The Nation magazine chose Cleveland as the city to illustrate the cost of the War in Iraq to one troubled city. The two-page spread [1] in the March 31 issue shows what could have been bought to meet public needs with $479.2 million, Cleveland’s share of the war cost.
“We chose here to highlight the tradeoffs the war has imposed on one working class city: Cleveland, Ohio. Cleveland has suffered more, in economic terms, than other parts of the country, but its experience is far from unusual,” the article said.
The total cost of the war to U. S. citizens is $522.5 billion (although some now put the actual long-term cost at $3 TRILLION.)
The display reveals that Cleveland has 22.2 percent of its population living in poverty. The rate for the nation is 9.8 percent. The child poverty rate is 41.9 percent compared to a U. S. rate of 18.3 percent. The unemployment rate for Cleveland is 16.1 percent compared to a 6.4 percent rate for the U. S.
With a striking graphic display the report shows what services $479.1 million cost of the war for Clevelanders could support in human terms. We could do all of these at the same time:
Homes with renewable electricity: 48,784; healthcare for children, 24,772 children; healthcare for adults, 14,601 people; Head Start places for children, 6,726; scholarships for university students, 5,390; added public safety forces, 1,045; port container inspectors, 899; elementary school teachers, 740; music and art teachers, 667; affordable housing units, 406; and new elementary schools, four.
The graphics used make a more powerful impact that the mere statement of the numbers, though they are shocking enough.
“The cost of the war to Cleveland,” it notes, “is based on Ohio taxpayers’ share of taxes paid into the federal funds budget, adjusted for Cleveland’s population and median household income.”
Hell, the $479.2 million could have bought us a medical mart and convention center with no borrowing!