In The United Kingdom, Austerity Made It Harder To Reduce The Deficit

The United Kingdom’s breathless pursuit of austerity under Prime Minister David Cameron was aimed sparking economic growth and reducing deficits. Three years after the conservative government began its deficit reduction efforts, though, it has failed to do both. Britain is now on the brink of its third recession in four years and its economy is still smaller than it was when the Great Recession began.

Persistently high unemployment and that lack of economic growth — caused by fiscal contraction — have left the UK far short of its deficit reduction goals, as this chart from the Wall Street Journal shows:

In 2010, Cameron and finance minister George Osborne projected that their austerity package would by now have reduced deficits from 4.8 percent of the economy to just 1.9 percent. At the beginning of 2013, the deficit stood at 4.3 percent. Still, Osborne and Cameron remain committed to austerity, with Osborne telling the BBC last week, “You can’t get out of debt crisis by borrowing more and more.” But Britain doesn’t have a debt crisis — its borrowing costs are at historic lows. It has an unemployment and growth crisis that a growing number of economists are begging the conservative government to address.

That should be a lesson to lawmakers in the United States, which emerged from the Great Recession in better shape than its friends across the Atlantic because it chose to stimulate the economy instead of cutting spending. Congress is committed now to a similar path of deficit reduction, even though countries that have tried it have entered an austerity death spiral — as they attempt to reduce deficits, they instead reduce growth and inhibit their ability to reduce deficits. The U.S., like Britain, is nowhere near a debt crisis. Still, lawmakers are insistent on cutting spending, even though unemployment is still high, spending has plateaued, and fiscal contraction has already hampered America’s tepid economic recovery.

View the original article here

Vice President Biden and Attorney General Holder Announce Grants to Help Reduce Domestic Violence Homicides

The White House

Office of the Vice President

12 Cities and Counties Receive Grants as Part of New Evidence-Based Prevention Initiative

WASHINGTON, DC – Vice President Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder today announced grants to twelve programs across the country to target the urgent need to reduce domestic violence homicides.  On average, three women a day die as a result of domestic violence.   Research shows that women whose partner threatens them with a gun or other weapon are 20 times more likely to subsequently be murdered than other abused women.  Moreover, children, coworkers, neighbors and police officers are also killed as a result of domestic violence. From 2009 to 2012, 40 percent of mass shootings—those with four or more victims killed—started with the shooter targeting their girlfriend, wife or ex-wife. 

In total, the Department of Justice will award $2.3 million to twelve sites across the country as part of the new Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Demonstration Initiative (DVHP Initiative).  The DVHP Initiative, created by the Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), helps state and local jurisdictions reduce domestic violence homicides by effectively identifying potential victims and monitoring high-risk offenders.  The DVHP Initiative is modeled after programs in Massachusetts and Maryland, where the use of coordinated teams of law enforcement, prosecutors, health professionals and victims services significantly reduced the domestic violence homicide rate. 

“Every single day in America, three women die at the hands of their boyfriend, or their husband, or their ex-husband. Many of these women have been threatened or severely abused in the past. We know what risk factors put someone in greater danger of being killed by the person they love – and that also means we have the opportunity to step in and try to prevent these murders. That’s why these grants are so important. They’ll help stop violence before it turns deadly,” said Vice President Biden.

“Domestic violence is a devastating crime – and it claims far too many lives each and every day,” said Attorney General Holder.  “With today’s grant announcement, we are strengthening our ability to fight back more effectively – and aggressively – than ever before.  And we’re supporting the kinds of evidence-based domestic violence homicide prevention models that will allow us to reliably predict potentially lethal behavior, take steps to stop the escalation of violence and save lives.”

The Vice President and Attorney General announced the grant awards at the Montgomery County Executive Office Building in Rockville, MD, where they were joined by dozens of Maryland law enforcement officers who have been at the forefront of domestic violence homicide prevention efforts in that state.

“While the statistics seem overwhelming, we are not helpless in the face of these terrible crimes,” said Acting Director of the Office on Violence Against Women Bea Hanson. “We hope this evidence-based initiative to reduce domestic violence homicide is a breakthrough in preventing murders and serious injuries across the country.”

The new DVHP Initiative is based on an assessment tool that researchers have identified that can be used to reliably recognize women who may be in fatally abusive relationships.  Attempted strangulation, threats with weapons, sexual assault and obsessively jealous and controlling behavior are among the markers of particularly lethal abusers.  Once at-risk victims are identified, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts and service providers can take action to protect them and their families. 

Since passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994, annual rates of domestic violence have dropped by more than 60 percent, but more work remains to reduce the most serious of this violence.  OVW is partnering with the National Institute of Justice to rigorously monitor the implementation of the initiative and evaluate its outcomes. OVW is also working with national experts to provide technical assistance to the demonstration sites. 

The demonstration sites, each receiving one-year awards ranging from $100,658 to $200,000, are: Contra Costa County, CA; Miami-Dade County, FL; Palm Beach County, FL; Rockdale County, GA; Winnebago County, IL; City of Boston, MA; Borough of Brooklyn, NY; Westchester County, NY; Pitt County, NC; Cuyahoga County, OH; City of North Charleston, SC; and City of Rutland, VT.  After the 12-month assessment phase, up to six of the demonstration sites will be selected to continue a three-year implementation phase.

Click HERE for the fact sheet the Obama Administration’s commitment to reducing domestic violence homicides.

Click HERE for the fact sheet on the link between common sense efforts to reduce gun violence and preventing domestic violence homicides.

Director of the National Economic Council Gene Sperling outlines the economic case for a fair, effective and common-sense immigration system that strengthens our economy and the middle class.

The First Lady met today with the Business Roundtable to talk about Joining Forces, her initiative that supports veterans and military families.

As part of our Sunshine Week series, Macon Phillips discusses We the People.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

The United States Should Reduce Its Nuclear Arsenal

(Photo: AP)

In his State of the Union address last night, President Barack Obama referred to the need to reduce the force structure of our strategic military systems by cutting the number of deployed nuclear weapons. Press reports over the last year have indicated that military and civilian leaders have settled on a plan to reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons by one-third, to between 1,000 and 1,100, down from 1,700. President Obama should push for such a reduction, which would follow the practice of his predecessors and improve our national security. As the Center for American Progress has argued for the last decade, this move makes sense both strategically and fiscally, and is long overdue.

When President George W. Bush entered the White House in 2001, he moved to cut our stockpile of nuclear weapons—which at that time numbered about 6,000 to the lowest-possible number consistent with our national security. The president offered to make these cuts unilaterally, but Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted the reductions codified in a treaty that would limit deployed nuclear weapons to less than 1,500 warheads for each country. In 2002, under pressure from Russia, President Bush agreed to a legally binding accord the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, or SORT—which stated that both sides will limit their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons each.

Subsequently, in 2010 President Obama negotiated a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, with Russia that calls for reducing each country’s number of deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 by 2018, but places no limits on the total number of warheads, which now number 5,000. This was an impressive and welcome achievement. But analyses by the Air War College, Gen. James Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and commander of U.S. Strategic Command; and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) all argue that these numbers of deployed and reserve nuclear weapons and warheads are far more than the United States needs for the purpose of deterrence in the 21st century.

Analysts at the Air War College argue that the United States can achieve deterrence with a total nuclear force (deployed and reserve) of 300 weapons, while Gen. Cartwright believes a total of 800 (400 deployed and 400 in reserve) would be sufficient.

These reductions would result in substantial savings. The United States currently spends about $55 billion a year to maintain its triad of nuclear-capable bombers, land-based ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Moreover, if the United States wants to refurbish, repair, and modernize its existing nuclear arsenal in its current size, we will have to spend about $600 billion over the next decade. Adapting the Cartwright plan would save approximately $120 billion. Depending on the specifics of its implementation, even President Obama’s more moderate target could save tens of billions over the next decade. Additionally, reducing our nuclear footprint will reduce long-term maintenance costs and reduce the risks of theft or mishandling of nuclear material.

Given the pressure that all government expenditures will face over the next decade due to our fiscal problems, maintaining our current oversized nuclear arsenal is unnecessary, unaffordable, and unwise. The savings from reducing our nuclear arsenal can be used for either more pressing national security priorities or to pay down the national debt. This is why the Center for American Progress has advocated for reductions to our nuclear spending for nearly a decade and why we fully support President Obama’s planned reductions.

Lawrence Korb is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

View the original article here