Obama's
Priorities: War and Profits Over People
by Chris Floyd
This article originally appeared in Counterpunch.
"Obama will let the great budget axe fall on what he and
political and media establishments are pleased to call ‘entitlements.'"
If you want a glimpse of the fundamental moral obscenity that
underlies our bold new era of hope and change, look no further than Barack
Obama's promise this week to "overhaul" Social Security and Medicare.
This effort to cut back on support for the sick, the old, the weak, the
unfortunate and the abandoned will be a "central part" of the new
administration's economic program, a linchpin of its struggle to curb federal
spending, Obama declared.
He pointed to a looming federal deficit of $1.2 trillion this year, with more
to follow, as urgent reasons to deal with "entitlement spending."
Given the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Bush Regime has already
given away in its no-strings bailout of selected corporate cronies, and the
hundreds of billions that Obama plans to spend on "economic stimulus"
(a large portion of which is going to "tax breaks" that will give, at
most, a few hundred dollars to people losing their jobs and homes and medical
insurance), it is imperative to get government spending under control, said the
president-elect. The New York Times described Obama's remarks as an
effort to offer "some soothing words to Republicans and the financial
markets" - two groups who certainly need special comforting in these
trying times.
The Times goes on to tell us helpfully that there is a threat that these
"entitlement programs" might "grow so large as to be
unsustainable in the long run." This is of course the same argument that
George W. Bush made after the 2004 election, when he sought to sell off Social
Security to those same "financial markets" that Obama is now trying
so assiduously to soothe. No doubt, we will soon see the old scare stories that
filled the media then trotted out once again, this time in "progressive"
garb. But the truth remains the same: the programs are essentially sound and
can be maintained with only relatively small adjustments for many decades, as
far as one can reasonably project into the future.
"This
is of course the same argument that George W. Bush made after the 2004
election, when he sought to sell off Social Security."
Yet it is here, on "entitlements," that Obama wants to make a
"tough stand" on government spending. It will be a "central
part" of his entire economic program. Getting "entitlements"
under control will be one of the first major campaigns of his administration,
he says, promising plans in February, just days after he moves into the White
House.
At the same time, he promises to expand - to expand - the
multi-trillion-dollar war machine that has literally bled the nation dry. He
wants to expand a military-industrial-security complex that already devours
more money and resources than every other military force on earth combined. He
wants more troops, more weapons, an ever-increasing "global strike
capability," an escalation of the endless, pointless "War on
Terror" in Afghanistan and Pakistan (for starters). He has never said a
single word about "curbing government spending" on this vast conglomerate
of death and destruction. He has not said a single word about rolling back even
a few of American military outposts that in their several hundreds now cover
the entire globe. At every point, it seems, government spending on the war
machine - including the tens of billions of dollars spent in secret each year
on the various tentacles of the "national security" apparatus - will
be increased under the Obama administration.
"Obama
promises to expand - to expand - the
multi-trillion-dollar war machine."
No "cutbacks" here then. No concerns that spending in this area
might "grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run."
Spending on death and domination is sacrosanct, the true "third rail of
American politics," and Obama is not going to touch it - except to augment
it. Instead, he will let the great budget axe fall on what he and political and
media establishments are pleased to call "entitlements" - a
weasel-word that conjures up images of welfare queens and lazy bums living
large and easy, in the belief that the world owes them a living. It is strange
how this description of the programs has gained such universal currency. Or
rather, it's not strange at all; think how differently we might perceive them -
and their recipients - if we spoke of them more straightforwardly, as, say,
"old-age pensions," "family support programs,"
"medical assistance programs," and so on. Instead, the use of such a
bland and abstract term distances us from the intent, and the reality, of the
programs. They are not helping sick people with medical bills, they aren't
supporting a widow or an orphan, or helping a retired couple or an injured
worker attempt to live with a modicum of dignity; no, they are just this
opaque, abstract thing out there, some kind of political football up
in Washington, to be "dealt with," "tackled" and
"curbed" by "efficient managers." Nothing human about them
at all.
It's true that the United States government is facing a severe and prolonged
budget crisis. But what does it say about the underlying moral philosophy of an
administration when its first target for budget cuts are programs
designed to help ordinary people - including the weakest among us? When it will
not cut a penny from a war machine that has only made the nation more and more
insecure over the long decades of its ascendancy, involving the American people
in an endless series of conflicts in which they have no business, and no
genuine national interests at stake? If urgent cuts in government spending are
needed, why would you not look first to this gargantuan swamp of waste
and corruption and dangerous meddling? Instead, Obama proposes to pour even
more money into it, and to increase the dangerous meddling.
The president-elect has made his fundamental priorities clear - for anyone who
wants to see them. The war machine and the financial markets will continue to
be gorged and comforted in their wonted manner. Programs to help ordinary
citizens, programs to enhance the quality of life for individuals and the
well-being of society, will be the first - perhaps the only - areas to feel the
budget axe. Whatever you may think of the efficacy of such programs, this
ordering of priorities -- war and profits over people -- bespeaks the same
depraved sensibility that has prevailed for generations in Washington. It is
the same old rancid swill in a stylish new container.
Chris Floyd is
an American writer, and frequent contributor to CounterPunch. His work can be
found on "Empire Burlesque" at www.chris-floyd.com.
Sexual issues were loudly debated among anti-colonial activists in the Dutch Caribbean colonies of Curaçao and Aruba, said Chelsea Shields, a history professor at the City Universi
Black women “posed a problem” for the Black government that replaced white rule in Zimbabwe, because their bodies were thought to “disturb urban space,” said Rudo Mudiwa, a PhD in
In the political hotbed that was Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in 1967, US Black Power advocate Stokely Carmichael, who had not yet changed his name to Kwame Ture, made both friends and enemies among th
The Black misleaders have been busy selling out Black people for half a century, but are still only barely tolerated by the rich man’s Democratic Party and its racist figurehead, Joe Biden.
The civil rights groups’ rather basic requests for voting rights protections and the need for federal intervention to address police brutality were minimized and dismissed by the president-ele
