Confronting new realities in Washington

In Session
October 2001

Budget surplus evaporates under new spending demands
Confronting new realities in Washington—an interview with Network's Sister Kathy Thornton, RSM
Emergency spending approved in response to terror attacks, economic weakness
Fast track authority advanced as anti-terrorism measure
New farm bill debated
New military spending swiftly approved
Pressure for swift passage of new security measures

Confronting new realities in Washington
While commending the people of the United States and their president for the restraint that has been so far evident in the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, Sister Kathy Thornton, RSM, National Coordinator for Network, a Catholic social-justice lobby, now has to turn her attention to Washington"s new political dynamic and what it might mean to the issues her agency and other social-justice lobbies have been tracking in recent months and years.

A certain degree of "knee jerk' response to the crisis is to be expected, says Thornton. For instance, she was not surprised by the rush to approve massive spending to care for the victims, rebuild the Pentagon and New York, and prepare a military response. Also to be expected was the congressional resolution supporting the President in the event of a military retaliation.

"The initial response was a sort of acquiescence to whatever the administration proposed,' says Thornton. That response was reasonable given the need to demonstrate domestic unity and commitment in the face of the terrorist attacks, but it is a position that is not without its own perils in the long-term, says Thornton.

Now that the initial shock of this first airline assault on American soil has passed, Thornton says it is time to look more carefully at some of the measures coming out of Washington and more carefully decide how to pay for and distribute the emergency funds Congress has released to the President. Thornton plans to carefully follow the debate surrounding new domestic security powers being pushed through by a Congress eager to "do something' about terrorism.

Of particular concern is the, in Thornton"s opinion, too broad and open-ended resolution supporting whatever military measures the President determines to take. Noting how the resolution described the "new war' confronting the nation, Thornton says, "I hesitate to use that vocabulary. This ‘war on terrorism" is not like any war we"ve had before.

"I can certainly understand the need by Congress and the president for an immediate response based on the fear and anxiety experienced by everyone. There was a need for a quick response but to a different reality. This is more like fighting a virus than fighting a war.'

Meanwhile the renewed effort to approve "Fast Track' authority on trade negotiations, previously denied the Bush administration, may be evidence of the new dynamic Thornton now has to take into consideration in the aftermath of the attacks. A compromise currently being pulled together in the House of Representatives would allow the Bush administration broad negotiating power in devising a Free Trade Agreement for the Americas, similar to the controversial North American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, the United States, and Canada.

This new agreement would similarly construct a free trade zone throughout much of the Americas. Labor and environmentalists have long opposed "fast track' authority, arguing their concerns with worker rights, labor conditions, and ecological meltdowns would not be given a proper hearing unless Congress remains engaged in treaty making. Now, arguing that improved trade is an "anti-terrorism' measure since it would theoretically mean more jobs and less poverty in the hemisphere"s poorest nations, congressional supporters of fast track appear on the verge of pushing it through the House.

And in the coming months, upcoming fiscal budgets will likely take center stage as the nation confronts its new realities. The war on terrorism will have to be engaged while America grapples with a declining economy, rising unemployment, and all the problems it confronted before September 11. Thornton worries that a military buildup—the military budget has already expanded by 11 percent to $345 billion this fiscal year—may consume the nation"s discretionary spending resources before proper allocations can be made for education, health care, housing, or increasing unemployment benefits for the thousands who have been laid off in recent days across the country.

"We need money for the day after day suffering of poverty. If this is going to be a long-term commitment against global terrorism, that"s just one need, and we still have these other needs of the terrorism of poverty.'

Thornton also worries that the nation"s grief and anger over its traumatic losses does not lead to a return to an "old way of thinking' about how to respond to international crisis. "This is a new problem and it requires a new way of thinking . . . . We need a new vision of national security, a better vision of global harmony.

People in the U.S. have been saying that "everything has changed' since the attacks, says Thornton. What she would like to see changed is a vision see national security maintained through military might by one that envisions true security coming out of economic engagement that "lifts people out of poverty and promotes the common good.'—Kevin Clarke
Back to page top

Back to page top