CAN UNCLE SAM BE SAVED ? by The Cosmic Messenger

L ast week's "State Of The Union" address by President Bush in which he announced Social Security needed fixing, was a wakeup call for many working class citizens and retirees across America we may not be living in the same land Dorothy and her pet dog, Toto grew up in. The proposal to make the program voluntary violates core moral principles we learned in our youth and leaves some wondering about the level of humanness the man has for average people in the country. Equally important, the issue has initiated debate in families throughout the United States about what our domestic priorities should be and whether they can be fine tuned with adjustments to economic policy.

Advisors to the President appear adamant our deficit problems can be resolved by slashing as much federal spending on social programs as they think the public will tolerate. The wish list for the 2006 budget plan targets cutbacks to government services for people on food stamps and farmers on price supports, children under Medicaid and adults in public housing. Additional recommendations, disproportionately effecting working class Americans will be forthcoming but as is the case with this White House the requests are staggered and made tactically to diminish their significance on public perception. No one doubts Bush will try and downsize further monetary outlays for public education and domestic infrastructure in general. Despite this, realized savings are estimated to only be a paltry $20 billion of the $427 billion shortfall the country is now burdened with. Conspicuously absent from the 2006 plan are steps to cut military spending or rescind the tax cuts passed previously. Alone, the former expenditure represents a projected $419 billion output excluding war costs.

The budget blueprint recently unveiled reflects what this Administration's priorities are and how it assumes government can get the best return on its investment of capital. Gone are the notions the path to prosperity for Americans is by empowering them through education and supporting domestic systems designed to help achieve success. These concepts have been replaced with the Bush doctrine which believes the treasury is better utilized by laying out currency to assist transnational corporations in their global pursuit of whatever resources they wish to develop. Financial aid might come in several forms. The upside would be low interest loans to foreign local entrepreneurs or elected leaders for necessary improvements to schools, water and sewer systems. Other instances, less obvious but necessary to accomplishing the objective represent the downside and could include bribery or remodeling a government with representatives more compatible to the ambitions of a corporation. In theory, the more prosperous these global companies with roots in the United States become, the better off Americans will be as profits trickle back home allowing for increased domestic consumption.

There's nothing new about Bush's philosophy. It's a foreign policy based on economic imperialism by a larger nation state (U.S.) toward smaller, vulnerable countries (e.g. Iraq) using its capital to foster a dependent relationship between the two which the United States hopes to exploit for profit. The rationale is to identify a country such as Iraq whose natural resources (e.g. oil) can be refined, extend more credit to them than they could ever hope to repay and demand the oil fields as compensation if they fall behind or default on the loans. By controlling another country's assets in this manner, a steady revenue stream is insured to service our own debt or use to invest similarly in other countries which become vassal states in their relationship to us.

Bush and his oil friends have maneuvered themselves into just such a scenario. A new, struggling Iraqi government finds itself reliant on the financial good will of the United States. In return for its generosity, Iraq will be expected to maintain the price of oil at a tolerable level for the American economy and invest their petro dollars in our Treasury securities. It's been speculated by some pundits the reason we invaded Iraq is Saddam Hussein had decided to value the price of oil he produced in Euro rather than American dollars and invest the money elsewhere for a better return on investment.

Like all conniving schemes, they end when their victims grow weary of the servitude it imposes and seek alternatives. The relationship between the U.S. and Hussein was like that of a loan shark and his mark. It was willing to tolerate atrocities committed by Hussein against dissidents as long as the price of oil remained stable and in U.S. dollars whose value we determine. Our government had the best of both worlds, loaning money or trading arms to a despot at rates we set and the ability to control the price of oil, the most valued commodity globally. With the recent regime change in Iraq, the most obvious question to be answered will be whether the new government enters into a similar arrangement out of gratitude or try and assert its economic independence ? It's an issue in which resolve must be found soon as confidence in the global economy wavers perilously on the outcome. The U.S. dollar represents the world's reserve currency and was considered until recently to be the most stable. However, Middle East strife, declining U.S. industrial output, a diminished Treasury surplus and growing federal deficit have combined to make the dollar less attractive.

The reason Bush has proposed such drastic cuts to social programs is because his economic team operates under the assumption that reduced government spending in these areas in combination with low interest rates will demonstrate to financial markets both at home and abroad the administration is making a serious effort to diminish its budget deficit. But is federal spending on domestic social programs really the problem ? It's been pointed out by some economists the planned reductions don't significantly improve our financial liability and what's needed is to rescind the tax cuts passed previously and control military spending.

Further compounding the problem is many of the transnational corporations Bush presently works in conjunction with (e.g. Halliburton & subsidiaries) manage to evade paying business taxes totally by establishing offshore addresses to deprive the U.S. Treasury of revenue. It not only decreases the budget surplus but deprives the Social Security program of business contributions towards sustaining it as insurance for our elderly and disabled populations.

A modern, civilized society is judged by how successfully it balances the social and business needs of its participants. The United States, under Bush is failing this test because he's deliberately starved the government of the money to take care of its residents and wasted the surplus on adventurous foreign policy. The consequence has been a loss of confidence by global financial markets in our country as Bush refuses to work towards multilateral political or financial solutions. The risk of such inept decision making is foreigners with investments here will cash out collapsing the American economy totally. If Uncle Sam is to be saved along with its people, someone must step forward and convince Bush a stable global political/economic community requires compromise among nations; not some cowboy remaking it the way he
desires. American children and its seniors are counting on him to arrive at the right decision.

THE VISION THING ... by The Cosmic Messenger

For the past several weeks, the media has been mesmerized with attempts by the Bush administration to impose a puppet government in Iraq and mislabel it democracy while emphasizing the recent elections for evidence of success. As we begin this month, the focus shifts to the "State Of The Union" speech ensuring a smooth news transition from foreign policy to domestic initiatives while keeping before the public the President's agenda for his second term in office.

Regulated to insignificance, other than reporting its outcome, will be the vote to select the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee on February 12. Ahhhh .... if the Fourth Estate were to only grasp the parallel of this election with the one in Iraq, I'd have a reasonable expectation their coverage of issues wasn't just another media event to capture ratings.

A number of analogies are evident between what the corporate media has become and the state of the two dominant political parties in the United States today. The foremost is both believe top down business plans will lead to success in pursuing their objectives. This style of management adheres to a method which concentrates control of decisions among a select few managers at the upper echelons of an organization to be adopted by others below who unquestioningly obey their mandates. It's an autocratic approach which alienates varied discussion of situations to arrive at a fair solution and its application has been disastrous for Bush, Democrats and the hallways of journalism in recent years.

The Bush team tailored it to formulate both domestic and foreign policy based on rigid solutions rather than flexible responses to evolving conditions. Such a mode requires never admitting mistakes even though evidence may exist to the contrary. It viewed tragedy as a chance circumstance to advance a political agenda instead of arriving at a substantive solution in which agreement is reached after deliberative analysis based on wide-ranging opinions. Iraq and the tsunami catastrophe exemplify how Bush operatives have exploited opportunities to craft hollow policy based on a concealed order of business from public perception. Domestically, calls for reform employ the same evasive technique. Once the absolutist ideology has been contrived, it's handed off to a compliant Congress to gain acceptance through threat of punishment to dissenting voices representing their states. The Republican National Committee (RNC) facilitates these plans by devising strategies which reverberate the rationale and can be adopted by party leaders down through the local level.

Although this type of management model has created problematic designs for the President, the journalism industry hasn't been immune either in recent years due to the use of fear based governance within many newsrooms to relate to their employees. Both CBS News and the New York Times have experienced inept reporting by their representatives which allegedly was attributable to pressure from higher administrative officials within each organization to produce stories of monumental consequence. In the NYT case, one of their reporters was caught fabricating narratives while a CBS news team erred in its coverage of President Bush's military service record. Each instance illustrates how a rush to judgment, lack of staff scrutiny of the evidence and an irrational compulsion originating from above combined to compel professional news personnel to neglect checking the facts. More importantly, it attests to the style news corporations have adopted since deregulation which in some instances sacrifices quality and accuracy to present sensational reports to their audiences to attract interest.

Any wonder the election of a Democratic National Chairman is deemed less important than a Presidential address or voting in Iraq ? In the media's view, its news value isn't as vital as other events. One can only hypothesize why the DNC selection process on February 12 rates trivial to news executives. After all, the selection of its leader is as much about establishing a legitimate democracy in this country as Iraq. Why haven't reporters scrupulously analyzed this election and approached nominees in the same manner as those in Baghdad ? Shouldn't they make the public aware freedom in the United States depends on diverse political views too ?

The answer to these questions lie at the heart of what's emerged as the central debate among the candidates for the DNC leadership position. It's become a tug of war to choose whether the Democratic Party returns to developing a populist message from the bottom up or maintaining the corporate style, authoritarian approach utilized by outgoing Chairman Terry McAuliffe. Although the latter supervisory technique has remade the Democratic image into a corporate machine capable of raising enormous sums of money to compete with Republicans and feed the PR monster, it hasn't won elections for them. Since the DNC debate has focused on whether to maintain many of the same management practices currently in use by the corporate media today, it's not surprising news executives consider it an unmarketable commodity. A comprehensive analysis of the discussion by them would seem hypocritical and lead to introspective arguments among members of their industry advocating less distorted news reporting. Treating the DNC election as though it has little substance, a top down decision, enables them to conveniently sidestep internal discourse from within their own ranks and keep the profit margins flowing.

Those who value liberty in this country must recognize all political messages aren't being given equal time by the mediums who're obligated to do so. Simply providing a three to five minute Democratic response to a Presidential speech doesn't fulfill that responsibility. If Americans are to have an informed opinion about what democracy is, it must begin in the newsrooms of America since their daily reports shape how we perceive ourselves. As it is now, lack of staff discussion there reflects an alarming trend permeating the rest of our society which adheres to a belief organizations whether political or business, function better when a few people make all the decisions because they know what is best for everyone else. Subservience isn't democracy and can only lead to the types of errors seen recently when implementing foreign policy, competing for the Presidency or the manner in which news is reported when a broad exchange of views lack consideration.

For America to change its own vision, it must start with how our political parties and the media conglomerates treat their own members. They must allow freedom of dissent from below, signaling an openness to other ideas. From this will flow the principles of trust and honesty our country was built on and which we seem to have forgotten.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.