Thursday, January 8, 2009

Obama prepares sweeping cuts in social programs
art: beinart
8 January 2009

Barack Obama took the occasion of his first press appearance in Washington as president-elect to declare his determination to impose policies of budgetary austerity, including the elimination of entire federal programs and cost-cutting in the entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that are of vital importance to tens of millions of elderly and poor people.

Obama announced his appointment of Nancy Killefer, a director at the management consulting firm McKinsey & Co., to a new White House post of chief performance officer. Killefer, a Treasury official in the Clinton administration, will be in charge of setting performance standards for federal agencies and enforcing them on agency officials. Those programs that fail to meet these standards will be targeted for reorganization or elimination.

The president-elect made the statement on the eve of a speech Thursday in which he will make the case for a proposed stimulus package. It was a clear effort to appease both congressional Republicans and the sizeable faction of fiscal conservatives among the congressional Democrats, reassuring them that while unlimited funds are to be provided to bail out big business, there will be a tight rein on spending for programs that support the needs of working people.

Obama's remarks on Wednesday shed light on the basic character of his stimulus plan, which is tailored to the demands of the financial and corporate elite and will provide hundreds of billions in additional public funds to prop up corporate profits, while doing little to provide relief for tens of millions of working people facing the deepest slump since the Great Depression.

Obama noted the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate released Wednesday that the federal deficit for the current fiscal year will top $1.2 trillion, without counting any additional spending for the economic stimulus plan that the Obama administration and Congress will enact after his inauguration. "Trillion dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come," he warned, declaring that containing the deficit and putting the lid on federal spending must become "fundamental principles of government."

When a reporter from the Wall Street Journal asked about Medicare and Social Security, noting that these were among the largest federal expenditures, Obama replied, "We are beginning consultations with members of Congress around how we expect to approach the deficit. We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part, of those plans." He added that once the stimulus package was adopted, by mid-February, "we will have more to say about how we're going to approach entitlement spending."

These remarks and comments by Democratic congressional leaders are a warning of what is to come: a frontal assault on the most important components of what remains of a social safety net in the United States—the programs that provide at least minimal retirement benefits and medical coverage for tens of millions of elderly people, as well as medical coverage for millions of low-income families.

While both Social Security and Medicare are solvent, currently taking in more tax revenues than they pay out, the Social Security Trust Fund, which represents the accumulated contributions of three generations of working people, has been effectively plundered to pay for the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars and the immense US military establishment.

Out of $10.7 trillion in total federal debt, about 40 percent, or $4.3 trillion, is borrowed from Social Security. The Trust Fund is the largest holder of federal debt, followed by US private investors, who hold $3.4 trillion, and foreign investors, many of them governments, who hold $3 trillion.

The CBO figure of $1.2 trillion likely underestimates the current year's deficit by a significant amount. It includes nothing for the stimulus package which has yet to be spelled out in detail by the incoming administration, and assumes no emergency spending to finance Obama's promised buildup of US military forces in Afghanistan. Reuters reported Wednesday that Obama's secretary of defense, Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, is requesting an additional $70 billion for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not counting the additional cost of a doubling of US forces to some 60,000 in Afghanistan.

The CBO estimates that the US unemployment rate, at 6.7 percent in November, will rise to 9 percent by the end of this year, although many economists project a rate of 10 percent or more. Double-digit unemployment would drive up spending on jobless benefits, food stamps and Medicaid, among other programs, swelling the deficit even further.

The CBO also placed the cost of the Treasury bailout of Wall Street at $180 billion in 2009, although Congress is expected to authorize an additional $350 billion on top of the $350 billion already expended since October. The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored mortgage finance companies brought down by the subprime mortgage crisis, will add another $240 billion to the deficit.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, echoed Obama's warning of trillion-dollar deficits for several years, as well as his pledge to tackle long-term problems in the financing of Social Security and Medicare. He told the press, "It would send a very healthy message to the markets and the American people if President-elect Obama were to simultaneously announce an economic recovery package and the beginning of a bipartisan process to deal with our long-term imbalances."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who has close ties to the right-wing faction of House Democrats, the so-called Blue Dogs, added his voice to the chorus calling for long-term deficit-reduction measures, going so far as to suggest that the Obama administration might have to follow the example of the Republican administrations of the 1980s, when White House budget officials engaged in across-the-board budget cuts by executive order, a process called "sequestering."

Congressional Democrats opposed sequestering 20 years ago, pointing out that there was no constitutional authority for such executive action without congressional authorization. It is a measure of how far to the right the Democratic Party has moved that one of its top leaders now embraces such a policy.

Robert Bixby, director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates fiscal austerity, provided an indication of what is being contemplated, saying, "I would analogize it to what the government is doing with the auto companies. Congress said, we'll give you the money but you have to show us a plan for sustainability." In return for emergency loans to the US auto companies, Congress demanded tens of thousands of layoffs, the closure of dozens of plants and draconian cuts in auto workers' wages and benefits.

Four years ago, George W. Bush began his second term as president by proposing a sweeping privatization of Social Security, a measure which was never formally introduced in Congress due to overwhelming popular opposition. The plan was quietly shelved after the debacle of Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the Bush administration's gross incompetence and utter indifference to the plight of poor and working class Americans. It has thus been left to Obama, who occasionally postures as the heir of Franklin Roosevelt, to take responsibility for dismantling the last legacy of the New Deal.

Patrick Martin



Protecting America's Jobs is a Bad Thing

Devvy Kidd

"Tell them (the South Carolinians who wanted to nullify the Tariff Act of 1832) that I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find." --President Andy Jackson

Did you know protecting American jobs is a bad thing for the banking cartels? So says one anti-American globalist:

"The $17bn bail-out of General Motors and Chrysler last month was already a step across the Rubicon towards a protectionist industrial policy, even if that was not the motive. The EU is exploring a World Trade Organisation complaint over "illegal state aid." But the latest Buy American move is much more explicit.

"This is quite dangerous," said Peter Sutherland, chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former director-general of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). "The US is the key to keeping a one-world trading system, but there is always the tendency to go for protectionism in a recession, and this is the worst one I've ever seen."

So, Americans must continue pushing paper for foreign companies and commie countries and buying their junk while our key industries that made this country the richest, most self-reliant and independent in the world, continue to go under - to protect a one world trading system? Agriculture, manufacturing and industrial -- all crippled and dying a slow death because of destructive trade treaties signed by Billy Clinton (NAFTA & GATT) and George Bush, Jr. (CAFTA) to keep a "one world trading system" operating. George Bush, Sr., spearheaded the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico; Billy was selected to continue the destruction. Obama is to cement the final stakes through the heart of this republic.

Goldman Sachs and Hank Paulson - In bed with your money: "Goldman Sachs cashed in under Paulson, with earnings in 2005 of $5.6 billion; Paulson made more than $38 million that year." These vile people are getting away with it because Americans continue voting the same crooks back to Congress who give people like Paulson unlimited power to rob you of all you've worked for and your children's future.

The day is coming when Americans will be reduced to rags and then the rage will spill over. Since these toxic "free trade" treaties went into effect, the trade deficit has skyrocketed, but most Americans have no idea what that means. They just continue voting back in the same unlawfully seated U.S. Senators who keep selling US out to foreign interests via trade treaties.
more - News With Views


  1. Our enormous trade deficit is rightly of growing concern to Americans. Since leading the global drive toward trade liberalization by signing the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, America has been transformed from the weathiest nation on earth - its preeminent industrial power - into a skid row bum, literally begging the rest of the world for cash to keep us afloat. It's a disgusting spectacle. Our cumulative trade deficit since 1976, financed by a sell-off of American assets, exceeds $9 trillion. What will happen when those assets are depleted? Today's recession may be just a preview of what's to come.

    Why? The American work force is the most productive on earth. Our product quality, though it may have fallen short at one time, is now on a par with the Japanese. Our workers have labored tirelessly to improve our competitiveness. Yet our deficit continues to grow. Our median wages and net worth have declined for decades. Our debt has soared.

    Clearly, there is something amiss with "free trade." The concept of free trade is rooted in Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage. In 1817 Ricardo hypothesized that every nation benefits when it trades what it makes best for products made best by other nations. On the surface, it seems to make sense. But is it possible that this theory is flawed in some way? Is there something that Ricardo didn't consider?

    At this point, I should introduce myself. I am author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." My theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline. This occurs because, as people are forced to crowd together and conserve space, it becomes ever more impractical to own many products. Falling per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

    This theory has huge ramifications for U.S. policy toward population management (especially immigration policy) and trade. The implications for population policy may be obvious, but why trade? It's because these effects of an excessive population density - rising unemployment and poverty - are actually imported when we attempt to engage in free trade in manufactured goods with a nation that is much more densely populated. Our economies combine. The work of manufacturing is spread evenly across the combined labor force. But, while the more densely populated nation gets free access to a healthy market, all we get in return is access to a market emaciated by over-crowding and low per capita consumption. The result is an automatic, irreversible trade deficit and loss of jobs, tantamount to economic suicide.

    One need look no further than the U.S.'s trade data for proof of this effect. Using 2006 data, an in-depth analysis reveals that, of our top twenty per capita trade deficits in manufactured goods (the trade deficit divided by the population of the country in question), eighteen are with nations much more densely populated than our own. Even more revealing, if the nations of the world are divided equally around the median population density, the U.S. had a trade surplus in manufactured goods of $17 billion with the half of nations below the median population density. With the half above the median, we had a $480 billion deficit!

    Our trade deficit with China is getting all of the attention these days. But, when expressed in per capita terms, our deficit with China in manufactured goods is rather unremarkable - nineteenth on the list. Our per capita deficit with other nations such as Japan, Germany, Mexico, Korea and others (all much more densely populated than the U.S.) is worse. My point is not that our deficit with China isn't a problem, but rather that it's exactly what we should have expected when we suddenly applied a trade policy that was a proven failure around the world to a country with one fifth of the world's population.

    Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage is overly simplistic and flawed because it does not take into consideration this population density effect and what happens when two nations grossly disparate in population density attempt to trade freely in manufactured goods. While free trade in natural resources and free trade in manufactured goods between nations of roughly equal population density is indeed beneficial, just as Ricardo predicts, it’s a sure-fire loser when attempting to trade freely in manufactured goods with a nation with an excessive population density.

    If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit either of my web sites at or where you can read the preface, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like. (It's also available at

    Please forgive me for the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph, but I don't know how else to inject this new theory into the debate about trade without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

    Pete Murphy
    Author, "Five Short Blasts"

  2. The loopholes that are there for the tax dodgers should be closed - but they will be the ones who donate large amounts to both Labour and Tory parties, so that isn’t going to happen - why are they not in the workhouse paying off their debt to society? Obviously they are not - they drink their champaign and scoff at the underclass and beg for new laws to quash and and all freedoms they have - “Let them eat cake” they cry in unison.