Never raise taxes!
The GOP caucus in the House of Representatives will only be mollified if taxes on the wealthy are cut even more. Further, to reduce Government debt, they demand most cuts to the budget have to come from non-Defense spending, especially programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and food stamps (SNAP) that benefit the middle class and poor, but are unnecessary to the wealthy.
No one seems to be in charge in the House. Speaker Boehner's odious "Plan B," which would have been unacceptable to Democrats and the President, was an attempt to mollify the right-wing extremists in the GOP; still, it didn't pass Boehner's own caucus: it raised taxes on millionaires.
No one is in charge. The President's re-election, an increase in the Democratic minority in the House and of its majority in the Senate, makes no difference within the Republican caucus. This is because the House majority won convincingly in their gerrymandered districts (drawn by state majorities won in the Republican landslide of 2010). Despite receiving fewer votes overall than Democratic Congressional candidates, GOP Congressmen fear, not Democrats--their districts were drawn to be majority Republican--but members of their own party "primarying" them from the right, if they don't follow an extreme right-wing agenda. That means cutting taxes on the wealthy and sticking it to the people Romney tried to stigmatize as the dependent 47% (more like 52%).
The House majority of a majority therefore refuses to compromise, because they'd lose next time round to right-wing challengers if they did. A more moderate majority--of Democrats and pragmatic Republicans--might exist in the House, in theory. However, the majority's leadership controls the House's business, and it's likely that Boehner would block a pragmatic bipartisan majority's proposals from a vote--unless he's willing to risk his Speakership for real statesmanship. That's unlikely.
Therefore, an ideological minority (the House GOP caucus majority) refuses, as of 12/20/12, to allow any tax increases on the wealthy and won't back down from demanding large cuts to social programs, either. So, we could start sliding down the fiscal slope.
Radical Republicans appear truly determined to replay what happened in the Roman Senate in 476, when Roman Senators refused to raise taxes on themselves, and preferred to allow the takeover of the German (Ostrogothic) palace guard. That precipitated the Fall of Rome.
In 2013, taxes will automatically go up--for everyone. Then, if Republicans don't agree to cut taxes on everyone but the wealthy, they will probably cause a renewed recession. Yet, they were the ones who demanded this so-called "fiscal cliff" to cut the debt. Under that default plan, there would be more cuts to the Pentagon than to domestic spending, and entitlements wouldn't be touched. That's why I hope there isn't a bipartisan "grand bargain," except on the above tax "cuts."
Either Republicans have slashed their own throats, or everyone else's as well: welcome to European-style austerity and recession.
Showing posts with label Pentagon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pentagon. Show all posts
Friday, December 21, 2012
Monday, December 5, 2011
Job Destroyers II
In a previous post, I wrote that CEO's and takeover specialists like Mitt Romney are the very opposite of job creators: they are job destroyers when they lay off workers, "downsize," pit American workers against foreign workers and "offshore" jobs.
The banks are job destroyers, too, as is the Pentagon.
The banks provide capital to enable CEO's to offshore, for example, and loot industries through the kinds of scams that brought about the derivatives collapse. That particular scam, precipitated by the sub-prime implosion, dried up the booming construction sector, killing many more jobs. Banks also finance the corporate takeovers that cause companies to shed thousands of jobs. They promote these job-killing programs, because they can make handsome profits from them.
The Pentagon is also a job destroyer. That may sound strange, because politicians, especially those with defense industries or military bases within their districts, instantly complain that area jobs will be lost when anyone proposes cuts to defense programs.
The economic principle here is 'opportunity cost.' Numerous studies have found that defense jobs require twice as much capital per worker as non-defense jobs; they are capital intensive. They also don't produce things that enrich the nation; they produce instruments for destruction, mostly for use elsewhere. Incidentally, the move to legalize indefinite detention or assassination of American citizens in the US might mean that the destruction we finance could be our own.
In any case, it costs twice as much to employ a defense worker, or a soldier, as it does to employ a non-defense factory worker and three times as much as employing a teacher or healthcare worker. In some cases, the opportunity cost is much higher: a soldier in Afghanistan costs $1 million a year; it's probable that same million could employ ten teachers. The non-monetary cost is even greater: teachers educate the next generation, soldiers kill people abroad, or terrorize them, or, at best, help foreigners maintain security in their own countries. Meanwhile, children at home are crammed into larger and larger classes, getting less and less of the attention and help they need.
What benefits do we get for sending our military all over the world? Oil is probably cheaper here because of it, but think of what it costs us to accomplish that: three quarters of a trillion dollars a year. Walmart gets its goods mostly from China, where we don't have military influence, but perhaps imported goods would be costlier if there were no global American military presence.
Considering the effect cheap imports have had on our economy and our jobs, I rest my case: the military destroys millions of jobs.
Who benefits? The military brass and the owners of defense industries: the latter are our contemporary Roman Senators, described by the OWS as "the 1%."
Republicans call them "job creators!"
The banks are job destroyers, too, as is the Pentagon.
The banks provide capital to enable CEO's to offshore, for example, and loot industries through the kinds of scams that brought about the derivatives collapse. That particular scam, precipitated by the sub-prime implosion, dried up the booming construction sector, killing many more jobs. Banks also finance the corporate takeovers that cause companies to shed thousands of jobs. They promote these job-killing programs, because they can make handsome profits from them.
The Pentagon is also a job destroyer. That may sound strange, because politicians, especially those with defense industries or military bases within their districts, instantly complain that area jobs will be lost when anyone proposes cuts to defense programs.
The economic principle here is 'opportunity cost.' Numerous studies have found that defense jobs require twice as much capital per worker as non-defense jobs; they are capital intensive. They also don't produce things that enrich the nation; they produce instruments for destruction, mostly for use elsewhere. Incidentally, the move to legalize indefinite detention or assassination of American citizens in the US might mean that the destruction we finance could be our own.
In any case, it costs twice as much to employ a defense worker, or a soldier, as it does to employ a non-defense factory worker and three times as much as employing a teacher or healthcare worker. In some cases, the opportunity cost is much higher: a soldier in Afghanistan costs $1 million a year; it's probable that same million could employ ten teachers. The non-monetary cost is even greater: teachers educate the next generation, soldiers kill people abroad, or terrorize them, or, at best, help foreigners maintain security in their own countries. Meanwhile, children at home are crammed into larger and larger classes, getting less and less of the attention and help they need.
What benefits do we get for sending our military all over the world? Oil is probably cheaper here because of it, but think of what it costs us to accomplish that: three quarters of a trillion dollars a year. Walmart gets its goods mostly from China, where we don't have military influence, but perhaps imported goods would be costlier if there were no global American military presence.
Considering the effect cheap imports have had on our economy and our jobs, I rest my case: the military destroys millions of jobs.
Who benefits? The military brass and the owners of defense industries: the latter are our contemporary Roman Senators, described by the OWS as "the 1%."
Republicans call them "job creators!"
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Strange (Congressional) Bedfellows
I called my newly elected Tea Party Congressman, today. I was surprised to discover: we share at least one important idea. If you're going to cut the government's budget, look to the Pentagon. "Yes," said his aide, "the Congressman has been thinking defense should\ be cut."
I would never have heard my former blue-dog Democratic Congress-people, either Scott Murphy or Kirsten Gillibrand, say anything like that. I always got back some mealy-mouthed answer about "supporting the troops."
I can't agree with cutting Head Start, WIC, or the home heating oil winter aid program proposed by the Republicans in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if Congressman Gibson is for all those cuts. And for cuts in Pell Grants, and aid to schools. Krugman called such cuts "eating our seed corn," which seems about right.
But politics is also the art of cultivating strange bedfellows. There is surprising support, apparently, among the new Tea Party Republicans, for cutting the Defense budget in order to cut the deficit. Obama, most Blue Dog Democrats and mainstream Republicans have all waxed eloquent about ruling out cuts from Defense--except for Gates' minimal recommendations: they support "the troops."
It seems rather hard to swallow, considering that Obama is also proposing to slash food stamps in half (from about $80 billion): the proposed Defense Budget is approximately $553 billion, and together with the separate budgets for wars and intelligence, it weighs in at almost $730 billion (nearly 3/4 of a trillion). For many years, the US has spent more money on Defense than all of the rest of the world combined. Are we safe yet? Why not cut Defense, even if you ignore the perennial findings of huge waste and accounting errors in the Pentagon?
Since Bobby Kennedy, there has been a strong anti-war wing in the Democratic Party, and it has become stronger, relatively, in this Congress, because so many blue dogs went down to defeat, while fewer antiwar Democrats lost their seats.
Now they have natural allies, not just in Ron Paul and Rand Paul, but in Congressmen like Gibson, who was elected as a Tea Party deficit hawk. I don't know if the Pauls supported Gibson, but like them, he's considering defense cuts. I hope he gets together with another Hudson Valley Congressman, Maurice Hinchey, the surviving anti-war Congressman in the region.
Amendments to the continuing resolution, proposed by Congressman Nadler and Polis, would cut the Defense budget by "cutting the empire," i.e. bringing home the troops from Afghanistan (budgeting only for the costs of withdrawal), and radically reducing the troops stationed in Europe.
We could begin our peaceful withdrawal from empire before we are defeated or driven bankrupt. Do we really want to follow Rome, Spain, the USSR? Why not emulate the British Empire's withdrawal (sometimes reluctant) from Asia and Africa? It would make more sense than cutting food stamps.
I would never have heard my former blue-dog Democratic Congress-people, either Scott Murphy or Kirsten Gillibrand, say anything like that. I always got back some mealy-mouthed answer about "supporting the troops."
I can't agree with cutting Head Start, WIC, or the home heating oil winter aid program proposed by the Republicans in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if Congressman Gibson is for all those cuts. And for cuts in Pell Grants, and aid to schools. Krugman called such cuts "eating our seed corn," which seems about right.
But politics is also the art of cultivating strange bedfellows. There is surprising support, apparently, among the new Tea Party Republicans, for cutting the Defense budget in order to cut the deficit. Obama, most Blue Dog Democrats and mainstream Republicans have all waxed eloquent about ruling out cuts from Defense--except for Gates' minimal recommendations: they support "the troops."
It seems rather hard to swallow, considering that Obama is also proposing to slash food stamps in half (from about $80 billion): the proposed Defense Budget is approximately $553 billion, and together with the separate budgets for wars and intelligence, it weighs in at almost $730 billion (nearly 3/4 of a trillion). For many years, the US has spent more money on Defense than all of the rest of the world combined. Are we safe yet? Why not cut Defense, even if you ignore the perennial findings of huge waste and accounting errors in the Pentagon?
Since Bobby Kennedy, there has been a strong anti-war wing in the Democratic Party, and it has become stronger, relatively, in this Congress, because so many blue dogs went down to defeat, while fewer antiwar Democrats lost their seats.
Now they have natural allies, not just in Ron Paul and Rand Paul, but in Congressmen like Gibson, who was elected as a Tea Party deficit hawk. I don't know if the Pauls supported Gibson, but like them, he's considering defense cuts. I hope he gets together with another Hudson Valley Congressman, Maurice Hinchey, the surviving anti-war Congressman in the region.
Amendments to the continuing resolution, proposed by Congressman Nadler and Polis, would cut the Defense budget by "cutting the empire," i.e. bringing home the troops from Afghanistan (budgeting only for the costs of withdrawal), and radically reducing the troops stationed in Europe.
We could begin our peaceful withdrawal from empire before we are defeated or driven bankrupt. Do we really want to follow Rome, Spain, the USSR? Why not emulate the British Empire's withdrawal (sometimes reluctant) from Asia and Africa? It would make more sense than cutting food stamps.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
MLK Hangover
When is an anti-war activist for a war? In the case of Martin Luther King, Jr., apparently, it's 43 years after his death. Yes, the Pentagon celebrated Martin Luther King Day. The address by the Pentagon's Counsel, a friend and classmate of MLK's son, didn't entirely elide King's opposition to the Vietnam war--and war in general-- but Johnson certainly tried to sugarcoat it for those listening. American soldiers as Good Samaritans:
"Those in today’s volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps have made the conscious decision to travel a dangerous road, and personally stop and administer aid to those who want peace, freedom and a better place in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in defense of the American people." (Jeh Johnson's Address to the Pentagon on MLK Day).
I would be the first to applaud the unusual military men and women who do "administer aid" in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but wanting "peace, freedom and a better place" in those war-torn countries is not the same as bringing peace. However, the military is brainwashed into thinking that it is.
American planes rain down destruction on both places, as do unpiloted drones in Pakistan and the border areas, Special Ops go out on night raids and kill people, some of whom are labeled "bad guys" after they are killed, while others are hauled off to hell-holes like Bagram, where they are mistreated and/or tortured. How does this bring "peace" and "freedom," how does this create a better place? Too often, innocents, including women and children are killed. Sometimes, Americans have even falsified the carnage afterwards to make it look as if the innocents were "insurgents," placing guns, or explosives paraphernalia near them to incriminate them after the fact.
So many observers have pointed out that every woman and child, every non-combatant killed, or detained in our notorious "black" prisons, creates dozens of supporters of the insurgency, even if many don't know what the insurgency is. Some go over to the other side even with their eyes wide open: they know the brutality of the Taliban, and its retrograde social policies, but they see the US/NATO as worse!
Their conclusion is justified, even if the Taliban are more intentionally brutal than US/NATO forces. It is the US/NATO presence that drives the war; its technology and money makes the destruction possible.
If MLK were alive now, he'd say 'let the Afghans choose their own way.' He'd also denounce the huge sums of money spent by the US on destruction (euphemistically labeled 'Defense.') He would point out, in his resonant voice, that all those hundreds of billions of dollars were snatched from the hands of babes, children, and our future, that if we spend on destruction, instead of education, we'll reap the whirlwind.
That's what the Romans did. They didn't even spend money on their famed roads, only on their 'volunteer' (mercenary) military. Look where that got them!
"Those in today’s volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps have made the conscious decision to travel a dangerous road, and personally stop and administer aid to those who want peace, freedom and a better place in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in defense of the American people." (Jeh Johnson's Address to the Pentagon on MLK Day).
I would be the first to applaud the unusual military men and women who do "administer aid" in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but wanting "peace, freedom and a better place" in those war-torn countries is not the same as bringing peace. However, the military is brainwashed into thinking that it is.
American planes rain down destruction on both places, as do unpiloted drones in Pakistan and the border areas, Special Ops go out on night raids and kill people, some of whom are labeled "bad guys" after they are killed, while others are hauled off to hell-holes like Bagram, where they are mistreated and/or tortured. How does this bring "peace" and "freedom," how does this create a better place? Too often, innocents, including women and children are killed. Sometimes, Americans have even falsified the carnage afterwards to make it look as if the innocents were "insurgents," placing guns, or explosives paraphernalia near them to incriminate them after the fact.
So many observers have pointed out that every woman and child, every non-combatant killed, or detained in our notorious "black" prisons, creates dozens of supporters of the insurgency, even if many don't know what the insurgency is. Some go over to the other side even with their eyes wide open: they know the brutality of the Taliban, and its retrograde social policies, but they see the US/NATO as worse!
Their conclusion is justified, even if the Taliban are more intentionally brutal than US/NATO forces. It is the US/NATO presence that drives the war; its technology and money makes the destruction possible.
If MLK were alive now, he'd say 'let the Afghans choose their own way.' He'd also denounce the huge sums of money spent by the US on destruction (euphemistically labeled 'Defense.') He would point out, in his resonant voice, that all those hundreds of billions of dollars were snatched from the hands of babes, children, and our future, that if we spend on destruction, instead of education, we'll reap the whirlwind.
That's what the Romans did. They didn't even spend money on their famed roads, only on their 'volunteer' (mercenary) military. Look where that got them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)