do so as well.

Budget for All: Referendum to Reach 1M Massachusetts Voters

By Cole Harrison, Massachusetts Peace Action

Grassroots organizations develop advocacy campaigns around individual issues, but the current U.S. economic crisis is making it more and more difficult to win with that approach, as our agendas are pitted against each other.  The labor movement, the peace movement, human service advocates and racial justice organizations have all faced an uphill struggle in recent years due to an overall climate of austerity that shows every sign of deepening rather than dissipating. Meanwhile, Washington-centric top-down progressive coalitions, formed and re-formed every couple of years, have lacked the long-term commitment required to sink their roots deep and stay the course.

The crisis and conflict reflected in Washington’s current budget impasse are fundamental and will be with us for decades.  In response, a progressive coalition must also go deeper.  Single-issue groups will continue to fail and austerity will continue to be the order of the day unless substantial new revenues are available.  They can only be found by taxing the 1% and curtailing U.S. militarism.

The money is there. The Congressional Progressive Caucus’ annual alternative budget, which in 2012 is called the Budget for All, gives the lie to the austerity agenda promoted by both Republicans and mainstream Democrats. Its four-point agenda calls for preserving critical services and benefits, investing in jobs, taxing upper incomes and corporations, and cutting bloated military spending – and it balances the federal budget faster than either the Ryan budget or President Obama’s budget.  The Budget for All resolution received 78 yes votes in the House of Representatives in March.  Our goal is to expand this voting bloc in Congress by holding legislators accountable to the Budget for All agenda.

In Massachusetts, Peace Action is helping to build a budget coalition that first came together in Fall 2011 to resist the bipartisan effort to gut the social safety net in the guise of the SuperCommittee.   Under the slogan “Stop the Cuts – Invest in Jobs – Tax the 1% – Reduce Military Spending,” the Budget for All coalition includes 44 organizations — labor unions, low-income and people of color community organizing groups, tenants’ groups, Democratic and Green party groups, Occupy groups, and peace groups.

To bring our issues into the 2012 election season, we created a Budget for All non-binding referendum question.   We gathered over 25,000 signatures to put it on the ballot in 8 state Senate and 24 state Representative districts, including all or part of 91 Massachusetts cities and towns across the state.  About 33% of the Massachusetts electorate, or about 1 million voters, will have the opportunity to vote on the Budget for All November 6.  The Budget for All Referendum has been endorsed by Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Jim McGovern, Rep. Ed Markey, and by a dozen state legislators.

We achieved this by coupling the door-to-door organizing capacity of low-income Boston community groups with the suburban reach of the peace movement.

Led by grassroots community groups, the referendum qualified in the entire city of Boston, and in the depressed cities of Lawrence, Fall River, Holyoke, and Chelsea, which have substantial Black and Latino populations.  In these areas the great majority supports our agenda – people strongly agree with the need for jobs programs, care about services such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and housing, and support cutting the military. Canvassers registered many new voters and used the referendum to motivate people towards political participation.

Locally based peace groups, in some places supported by suburban Occupy groups, tackled two dozen towns in Boston’s near suburbs.  In these and other liberal, majority white areas, most people are sympathetic to our agenda, except for those who think they might earn above $250,000 someday or who express a generalized distrust of government.

The Budget for All faced its most challenging territory in far suburban areas where there has been less peace and progressive activism and more influence from right wing, anti-tax ideas.  In these areas there is more support for the military and a call to cut the military budget raises eyebrows.   Public education will be key to p

Our grassroots coalition is working hard to get out the word to the 1 million voters who will vote on the B4A on November 6.  We’re printing yard signs and flyers, we’ve begun to get press coverage and we’re using social media.  We’re setting up events and forums, giving presentations to union and community groups, and racking up  endorsements from elected officials.  And we’ll be covering the polls on Election Day to make sure voters pass the Budget for All overwhelmingly!

This fight will take time to win.  Beyond Election Day, we’ll push for a resolution on Beacon Hill to put more pressure on Congress. It’s important that the peace movement hang together with allies such as the SAVE for All coalition of human service advocates and push wavering legislators to stand up for prosperity, not austerity!

Check out the Budget for All – Massachusetts coalition at www.budget4allMass.org

Does Congress Want to Bomb Iran?

We are hearing from our Congressional allies that they are hearing more from those who want war in Iran than those who want peace. Please write now and ask your legislators to support diplomacy. After over a decade of two costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have exploded our national debt and stretched our Armed Forces to their limit, we don’t need another war in the Middle East. But war hawks in Congress like Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman are already beating the drums of war, with Lieberman saying it “doesn’t make any sense” to wait until Iran possesses nuclear weapons to take military action. There is also concern that, despite huge opposition in the country, the Israeli government will conduct rogue strikes on Iran. And yet, Congress is being overwhelmed by messages calling for war with Iran, and our allies need us to show that there is a broad base of support for diplomacy, not war. Congress needs to hear from us, the voice of reason, that there is time for diplomacy and no country should use military force. The costs of a war with Iran would be catastrophic. According to a report compiled by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers released this week, “achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran’s nuclear program would require a military operation — including a land occupation — more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.” Experts agree that even if — and that is a big if — Iran decides to build a crude nuclear weapon, there is plenty of time to act before they could complete the task, much less make one a missile payload or build a long-range missile system. Please write Congress today to support U.S. diplomacy and to do everything in their power to keep Israel from using military force on Iran.

From Hiroshima, Japan on the 67th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bomb.

Paul Kawika Martin, political director of Peace Action, speaking in front of 500 conference attendees in Hiroshima, Japan.

Every year one of the largest peace organizations in Japan, Gensuikin, invites Peace Action to participate in the commemorations of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  This is my third time attending.

The nuclear weapons were dropped 67 years ago.  While we don’t know the exact number of deaths, injured and those affected psychologically, around 250,000 people died within four months of the bombing.

While in Japan, I have been participating in marches and speaking at conferences and workshops.  Besides discussing the current state of affairs around nuclear disarmament, I’ve been asked to discuss the U.S. plane the Osprey.

The U.S. military recently shipped a dozen MV-22 Osprey aircraft to Japan to be deployed in Okinawa.  The Osprey is a tilt rotor aircraft capable of vertical take-offs and landings.  Think of it as a dual prop airplane crossed with a helicopter.

There are two major reasons that the Osprey deployment to Okinawa should be stopped.  First, there are serious safety concerns and secondly the noise pollution.

One of the new Osprey aircraft crashed in Morocco in April, killing two crewmembers and another went down in the U.S. state of Florida earlier this month.  Additionally, the very recent F-16 crash off the Japanese coast reminds us that accidents occur.

How likely is it that an Osprey might crash?  Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe.  A defense technology expert said that the low-level training flights planned in the mountainous area of Okinawa represents severe risks.  And the danger increases when they fly in formation.

While the Osprey can fly if one of its two engines fail, in the rare but not unheard of event of dual engine failure, the aircraft would be in serious trouble.  Unlike a helicopter, the Osprey cannot use autorotation for an emergency landing.  There is conflicting information on whether the craft could glide like a plane to safety.  It is probably very dependent on the situation, but at low altitude it is unlikely.  There are possibly other highly technical flaws with the Osprey which has caused fatal crashes in past test flights.  Indeed, around 30 people died in the aircraft’s development.

Despite what I have just said, since the Osprey has been introduced into combat, it’s actually considered the safest among Marine Corps rotorcraft.

Nonetheless, with the high population density around the Futenma base, a crash could be catastrophic.

Concerns don’t just emanate from Japan and there are other reasons to stop the Osprey besides safety.  Neighborhoods in the U.S. State of Hawaii are concerned about a proposed deployment of Osprey primarily for noise pollution issues.  I’ve been fortunate to visit Okinawa and if you been to the Futenma U.S. Marine Air Station, you know that basically it’s huge base right in the middle of a city.  The buffer zones in the Unites States are much larger so the effects of noise in Okinawa will be much greater.

As an American, I have other reasons, which leads me to want to stop any more Ospreys from being built.  Like many Pentagon projects, the Osprey has cost much more than originally planned. The research and development program was estimated to cost just about $39 billion, but independent estimates predict that it will come to $56 billion—nearly twice as much. Now, the plane costs $100 million to manufacture and its unreliability has caused maintenance costs to soar.

For the very serious safety concerns and the effects of noise pollution, the deployment of the Ospreys to Japan should be halted.  Opposition in Japan and the U.S. combined with the economic realities in the U.S. could send the Osprey back to America.

Now, I’m off to Nagasaki to participate in the commemorations and conferences there.

For more up-to-the-minute updates, please add me as a friend on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

Thank you,

Paul Kawika Martin

Political Director

Peace Action

Budget for All Referendum to Reach 1 Million Massachusetts Voters

Audley Green, Paul Shannon, Shelagh Foreman and Cole Harrison at Massachusetts State House turning in the nearly 20,000 signatures to place the Budget for All referendum on the ballot.

By Cole Harrison, Massachusetts Peace Action

A successful campaign generates its own energy.  The drive to get the Budget for All referendum on the ballot caught fire because scores of activists throughout the state want to do something.  I’ve heard over and over again from progressive activists who are tired of the Right rolling over us, and equally tired of endless meetings and preaching to the choir.  They want to get out there, talk to their neighbors, and bring a progressive agenda into the political process. And that is what we are doing in Massachusetts in the 2012 elections.

Under the slogan “Stop the Cuts – Invest in Jobs – Tax the 1% – End the Wars”, Massachusetts Peace Action helped lead a peace-community-labor coalition of 42 organizations to organize a petition drive to place the Budget for All referendum on the ballot.

District by district, town-by-town, activists gathered almost 20,000 signatures in May and June and successfully qualified for the ballot in 7 State Senate districts and 24 State Representative districts (an eighth Senate district remains to be tabulated).  As a result, approximately a million Massachusetts voters – about 1/3 of the state’s expected 3 million voters in a presidential election year – will have the opportunity to endorse the anti-austerity public policy question on November 6.

Low income community based groups did most of the work in Boston and some smaller cities, while local peace groups showed that they have a base in suburban towns across the state.

Led by grassroots community groups, the referendum qualified in the entire city of Boston.  The Massachusetts Alliance of HUD Tenants led the way in two Boston Senate districts, knocking on doors in housing projects and standing in front of supermarkets.

The Right to the City Civic Action Alliance, which includes the Chinatown Progressive Association, Neighbors United for a Better East Boston, New England United for Justice, Boston Workers Alliance, and Project Hip-Hop, canvassed in low-income people of color neighborhoods. Dorchester People for Peace and the Boston 25% Coalition powered the Dorchester Senate district.

In all these areas the great majority strongly supports our agenda – the need for jobs programs, care about services such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and housing, and support cutting the military. Canvassers registered many new voters and emphasized the importance of political participation.

Peace groups, sometimes supported by suburban Occupy groups, successfully tackled Boston’s near suburbs as well as towns west of Boston and on the North Shore, talking to voters at libraries, farmers’ markets, supermarkets, and town fairs.  Peace groups and the Green-Rainbow Party led the organizing in the Western Massachusetts towns of Amherst, Northampton, and in the Berkshires.  In these relatively liberal, majority white areas, most people who hear the pitch are willing to sign, some saying, “Who wouldn’t sign this?” Among those who don’t, the most common objection is to raising taxes on incomes above $250,000 – especially from those who earn more or who think they may in the future.  Also, some voiced a generalized distrust of government therefore too cynical to sign any petition or engage in any political process.

In the blue-collar, economically depressed cities of Lawrence, Fall River, Holyoke, and Chelsea, with large Latino populations, ad hoc groups of activists made the difference, led by a school committeewoman in Lawrence, an Occupy group in Fall River, a Green-Rainbow activist in Holyoke, and a peace group in Chelsea.  In these areas there is a hunger for participation and a search for effective means of political action.

The Budget for All (B4A) faced its most challenging territory in towns in the southwest, southeast and northern suburbs of Boston.  In these areas, there has been less peace and progressive activism and more right-wing influence and anti-tax ideas. The B4A petitioning was done by clusters of individual activists, and in the case of Melrose by an AFGE local. Here, a call to cut the military budget raises eyebrows– the Budget for All’s call to end the Afghanistan war and cut the military budget generated significant opposition, and many complained that the referendum addresses too many issues, with people supporting some issues but not others. In these districts, public education will be critical to convince undecided voters to back the referendum now that it is on the ballot.

The B4A did not qualify for the ballot everywhere we tried.  Some areas volunteers gathered signatures but fell short. But volunteers with a statewide perspective did cross-district lines and helped make the difference in other areas.

Now, the coalition is regrouping to focus on passing the B4A referendum this fall. On July 25 20 volunteers lobbied legislators at the State House introducing the referendum to the legislators who will, if it passes, be instructed by the voters to call on Congress and the President to implement the B4A agenda.

In August regional and district organizing planning meetings will be held for the fall campaign. We’ll leaflet voters at the polls on Primary Election day, September 6.   We’ll get the word out through op-eds, letters to the editor, social media, and yard signs.   We will also hold campaign events in each region of the state, and hopefully in most districts where the referendum is on the ballot, featuring elected officials who support the measure as well as organizers and entertainers, to build support and energy.

The scores of volunteers are proud of the successful drive to get the  B4A referendum on the ballot, and they want to keep it going. A ballot referendum is one tool to help build the grassroots movement necessary to win a change in national spending priorities, from wars and new weapons to fund our communities. Massachusetts Peace Action looks forward to a successful fall campaign as we stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends and allies.

For more info on how you can get involved: Call 617-354-2169.

Cole Harrison is Communications Director of Massachusetts Peace Action. He was born in Delhi, India, has a B.A. from Harvard in applied mathematics, a M.S. from Northeastern in computer science, and lives in Roslindale, Massachusetts.

Pigs Flew

When I started talking to colleagues and congressional staff several years ago about the prospects of cutting the Pentagon budget I heard, “when pigs fly.” Since then, Pentagon coffers have steadily swelled.

Last week, the House of Representatives voted on the Defense Appropriations bill. The bill brought to the floor included $519.2 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget (excluding military construction and mandatory spending) with an additional $88.5 billion in war funding. The measure was $3.1 billion above the President’s budget request.

A few hundred amendments were offered. Some of which were aimed a cutting Pentagon fat, others wanted to add more money and others were meant to provide an opportunity to talk on the floor about a particular issue.

Because appropriations bills only allow adding and cutting of funds to authorized programs, it’s difficult to change policy. Hence, some lawmakers use their debate time to talk about policy changes. For example, more than a dozen representatives spoke for 90 minutes to end the war in Afghanistan.

After the first day of hearing the debate and seeing votes, I felt depressed. Small, obvious cuts were being defeated. Rep. McCollum’s (D-MN) amendment cutting military bands a paltry $188 million lost 166-250. Then, a bipartisan amendment offered by Rep. Kingston (R-GA) to cut NASCAR sponsorship by a minuscule (in Pentagon terms) $72.3 failed by a much narrower 202-216.

The next day was looking equally grim. Despite the public being decidedly behind bringing our troops now from Afghanistan, Representatives defeated (107-312) Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment to reduce spending on the Afghanistan war by $19.2 billion leaving enough to safely bring all the troops home. Even a more conservative approach by Rep. Garamendi (D-CA) to cut $12.6 billion for the war accounts went down in flames (137-278).

There was a spark of hope when the House voted for a few amendments that cut several hundred million dollars to various parts of the Afghanistan war.

Not surprisingly, the House defeated two amendments by Rep. Markey (D-MA) that were based from his SANE act, legislation name after one of Peace Action’s predecessors, that would cut $100 billion from nuclear weapons programs over ten years. One amendment would have reduced funding for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system by $75 million (150-268). The other would have limited the fleet of land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) to 300, a cut of 150 (136-283).

Then, the Republicans lead by Reps. Turner (R-OH) and Berg (R-ND) passed amendments to prohibit funds from being used to reduce nuclear forces (235-178) and to prohibit use of funds to reduce the number of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles (232-183).

At the closing hours of the bill, I finally saw pigs fly. Reps. Mulvaney (R-SC) and Frank (D-MA) offered a bi-partisan amendment to cut the overall level of the bill by $1.1 billion, back to last year’s level. The amendment was solidly adopted (247-167).

At the end of last week, the final bill passed by the House was more than $40 billion less than last year. The economic crisis, debt, the ending wars and pressure from you on Congress to cut the bloated Pentagon budget helped make this small but important victory. This bill is only part of the battle and the Senate will need to take up it’s Defense Appropriations likely to happen in the lame duck session after the election.

Take a moment and look at some of the roll call votes and see how your Representative voted.  Then, call them this week to thank or spank them for their votes. The Capitol: 202-224-3121.

You can also help win more votes by electing more Representatives with your values by clicking here.

What’s Big Deal About Iran? & What Could I Possibly Do About It?

Chicago Area Peace Action’s Roxane Assaf on Huffington Post  http://huff.to/MbohNu 

Chicago Area Peace Action’s Roxane Assaf on Huffington Post : What’s Big Deal About Iran? & What Could I Possibly Do About It? http://huff.to/MbohNu 

 

If I were to walk into two separate movie theaters in Anywhere, USA — one playing, say, Casablanca and the other Caddyshack — and asked folks to raise their hands if they are actively concerned with averting war with Iran, I think it wouldn’t matter which crowd I polled. The show of hands would be about the same: small. Maybe that’s because the information stream on U.S. relations with Iran is forked at odd angles and pinched to a trickle where it counts.

 

U.S. relations with Iran become more acrid with each passing year. Punitive measures to get that country to knuckle under are ensuring a humanitarian crisis that will hardwire hatred in Iranian citizens for generations to come. An outright attack would do much worse — for both our countries.

 

If I were to tell the same disaffected moviegoers that they had the power to change the course of events, I might see a few more volunteers. Here are some suggestions for them.

 

But first, the information stream needs some freeflow. And fewer forks. Let’s reduce it to just three tines:

 

1) Nations in the West want guarantees that Iran is neither trying to nor able to produce an atomic bomb.

2) Iran’s production of highly enriched uranium (which could also be intended for non-violent purposes and is not weapons-grade) is the red flag.

3) Sanctions against Iran would take the form of cutting off the flow of oil, in addition to other sanctions the United States has been imposing for decades.

 

Where are we now with these points?

 

FIRSTLY

Days of meetings hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin started June 18th in Moscow with Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. A primary reason for the breakdown in negotiations so far is that the countries putting pressure on Iran (who are receiving pressure from the United States) are setting unrealistic expectations. The demand — as an unbelievable pre-condition to negotiations — is for “zero enrichment” rather than allowing what the international community considers peaceful activity — up to the point where bombs could be rapidly created.

 

Iran allegedly exacerbated the problem by refusing to declare completely its uranium enrichment activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Some leaders feel that recalcitrance alone is cause to cut them off. Meanwhile, Iranian officials express support for a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East, but Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and possesses nuclear weapons and an active nuclear arms program.

 

Both Israel and the United States declare that Iran is not capable of producing nuclear weapons, yet the sanctions loom as punishment for non-compliance with the zero rule. Iran’s nuclear technology projects include the production of atomic energy and the creation of a research reactor for medical use.

 

SECONDLY

Congress is willfully obstructing progress by cleaving to the zero enrichment demand in accordance with the wishes of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while the red line adopted by the U.S. president and the Pentagon is simpler: No nuclear weapon. Past breakthroughs that would have led to reductions in Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium have been forfeited thanks to congressional stonewalling.

 

THIRDLY

President Obama cannot do much that is risky in an election year, but he cannot do much of anything at all if Congress doesn’t allow him negotiating power he needs to let Iran comply. He missed his easier chance when there was a Democratic majority in Congress. Sanctions are about to get worse according to plan.

 

If Iran agrees to submit to transparent inspections, they should get to enrich uranium to the internationally agreed upon (and unusually restrictive) 20 percent. The president must be empowered to lift the sanctions and to halt the issuance of further sanctions in exchange for this.

 

Do the math: Zero nuclear technology allowance plus zero inspection requirement equals planned failure. Planned failure points to a military attack on Iran.

 

What’s a person to do?

 Let’s say I locked the exits on those two movie theaters and forced both groups to come up with a plan of action based on suggested ideas.

 

They could conjure ways to show politicians and voters how diplomacy is preferable to war. After the negotiations in Moscow, they could band together and write a public letter to the president urging long-term diplomacy with Iran and asserting that sanctions should be lifted in exchange for inspections. They could be audacious and call a meeting with high-level officials.

 

But maybe some people refuse to act due to reasoned cynicism. They know too much. Reality check? New sanctions have passed in both the House and Senate. According to govtrack.us, the bill has a 42 percent likelihood of being enacted. The drumbeat in Congress for zero enrichment is growing stronger, raising the question of whether the talks are designed to fail so interested parties can benefit. The President could lose leverage, but maybe he wants it that way! Iran’s predictable reaction to the sanctions is to threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, the passage through which a large percentage of the world’s oil supply moves, determining global oil prices and, therefore, the state of the world’s economy.

 

But it’s the bad news that gets the shakers moving. My guess is American ingenuity would triumph in both movie houses, and innovative solutions would roll. People just have to know that the power is in their hands.

 

 

On the Ballot: jobs, public services, taxes, military spending

iPay | Military Budget Wonders (Photo credit: celine nadeau)

By Cole Harrison, Massachusetts Peace Action

Massachusetts Peace Action is an important part of a coalition of Massachusetts community, labor, and peace organizations that are now working to put a non-binding referendum on the November ballot in districts across Massachusetts.

Called the “Budget for All Referendum”, the public policy question or referendum addresses jobs, public services, taxes, military spending, and the Afghanistan war. It is named the “Budget for All” (B4A) after the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ anti-austerity budget proposal which received 82 votes in the House of Representatives in March. Five Massachusetts members of the House voted Yes on the B4A – but five more voted No. The referendum campaign will increase pressure on those five to support next year’s CPC budget.

The case for the Budget for All was recently strengthened by a recent study.  The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, has regularly published figures showing that U.S. military spending is a poor job creator – generating fewer jobs than the equivalent amount of spending on education, healthcare, green projects, or even tax cuts.   Now, “Military Spending and Jobs in Massachusetts,” by PERI author Heidi Garrett-Peltier and Peace Action’s Prasannan Parthasarathi, shows that the same is true in the state of Massachusetts – more jobs would be created in the state if military spending were instead used to bolster schools, healthcare, transportation, and the environment.

The Budget for All coalition is an outgrowth of last fall’s Super Committee fight, when Massachusetts housing, labor, human service and peace groups joined to prevent Senator Kerry from making a bad deal with budget-slashing Republican zealots.  It also continues the work of the 25% Campaign which has called for cutting the military budget 25% to adequately fund human services and jobs creation.

The coalition’s housing and community groups are strongest in Boston and some other urban areas, while Mass. Peace Action and its peace movement allies bring depth in suburbs and small towns.  The campaign is also helping Peace Action mobilize its supporters statewide behind a common project.  With our work on this project, Peace Action is solidifying our alliance with groups whose fight against militarism and austerity is a matter of survival – an alliance which will continue to strengthen our agenda in the years to come.   We are also building our capacity to engage in electoral work.

We expect the question will be on enough districts to give some 750,000 Massachusetts voters the opportunity to vote on the question in November.  In the fall, we’ll be campaigning for a “Yes” vote with educational events, rallies, and discussions in the media and in spring 2013 we’ll take it to the State House.

The question reads:

Shall the state Representative (or Senator) from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon the Congress and the President to:

1. Prevent cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits, or to housing, food and unemployment assistance;

2. Create and protect jobs by investing in manufacturing, schools, housing, renewable energy, transportation and other public services;

3. Provide new revenues for these purposes and to reduce the long-term federal deficit by closing corporate tax loopholes, ending offshore tax havens, and raising taxes on incomes over $250,000; and

4. Redirect military spending to these domestic needs by reducing the military budget, ending the war in Afghanistan and bringing U.S. troops home safely now.