9 November 2009 By
Shamus Cooke
The United States is
moving backwards…fast. State
budget cuts are decimating essential
health and social services; public education is being
destroyed; the
social
safety net is in tatters. To make
matters worse, all of this is occurring when the loss
of jobs stands at a twenty-six year high with no end
in sight.
But this is only
phase one. The federal government intends to balance
its books too, at the expense of society’s neediest.
Instead of governors presiding over painful cuts, the
President will be doing the gutting. And although his
proposed budget isn’t due until February, the
President’s spokespeople are priming the media to play
a major propaganda role in what will be a colossal
blow against working and poor people.
Obama’s Treasury
Secretary, Timothy Geithner, has been particularly
busy promoting the future cutbacks, repeating that
“the country must live within its mean;” “deficits
must be brought down dramatically” — something that
will “require very hard choices.”
What are these hard
choices? One possible option is no longer available.
The biggest annual deficit producer is the
U.S.
military, which Obama will not radically
reduce. Instead, he will increase it; Taxpayers will
pay $660 billion (!) in 2010 toward the military. And
maybe more — military commanders see more fighting in
the future, not less; consequently, they want more
money. The New York Times reports: “…Admiral. Mike Mullen, the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not say how
much additional money would be needed, but one figure
in circulation within the Pentagon and among outside
defense budget analysts is $50 billion.” (November 4,
2009).
Senate
Democrat
John Murtha thinks only $40 billion
extra will do the trick, making the
military budget an even $700 billion for
2010.
A different “hard
choice” that could fix the deficit is to drastically
raise taxes on the very wealthy. To this end, Obama
has made the wholly-inadequate pledge to “roll back
the
Bush tax cuts.” Taxing the super-rich
an extra 4 percent isn’t going to do the trick;
not even close. At bare minimum, their taxes should
be raised an additional 35 percent, to the pre-Regan
level. But Obama would never propose such an idea.
The solutions Obama
has proposed are the ones that Geithner is
actually referring to when he says “very hard
choices.” Last January, Obama told the conservative
Washington Post that, to lower deficits, he would
“reform
entitlement programs” — social security,
Medicare, etc. Reform in this case means to
eliminate, or drastically reduce. The
Washington Post reports:
“President-elect
Barack
Obama pledged yesterday to shape a
new
Social Security and Medicare "bargain"
with the
American people, saying that the
nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be
attained unless the government finally gets control
over its most costly entitlement programs.”
When will this
happen? The Post answers: “[the] administration will
begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and
long-term budget deficits soon after it
jump-starts job growth and the stock market.”
(January 16, 2009). The upward swing in the stock
market gave Geithner the green light to begin his
anti-entitlement public relations campaign.
By choosing not
to drastically reduce military spending and not
to greatly increase taxes for the super rich and
corporations, Obama will have few other options: the
federal deficit is too high, especially after the
Bush/Obama
bank
bailouts.
These bailouts,
combined with decades of reduced taxes for the very
wealthy, created the conditions that led to our
“deficit crisis.” The solution that Obama is
proposing will further devastate millions already
suffering from unemployment, unlivable wages, and
little
hope for the future.
It can be further
presumed that, while Obama is getting the U.S.
“financial house in order,” the
Federal
Reserve will assist by increasing
interest rates — something demanded by U.S. foreign
creditors — thereby significantly risking cutting into
Wall Street's most recent profits and opening up the
possibility of transforming our Great Recession into
another full-blown depression.
This is not a matter
of “if,” but “when.” The imbalances in the U.S.
economy are too massive; a giant “restructuring” must
take place. The bank bailouts merely intensified the
already enormous economic contradictions. Who pays
for this restructuring will shape the future for years
to come. As Obama implements his anti-worker plan, he
will encounter tremendous resistance. The once-loved
President will leave office more hated than Bush.
Once the Obama
illusion is completely shattered, workers can begin to
act independently. We must demand that the corporate
elite pay for the crisis they created. Their efforts
to push this crisis onto us must be fought at every
step. This can be done by clearly articulating our
solutions to the crisis — taxing the super-rich and
the corporations, a massive public works campaign, and
ending foreign wars (for starters) — and promoting
these ideas through local and national coalitions of
labor unions, community groups, students, the
unemployed, etc. If we are united and fighting for a
clear
vision of the future, we will win. If we
rely on the Democrats to solve this problem our fate
is sealed.
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade
unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org).
He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com Comments 💬 التعليقات |