While my friends at Lucianne.com were back-slapping over the "quick" victory in Iraq, I informed them that thanks to the incompetence of the Republican administration, a failure in every measurable area, the war in Iraq had been arranged in such a way that the AMERICAN TAXPAYER would foot the bill, almost exclusively, now and well into the future. Proper diplomatic preparations for war, involving the solicitation for and aquisition of United Nations support, would have distributed the financial burden, and alleviated much of the problems revolving around the legitimacy of the occupation force and sovereignty for the Iraqi people, which continue to bedevil Dubya and his neocons.
But that is not the half of it. Only by understanding the laissez faire nature of Republican political philosophy, what I call "Republicanism", can one understand why issues like the deficit do not overly concern Republicans.
Republicansim does not believe in governmental involvment in the social safetynet programs called "entitlements". They've convinced a large portion of the American people that SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, and other domestic social spending programs are something akin to WELFARE (which itself is a valid program of a different category, but which has negative connotations because the concept has somehow been twisted by modern Republicanism to be the cause of poverty rather than the effort to alleviate the condition), and that at best, the problems these programs address should be handled by church groups and private charities, perhaps with State-level help; at worst, suggesting that they are not needed at all.
So what happens when Republicans get hold of the purse strings? They will spend like mad on anything "defense" related (although this is inaccurate as well, since the spending skews toward massive spending on defense contractors with increased, but hidden, labor costs, who may or may not actually deliver anything (Star Wars, AKA Strategic Defense Initiative from the Reagan administration).
Republicans DO NOT CARE if there is massive RED INK, because, as this article points out, the spending ultimately places at risk DOMESTIC SOCIAL PROGRAMS, such as SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID and the like, which they DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYWAY.
Thus, deficit spending is quite IN LINE WITH REPUBLICAN'S STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES.
From David Firestone's fine article:
"When President Bush informed the nation last Sunday night that remaining in Iraq next year will cost another $87 billion, many of those who will actually pay that bill were unable to watch. They had already been put to bed by their parents."
"Administration officials acknowledged the next day that every dollar of that cost will be borrowed, a loan that economists say will be repaid by the next generation of taxpayers and the generation after that. The $166 billion cost of the work so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has stunned many in Washington, will be added to what was already the largest budget deficit the nation has ever known."
"The bleak choices now facing politicians and policy makers were hard to imagine when George W. Bush was inaugurated just 32 months ago, before the drastic turnabout of the federal budget. As the decade opened, the overheated economy of the 1990's had left the government with a flush of cash that seemed never-ending. There were 281 billion extra dollars in the budget that year, and the Bush administration, looking a decade ahead, predicted that a cumulative $5.6 trillion surplus would build up by 2011."
"The $8 trillion difference between those numbers has little precedent in American history. The long-term budget forecast has declined as much in the last two years as the total revenue collected by the United States government from 1789 to 1983."
Now, one might be tempted to say that all of this was beyond Dubya's control; it all "just happened".
I would point out that my point is made, not in the apparently "natural" fluctuations and peturbations of economic cycles, but in the REACTION to both the "surplus" and "deficit" scenarios.
Dubya, confronted with "surplus", determined it best to SPEND the surplus by "cutting taxes" (which is simply an uncontrolled, undirected form of government spending akin to casting seeds across the land, hoping they will sprout. Of course, "tax cuts" went mainly to the Corporate sector and very rich who are just as likely to move assets offshore as they are to reinvest in captital.). Why would not "surplus" be fenced and used to reinforce SOCIAL SECURITY, for example, in anticipation of the proverbial needs of the BABY BOOMERS AS THEY AGE? Because Republicans don't believe that the government should be doing that "FDR" thing in the first place. You know, they like to say it's "YOUR MONEY". Well, it is also "YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY" which you paid for and THEY ARE PUTTING AT RISK BY DEFICIT SPENDING. This doesn't bother rich people and large international corporations of course.
So, having said that, it is obvious why Dubya and company reacts the same to "surplus" as he does to "deficit". Putting entitlement programs at risk is not a Republican concern, because they don't believe in them anyway. Now individual Republican politicians may make gestures to appease their constituency, who are otherwise unaware of the Republican strategic agenda. However, the pattern is clear if one inspects the Republican track record and really listens to what they say.
Here is another example which makes my point. A Republican will not say they are against MEDICARE. Nor will they acknowledge that their planned implementations will undermine the FEDERAL PROGRAM in the long run, as it certainly will:
Medicare: Privatization is the key
By Ellen Beck
United Press International
Published 9/13/2003 10:33 PM
There is wide bipartisan support for adding an outpatient prescription drug benefit to Medicare, but the idea of further "privatization" in the Senate and House bills has opened a political rift between Republicans who support it and Democrats who insist it will destroy the 38-year-old social insurance program.
"It's a cold-hearted Republican attempt to kill Medicare without getting any blood on their hands or suits," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who in 1965 successfully fought for passage of the original Medicare program.
"The Republicans ... they are a fine congregation of snake oil salesmen ... but this is a wonderful example of shoddy merchandising," Dingell said."
"If we don't make some changes to the current Medicare program, it will go bankrupt," said Pat Morrissey, deputy staff director of the House Energy and Commerce committee, which helped push through the House Medicare bill."
"(It's) very modest reform," he told reporters at a Medicare update sponsored by the Alliance for Health Reform."
...
"Beginning in 2010, the House bill would make traditional fee-for-service Medicare compete with Medicare Advantage and private fee-for-service plans. The bill also would establish which U.S. service regions were "competitive," defined as at least two Medicare Advantage or enhanced fee-for-service plans having at least 20 percent penetration or the national penetration rate."
"In competitive areas, the program would set a benchmark for covering average costs, taking into consideration both fee-for-service Medicare and managed care plans. Beneficiary premiums would be determined by comparing plan bids and traditional Medicare rates to the benchmark."
"Traditional fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries would pay more for their Part B premium -- which now covers physician care and other healthcare services apart from inpatient care -- if the benchmark was lower. Beneficiaries would receive 75 percent of the difference if the benchmark came in higher."
Uwe Reinhardt, a Medicare expert and professor at Princeton University in New Jersey, told United Press International the GOP has long wanted to turn Medicare from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution program. That is what would happen if the government's subsidy was limited and tied to private plans, he said, adding the idea is to shift financial exposure from the wider base of all taxpayers, who pay for Medicare through payroll and general fund taxes, to the elderly who pay premiums."
Reinhardt said that type of change would "whittle away at the traditional Medicare program." He characterized the argument as being over "generational burden sharing."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who voted for the Senate bill, told ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sept. 7 he will not support the House version."
"If the Republicans insist on dismantling Medicare by their premium support provision that is included in the House bill, I will fight with every bit of energy that I have against that particular proposal because that will be the dismantling of the Medicare system, which Republicans have traditionally and historically wanted to undertake," Kennedy said."
Now, all of this is typically too complicated for the average American taxpayer to study. The Republicanism sounds good with its traditional "competition is good" and "laissez faire" logic.
However:
1. The objective of the competition in laissez faire capitalism is not standardized, universal service at a reasonable rate. The objective of competition is to defeat the competition, causing monopoly, thereby achieving more control of the market. In this case, Government programs, having universal health care as an objective, is pitted against Corporate programs with an eye toward short-term and long term profits. Government programs cannot compete against Corporate programs which always have some degree of selectivity over the population they serve and the services they provide. If the Corporation SHAPES THE HOST POPULATION in such a way that it serves only those who can pay additional fees, and who require less service, Government is relegated to the MOP UP operations for those who cannot afford the "SPECIAL SERVICE", AND WHO REQUIRE THE MOST CARE. ADDITIONALLY, GOVERNMENT REMAINS SADDLED WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO SUBSIDIZE THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WHICH WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE ADEQUATE PROFIT WITHOUT GOVERNMENT MONIES.
Once government is "defeated" as a competitor, the private sector Corporations have free rein to further SHAPE THE SERVED POPULATION and SERVICES PROVIDED, in order to MAXIMIZE PROFITS. The goal of standardized, universal services at a reasonable cost in NOT IN THE EQUATION. It is like selling "air for breathing" to a population when you have the monopoly on air.
2. Corporate America does not have American's best interest at heart. It has PROFITS at heart. Government programs are designed to help everybody. Corporate programs are designed to "help" those who can pay. And, once monopoly is achieved, profits can be further enhanced by SHAPING the served population, or the services provided, or both.
3. Private sector corporations make their money by " SHAPING" the population they serve. If your objective is PROFIT, then the desired population will be shaped to maximize profits, either by exclusivity or tailored service or both.
4. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS address social concerns which are inherently unprofitable, such as UNIVERSAL SOCIAL SECURITY, or the concept of UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Otherwise the Corporate private sector would already be accomplishing these things. The argument made in Republicanism is that government some how "gets in the way" of solving these problems. The truth is that where private sector Corporations get involved, there would be no profit without the governmental mechanisms for universal taxation, and the application of governmental subsidies therein derived.
6:21:21 AM 
|
![Subscribe to "Ghost Dansing Comments [Radio Weblog]" in Radio UserLand.](http://radio.weblogs.com/0128215/images/xmlCoffeeCup.gif){kind=small}
