BEFORE TRIMMING THE BLOATED DEFENSE BUDGET
What is happening today in Washington is so predictable, it is sad. Nothing changes! Elections come and go. One party wins decisively, but as they did in Ancient Rome, the Optimates (read plutocrats, oligarchs, modern Republicans) are making a sneak end-run around the Populares (progressives, liberals, etc.) as they have since time immemorial to get their way. The end run is an attempt to get the administration to cut our admittedly skimpy entitlements and social safety net (one of the weakest and least effective in the modern industrialized world) while protecting the bloated, massive military budget (the largest in the world) from cuts. These reactionary forces plan to undermine a weak necessary program in deference to military expenditures which actually need trimming down from spending levels presently higher than what they were during the Cold War. We now spend on our military ( in equal dollars) more than what we had spent during the Cold War when we actually had a serious military threat--not the leather-sandaled, rag-headed local insurgency presently arrayed against us in ever-diminishings numbers.
The most recent example of this attempt to foist the burden to the poor and middle class is the Republican post-election push to balance the budget and overturn the sequester act that would force an approximately ten percent cut across the board on the budget--and an equal amount on both defense and non defense spending. The powerful defense contractors--those companies infamous for having historically overcharged the US for military material and services since the Revolutionary War--have run to their friends in the military and Congress. As the time nears for a decision they shout into the ears of their paid lobbyists, Senators and Congressman. "NO CUTS TO DEFENSE SPENDING!!!". Unfortunately, the recipients of Medicare, and Medicaid have no comparable powerful voice to support their cause (except for a few, hoary and courageous souls like Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont). What these "Optimates" are attempting is to satisfy their financial supporters in the industry and their own voter-rejected ideology. The defense they are interested in the the defense of military contractor profits.
Way back in May 10th of this year, Dean Baker, (US News and World Report, "Defense Budget is Mismanaged") who is no progressive himself, but a co-director of Center For Economic Progress, who has worked for the World Bank, and authored: "The End of Loser Liberalism". Baker had this to say about what the Republicans are up to. "The Republican budget proposals are designed to save the defense contractors profits not the defense of the nation." Baker poses this question: "Should we cut cancer research to pay for more bombers? This is the agenda of many Republicans, as we start to get closer to the date where the sequestration rules from a 2011 budget agreement will actually bite. The deal was structured so that the immediate budget cuts were limited. The big hit was scheduled to take place in January 2013. At that point, spending on both the military and discretionary portion of the federal budget were scheduled to fall by roughly 10 percent."
Baker notes that even if the "drastic " ten percent cuts the sequestration would impose on the Defense Department went into place, military spending will continue to be 20% HIGHER, in 2013, than it was back in 2000.
But some will say that cutting the admittedly bloated defense budget can not fix the economy because defense spending is just another form of "jobs program". That is true, but dollars spent on defense generate fewer jobs-per-expended-dollar than almost any other government spending. Investment in education for one, produces more jobs per dollar spent. (According to a University of Massachusetts at Amherst study, education spending produces almost three times the number of jobs per dollar spent compared to military spending.) Therefore cutting defense spending could actually help the jobs problem by moving funds from less "jobs incentive" defense expenditures into spending which actually produces more jobs per dollar spent.
In August 3, 2011, Fareed Zakaria wrote a Washington Post opinion piece concerning the sequester legislation and the possibility of a $60 to $70 billion dollar annual cut to defense spending, in which he concludes..."let the guillotine fall".
To support his contention Mr. Zakaria offered a concise history of our burgeoning defense spending. He states: "First, some history. The Pentagon’s budget has risen for 13 years, which is unprecedented. Between 2001 and 2009, overall spending on defense rose from $412 billion to $699 billion, a 70 percent increase, which is larger than in any comparable period since the Korean War. Including the supplementary spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, we spent $250 billion more than average U.S. defense expenditures during the Cold War — a time when the Soviet, Chinese and Eastern European militaries were arrayed against the United States and its allies. Over the past decade, when we had no serious national adversaries, U.S. defense spending has gone from about a third of total worldwide defense spending to 50 percent. In other words, we spend more on defense than the planet’s remaining countries put together.
Therefore, our best and the most just course forward seems to be this: FIRST cut military spending to levels that are in correspondence with our actual and theoretical future military threats. There is no question that just by eliminating waste and duplication we can save $70 billion to $100 billion dollars annually. Just cutting out a few of our unnecessary 900 or more military bases around the world (many in long ago pacified Europe fit that bill) could do that. Eliminating a few of our bases in Japan which is a veritable US national military outpost bristling with armaments, would accomplish that as well. No one wants to "hollow out" our military...but the US now alone spends more than all the other nations in the world combined. No one can match those expenditures. After all, who are our most threatening opponents? Are they not North Korea, or weak, economically unstable Iran? Do we have to maintain a huge military for these insignificant opponents? Hardly! That would be like raising up a bank-safe to drive a ten penny nail rather than a tack hammer.
It's time to face the facts of our over-stuffed, over extended, massive defense budget which was born during the World War, then grew to a monster during the long Cold War. Those days are over. Today we face different threats. Economic , infrastructure, health care and educational problems need our attention, both intellectually and financially in order for us to compete in the modern world. We can not adequately prepare for those problems and our future while sinking our wealth into wasteful, unnecessary military hardware and adventurism. Let's not continue to be a nation armed to the teeth and bulging with outdated and useless weaponry while the rest of the world quietly advances beyond us to financial and economic ascendency with investments in infrastructure, health care, education and energy technology.
Don't dare cut healthcare, cancer research, environment, education programs and infrastructure investments while leaving our defense expenditures to useless burgeoning growth. That course is a retreat into the past and ultimate defeat. Let's move ahead into the 21 century. Let us advance to compete----not to fight.
Get the picture?
rjk
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
WELCOME TO THE NEW AMERICA
The 2012 election, was a demarcation point in our political history, sandwiched between two politically cataclysmic events. One "bookend" was a disastrous super storm, the other a sex scandal in the military and CIA. The election established a new political coalition which swept away core Republican principles, changed our national perceptions regarding the need for responsive government, altered the nation's discussion regarding the validity of climatic change and its consequences, while the scandals in the military served to alter our nation's unrealistic perceptions about our military. The USA will never be the same. Welcome to the new America!
In 2012, America, a nation still reeling from the Great Recession of 2007-2008 went to the polls. Seemingly against the economic tide and all odds, the nation reelected a black man for President. The vote-count and analysis after the election reaffirmed that the electorate emphatically rejected the far-right political philosophy offered by the Republicans and the core principles of its ideology, one based on greed, stark individualism, 1980s Reaganism, Ryanism, Ayn Randism, and the denial of science and global warming. Then on the very next day after the election, embarrassing and unpalatable revelations concerning our military burst another sacred cow of the right who in knee-jerk fashion have for too long given our generals a blank check and put them in an unrealistic, unhealthy position above reproach or question.
Since the days of WW II, America has had a love affair with the military. We dote on the boys in blue, gray, kaki and now, camo uniform. Correctly and deservedly we honor their sacrifice and heroism. But too often now we give their leaders a free pass, and supply the officer corps with near-unlimited funds. (We all have heard that we spend more on our military than the total combined amount spent by all the industrialized nations in the world. Furthermore we duplicate our efforts in the various military branches at great waste. Is it necessary that the Marine Corps, have its own air force the size of Great Britain's? But not only are these outlays more than the combined world expenditures, but they are also the largest component of our national budget too. When the costs of Social Security is rightly removed from the national budget--since it is an insurance program, not an entitlement--and the complete panoply of so-called "defense" expenditures--war costs, military health and other benefits, etc etc---are tallied, it is Department of Defense which takes the largest bite out of the budget pie by far. Our leaders are hesitant to make that known to the citizenry. Everything you heard from the Republicans about the need to address our habit of over-spending has validity, but only if you substitute the words "defense department" and "military spending" for their words :"social security, Medicare and Medicaid" in their refrains for austerity.) Defense spending bills usually pass unopposed and with more funds than the generals themselves request. We put these men and women on a high pedestal. But that love-affair with all things military may be coming to a hard and sad end, with the recent revelations regarding mis-deeds in our military, ranging from simple incompetence, poor judgement, and sleazy sexual affairs at the very top echelons, as well as mindless alcohol abuse and a vicious massacre of civilians in the lower ranks.
In the last few days our most popular and most applauded military personage, one lauded as a "hero" and "genius" of the Iraq "surge"and Afghanistan campaigns, former 4 star General David Petraeus, (serving most recently as the top "spy" in the CIA) presented the nation with a sleazy, sexual affair. His consorting with Mrs. Broadwell while head of the CIA had the potential to compromise national security. Yet the press and many in Congress still in the sway of his military aura of invincibility let him off the hook very easily. Some even upbraiding the President for actually accepting his resignation letter. Petraeus' recent replacement in Afghanistan, General John Allen, who was slated to be Supreme Military Commander in Europe, was drawn into the imbroglio, where he was exposed as having a "platonic" though inappropriate e-mail dalliance with a young, married, Tampa, Florida "socialite", Mrs. Jill Kelly, also a close friend of Mr. Petraeus. Evidence unearthed by the FBI regarding General Allen included "20-30 thousand pages of emails" sent between Allen and Mrs. Kelly over the last two years. (One can not but help wonder how General Allen could fit in to his busy emailing schedule the Nation's work of commanding the war effort in Afghanistan when , according to the FBI record, he was writing and sending an average of more than 33 (!) email pages each day. (This calculation is based the quantity of pages and the assumption that he emailed Mrs. Kelly every day of the year, Sunday, holidays, Christmas and New Year's day). Perhaps he had too much free time on his hands. In another case, four star General, William "Kip" Ward of the Africa Command, was fired and demoted in rank (to only three stars) for "lavish spending and unnecessary travel". And sadly, the hard-working, mostly exemplary men and women of the lower rank and file have also been sullied by scandal. Today, as I write this, Staff-Sargent Robert Bales, an 11 year veteran was indicted for the methodical, diabolical murder of 16 innocent civilians (nine of them children) during a drug and alcohol soaked rampage in Afghanistan. Only those with their heads tucked under a rock in Wyoming's wide open spaces could remain unaffected by these disturbing revelations.
The events come on the very heels of the recent 2012 Presidential election, a contest which finally gave the voters a clear choice between the policies of conservative Republicanism----and a modestly progressive, center-right Democratic candidate. The electorate emphatically chose the progressives, and President Obama handily won reelection. In a previous blog, I pointed out how this 2012 election was a "watershed", since the voters clearly rejected the Republican core-philosophy, one which has been a component of the political conversation since the Reagan election in 1980. I noted in that piece, that the voters also seem to have had a change of mind in regard to the conservative position known as "global warming denial". This last alteration in perception being the realization in the public mind perhaps as a result of the impact of the super storm Sandy, that global climatic change is here to stay, will have serious impacts on our lives, and must be addressed. The huge super storm which brought widespread disaster and devastation to the nation's biggest metropolitan area just prior to election only underscored that fact and the need, nay necessity, of government help and largess supplied in times of disaster. The storm acted as a hard rebuke to those on the right who openly campaigned as global warming deniers, and on presidential aspirant, Mitt Romney who promised to "dump FEMA" as one of his first acts on being elected President.
This is not a case of schadenfreude on this author's part. Rather than being happy to see the other side squirm, I see the military revelations as a positive development which will hopefully result in a better, stronger, military, with more stable leadership, and perhaps ultimately election of a Congress with a more realistic view regarding the budget of the Defense Department. These revelations come at a time of economic stress when the military budget will have to be cut back to more reasonable and logical levels. We simply can not afford the likes of General Ward, Allen and Petraeus. (Recall that General Petraeus was the one who used his contacts with the press to unwisely orchestrate pressure on a recently elected President Obama to institute a troop surge in Afghanistan which only extended the war and cost lives on both sides.) Perhaps, if our officer cadre were not promoted simply on the basis of years in service, and the good ole' boy network, we would have fewer cases like that of Sargent Robert Bales, who in some ways, is a victim himself of a military gone astray in a sea of money and unwarranted adulation.
The Nation's voters took part in a turning-point election, sandwiched between a major super storm and an unprecedented sexual scandal. The over-all impact on the electorate was that the new Obama-coalition turned away from the Republican core-philosophy and its social, economic, and foreign policy positions, and perhaps it's unwise reflex support for the military. These aged policies were exposed to be outdated, invalid, untrue, unwise, or so unpopular that the GOP could not call on them again to support reelection on a national scale. Welcome to a new America!
Get the picture?
rjk
In 2012, America, a nation still reeling from the Great Recession of 2007-2008 went to the polls. Seemingly against the economic tide and all odds, the nation reelected a black man for President. The vote-count and analysis after the election reaffirmed that the electorate emphatically rejected the far-right political philosophy offered by the Republicans and the core principles of its ideology, one based on greed, stark individualism, 1980s Reaganism, Ryanism, Ayn Randism, and the denial of science and global warming. Then on the very next day after the election, embarrassing and unpalatable revelations concerning our military burst another sacred cow of the right who in knee-jerk fashion have for too long given our generals a blank check and put them in an unrealistic, unhealthy position above reproach or question.
Since the days of WW II, America has had a love affair with the military. We dote on the boys in blue, gray, kaki and now, camo uniform. Correctly and deservedly we honor their sacrifice and heroism. But too often now we give their leaders a free pass, and supply the officer corps with near-unlimited funds. (We all have heard that we spend more on our military than the total combined amount spent by all the industrialized nations in the world. Furthermore we duplicate our efforts in the various military branches at great waste. Is it necessary that the Marine Corps, have its own air force the size of Great Britain's? But not only are these outlays more than the combined world expenditures, but they are also the largest component of our national budget too. When the costs of Social Security is rightly removed from the national budget--since it is an insurance program, not an entitlement--and the complete panoply of so-called "defense" expenditures--war costs, military health and other benefits, etc etc---are tallied, it is Department of Defense which takes the largest bite out of the budget pie by far. Our leaders are hesitant to make that known to the citizenry. Everything you heard from the Republicans about the need to address our habit of over-spending has validity, but only if you substitute the words "defense department" and "military spending" for their words :"social security, Medicare and Medicaid" in their refrains for austerity.) Defense spending bills usually pass unopposed and with more funds than the generals themselves request. We put these men and women on a high pedestal. But that love-affair with all things military may be coming to a hard and sad end, with the recent revelations regarding mis-deeds in our military, ranging from simple incompetence, poor judgement, and sleazy sexual affairs at the very top echelons, as well as mindless alcohol abuse and a vicious massacre of civilians in the lower ranks.
In the last few days our most popular and most applauded military personage, one lauded as a "hero" and "genius" of the Iraq "surge"and Afghanistan campaigns, former 4 star General David Petraeus, (serving most recently as the top "spy" in the CIA) presented the nation with a sleazy, sexual affair. His consorting with Mrs. Broadwell while head of the CIA had the potential to compromise national security. Yet the press and many in Congress still in the sway of his military aura of invincibility let him off the hook very easily. Some even upbraiding the President for actually accepting his resignation letter. Petraeus' recent replacement in Afghanistan, General John Allen, who was slated to be Supreme Military Commander in Europe, was drawn into the imbroglio, where he was exposed as having a "platonic" though inappropriate e-mail dalliance with a young, married, Tampa, Florida "socialite", Mrs. Jill Kelly, also a close friend of Mr. Petraeus. Evidence unearthed by the FBI regarding General Allen included "20-30 thousand pages of emails" sent between Allen and Mrs. Kelly over the last two years. (One can not but help wonder how General Allen could fit in to his busy emailing schedule the Nation's work of commanding the war effort in Afghanistan when , according to the FBI record, he was writing and sending an average of more than 33 (!) email pages each day. (This calculation is based the quantity of pages and the assumption that he emailed Mrs. Kelly every day of the year, Sunday, holidays, Christmas and New Year's day). Perhaps he had too much free time on his hands. In another case, four star General, William "Kip" Ward of the Africa Command, was fired and demoted in rank (to only three stars) for "lavish spending and unnecessary travel". And sadly, the hard-working, mostly exemplary men and women of the lower rank and file have also been sullied by scandal. Today, as I write this, Staff-Sargent Robert Bales, an 11 year veteran was indicted for the methodical, diabolical murder of 16 innocent civilians (nine of them children) during a drug and alcohol soaked rampage in Afghanistan. Only those with their heads tucked under a rock in Wyoming's wide open spaces could remain unaffected by these disturbing revelations.
The events come on the very heels of the recent 2012 Presidential election, a contest which finally gave the voters a clear choice between the policies of conservative Republicanism----and a modestly progressive, center-right Democratic candidate. The electorate emphatically chose the progressives, and President Obama handily won reelection. In a previous blog, I pointed out how this 2012 election was a "watershed", since the voters clearly rejected the Republican core-philosophy, one which has been a component of the political conversation since the Reagan election in 1980. I noted in that piece, that the voters also seem to have had a change of mind in regard to the conservative position known as "global warming denial". This last alteration in perception being the realization in the public mind perhaps as a result of the impact of the super storm Sandy, that global climatic change is here to stay, will have serious impacts on our lives, and must be addressed. The huge super storm which brought widespread disaster and devastation to the nation's biggest metropolitan area just prior to election only underscored that fact and the need, nay necessity, of government help and largess supplied in times of disaster. The storm acted as a hard rebuke to those on the right who openly campaigned as global warming deniers, and on presidential aspirant, Mitt Romney who promised to "dump FEMA" as one of his first acts on being elected President.
This is not a case of schadenfreude on this author's part. Rather than being happy to see the other side squirm, I see the military revelations as a positive development which will hopefully result in a better, stronger, military, with more stable leadership, and perhaps ultimately election of a Congress with a more realistic view regarding the budget of the Defense Department. These revelations come at a time of economic stress when the military budget will have to be cut back to more reasonable and logical levels. We simply can not afford the likes of General Ward, Allen and Petraeus. (Recall that General Petraeus was the one who used his contacts with the press to unwisely orchestrate pressure on a recently elected President Obama to institute a troop surge in Afghanistan which only extended the war and cost lives on both sides.) Perhaps, if our officer cadre were not promoted simply on the basis of years in service, and the good ole' boy network, we would have fewer cases like that of Sargent Robert Bales, who in some ways, is a victim himself of a military gone astray in a sea of money and unwarranted adulation.
The Nation's voters took part in a turning-point election, sandwiched between a major super storm and an unprecedented sexual scandal. The over-all impact on the electorate was that the new Obama-coalition turned away from the Republican core-philosophy and its social, economic, and foreign policy positions, and perhaps it's unwise reflex support for the military. These aged policies were exposed to be outdated, invalid, untrue, unwise, or so unpopular that the GOP could not call on them again to support reelection on a national scale. Welcome to a new America!
Get the picture?
rjk
Sunday, November 11, 2012
NATURE AND THE 2012 ELECTION DRIVE REPUBLICANS TO FACE SCIENCE AND REALITY
THE WATERSHED 2012 ELECTION BRINGS THE END OF REAGANISM, ROMNEYISM, RYANISM, RANDISM AND GLOBAL-WARMING-DENIAL.
The reelection of President Obama has turned out to be a watershed election, one to be remembered and revisited for years to come, comparable in its effects on the direction the nation will take to perhaps the election of FDR in 1932 and of Ronald Reagan in the election of 1980. The turning point event was preceded on the Mid Atlantic shore by Hurricane Sandy, which carried fierce winds and a 13 foot storm surge which devastated large swaths of New Jersey, Manhattan, Staten Island, and Long Island. The twin events have forced Republicans to face both the reality of science and uncomfortable political truths.
Sandy was the largest Atlantic Hurricane on record, second costliest storm in history, and a cyclonic event only surpassed by Katrina in 2005. The storm was unusual in its late development (10-25-2012), its interplay with a massive mid-latitude-storm, its large size, high winds (110 mph gusts), nearly 200 fatalities, and damage which brought the Nation's largest population center (of 19 million inhabitants) and the US cultural and financial center to a standstill for days on end with flooded subways, swamped cross-East River tunnels, flooded streets, downed electrical lines, no electrical service, and with critical wifi and telephone service down or crippled by overuse. Some areas of the metropolitan NYC area are still without power or access to heating fuel and gasoline, as I write this. The estimated costs so far are about about $52 billion US dollars.
The two events, striking almost simultaneously have commingled in the minds of the electorate to produce changes in perception which will be seen as a transformation point in recent US history. These two events altered citizen's concepts and will change the manner in which we conduct our affairs from here on. These two events, one political and one natural, brought new conceptual reality to our political and economic philosophy, and a new environmental awareness forced on our collective minds.
In the political sphere. What the electorate achieved in the 2012, 57th quadrennial election was earth shattering. The voters were given a clear choice between two widely divergent and distinct policies and philosophies represented by the candidates, Mitt Romney (R) and Barack Obama (D). They made a clear choice. The former, a wealthy business man, clearly positioned himself as a near-caricature of a Daddy Warbucks figure, with far-right policy pronouncements of tax cuts for the well to do and who openly espoused antiquated run-of-the-mill, Republican anti-government pablum from the Reagan era. Romney's party offered 1980s solutions, mixed with more recent and more radical economic and social dogma (these latter supported by his running mate, Paul-Ryan, a "Tea Party" member). Their proposals for the nation's future were salted with fringe-element postures on abortion mixed with pseudo-philosophical statements derived from (unbelievably!) a Russian emigre, and 1950s-era fiction-writer--Ayan Rand. Opposing Romney, the cautious, center-left Democrat candidate Barack Obama espoused a progressive set of policies which would protect the middle class, the existing social safety net, increase taxes on the super wealthy and focus more on nation building at home than abroad. The electorate overwhelmingly cast their votes, in spite of wide-spread sinister attempts at voter suppression by the Republicans, for President Obama. The non-white, the college educated, single females, the young, Latinos, Asians, Blacks and the lower 99 % on the earning and wealth rungs, came out in force to vote for Mr. Obama. The Republican candidate garnered the votes of the super-wealthy, the top 1% of upper echelon earners, and right wing, white-male voters. These citizens came out in force in those red-colored states, (pumping up the popular vote) but they simply did not have enough votes to carry the country as a whole and get their man elected. Candidate Obama ended up with 332 electoral college votes (62% of the total) to Romney's 206. Obama won the popular vote (50.6%- 47.9%) and the Democrats held the Senate and got a plurality of popular votes in the House but not enough to take over the chamber due to Republican controlled redistricting in 2012.
As a result of the clear choices the electorate had in 2012, it is clear that they rejected the policies of Reaganism, of the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan brand, and the concepts of extreme individualism and greed, depicted in the novels of Ayn Rand. Thank goodness no sensible candidate will bring Rand up again as a model of his/her thinking on economics and philosophy and we will not be plagued with that nonsense again in any future elections. It was almost laughable if it was not so scary to hear Paul Ryan claim that the Rand (fiction) novels provided him with the underlying precepts of his economic and political beliefs.
In the environmental sphere. With the advent of Katrina in 2005, designated a presumably "once in a 100-year storm," but which was closely followed only seven years later by another "once in a 100 year storm"-(Sandy) is too much of of coincidence to sweep under the table, even for the non-scientist voter. Increasing numbers of more energetic, more destructive atmospheric events, droughts, floods, blizzards, hurricanes all support the contention of atmospheric scientists that the atmosphere is getting hotter, due to increased concentration of greenhouse gases. Higher air temperatures mean greater capacity to hold water vapor which is the energy source of the atmosphere. As water vapor condenses it gives off heat, the more water vapor in the air, the more heat generated. The enormous size and destructive power of Sandy was the result of those facts. The recent records of storms, so far out of the normal range make it increasingly difficult for Republicans to "poo pooh" the reality of global warming. Those who suffered in the damaging wind and storm surge of Sandy, as well as those who experienced the event only through harrowing news stories and graphic photos of devastation in Atlantic City, Staten Island, Manhattan and Long Island can not but help but be altered in their perceptions by the experience. Fearful voters will make their revised thinking known at the polls. They will demand a more realistic, science-based response from our legislators. No longer can the "global warming deniers" who are supported by powerful fossil fuel industries, have their way to foist an alternate reality on the unsuspecting.
Thus, the twin realities of Sandy and the facts of the devastating Republican political loss in the 2012 General Election have intruded into a right-wing world where too often political ideology generate "reality" rather than the observable facts and figures of the natural world. In the real world, life and ideology will have to change drastically for Republicans if they want to survive as a national political party. Let us all remember this, that in the Fall of 2012 the REAL WORLD in the form of the forces of Mother Nature and the voters whom Romney characterized as the "47% takers and moochers" of this great land forced drastic changes on the GOP.
Get the picture?
rjk
The reelection of President Obama has turned out to be a watershed election, one to be remembered and revisited for years to come, comparable in its effects on the direction the nation will take to perhaps the election of FDR in 1932 and of Ronald Reagan in the election of 1980. The turning point event was preceded on the Mid Atlantic shore by Hurricane Sandy, which carried fierce winds and a 13 foot storm surge which devastated large swaths of New Jersey, Manhattan, Staten Island, and Long Island. The twin events have forced Republicans to face both the reality of science and uncomfortable political truths.
Sandy was the largest Atlantic Hurricane on record, second costliest storm in history, and a cyclonic event only surpassed by Katrina in 2005. The storm was unusual in its late development (10-25-2012), its interplay with a massive mid-latitude-storm, its large size, high winds (110 mph gusts), nearly 200 fatalities, and damage which brought the Nation's largest population center (of 19 million inhabitants) and the US cultural and financial center to a standstill for days on end with flooded subways, swamped cross-East River tunnels, flooded streets, downed electrical lines, no electrical service, and with critical wifi and telephone service down or crippled by overuse. Some areas of the metropolitan NYC area are still without power or access to heating fuel and gasoline, as I write this. The estimated costs so far are about about $52 billion US dollars.
The two events, striking almost simultaneously have commingled in the minds of the electorate to produce changes in perception which will be seen as a transformation point in recent US history. These two events altered citizen's concepts and will change the manner in which we conduct our affairs from here on. These two events, one political and one natural, brought new conceptual reality to our political and economic philosophy, and a new environmental awareness forced on our collective minds.
In the political sphere. What the electorate achieved in the 2012, 57th quadrennial election was earth shattering. The voters were given a clear choice between two widely divergent and distinct policies and philosophies represented by the candidates, Mitt Romney (R) and Barack Obama (D). They made a clear choice. The former, a wealthy business man, clearly positioned himself as a near-caricature of a Daddy Warbucks figure, with far-right policy pronouncements of tax cuts for the well to do and who openly espoused antiquated run-of-the-mill, Republican anti-government pablum from the Reagan era. Romney's party offered 1980s solutions, mixed with more recent and more radical economic and social dogma (these latter supported by his running mate, Paul-Ryan, a "Tea Party" member). Their proposals for the nation's future were salted with fringe-element postures on abortion mixed with pseudo-philosophical statements derived from (unbelievably!) a Russian emigre, and 1950s-era fiction-writer--Ayan Rand. Opposing Romney, the cautious, center-left Democrat candidate Barack Obama espoused a progressive set of policies which would protect the middle class, the existing social safety net, increase taxes on the super wealthy and focus more on nation building at home than abroad. The electorate overwhelmingly cast their votes, in spite of wide-spread sinister attempts at voter suppression by the Republicans, for President Obama. The non-white, the college educated, single females, the young, Latinos, Asians, Blacks and the lower 99 % on the earning and wealth rungs, came out in force to vote for Mr. Obama. The Republican candidate garnered the votes of the super-wealthy, the top 1% of upper echelon earners, and right wing, white-male voters. These citizens came out in force in those red-colored states, (pumping up the popular vote) but they simply did not have enough votes to carry the country as a whole and get their man elected. Candidate Obama ended up with 332 electoral college votes (62% of the total) to Romney's 206. Obama won the popular vote (50.6%- 47.9%) and the Democrats held the Senate and got a plurality of popular votes in the House but not enough to take over the chamber due to Republican controlled redistricting in 2012.
As a result of the clear choices the electorate had in 2012, it is clear that they rejected the policies of Reaganism, of the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan brand, and the concepts of extreme individualism and greed, depicted in the novels of Ayn Rand. Thank goodness no sensible candidate will bring Rand up again as a model of his/her thinking on economics and philosophy and we will not be plagued with that nonsense again in any future elections. It was almost laughable if it was not so scary to hear Paul Ryan claim that the Rand (fiction) novels provided him with the underlying precepts of his economic and political beliefs.
In the environmental sphere. With the advent of Katrina in 2005, designated a presumably "once in a 100-year storm," but which was closely followed only seven years later by another "once in a 100 year storm"-(Sandy) is too much of of coincidence to sweep under the table, even for the non-scientist voter. Increasing numbers of more energetic, more destructive atmospheric events, droughts, floods, blizzards, hurricanes all support the contention of atmospheric scientists that the atmosphere is getting hotter, due to increased concentration of greenhouse gases. Higher air temperatures mean greater capacity to hold water vapor which is the energy source of the atmosphere. As water vapor condenses it gives off heat, the more water vapor in the air, the more heat generated. The enormous size and destructive power of Sandy was the result of those facts. The recent records of storms, so far out of the normal range make it increasingly difficult for Republicans to "poo pooh" the reality of global warming. Those who suffered in the damaging wind and storm surge of Sandy, as well as those who experienced the event only through harrowing news stories and graphic photos of devastation in Atlantic City, Staten Island, Manhattan and Long Island can not but help but be altered in their perceptions by the experience. Fearful voters will make their revised thinking known at the polls. They will demand a more realistic, science-based response from our legislators. No longer can the "global warming deniers" who are supported by powerful fossil fuel industries, have their way to foist an alternate reality on the unsuspecting.
Thus, the twin realities of Sandy and the facts of the devastating Republican political loss in the 2012 General Election have intruded into a right-wing world where too often political ideology generate "reality" rather than the observable facts and figures of the natural world. In the real world, life and ideology will have to change drastically for Republicans if they want to survive as a national political party. Let us all remember this, that in the Fall of 2012 the REAL WORLD in the form of the forces of Mother Nature and the voters whom Romney characterized as the "47% takers and moochers" of this great land forced drastic changes on the GOP.
Get the picture?
rjk
Thursday, November 8, 2012
VOTERS REJECT ROMNEY'S BRAND OF CONSERVATISM
Last night (Nov 6, 2012) I watched the election returns in Florida on CNN as that station’s ever-present Wolf Blitzer (or, "Wolfie", as my wife and I now affectionately and familiarly call him) excitedly colored-in the states as the polls slowly closed in succession across the nation. We watched the azure tint accumulate on the continental rim, as the election results progressed, squeezing the GOP-dominated red states into a small isolated central “island”. The resultant map presaged the outcome of the evening. For just as the red color receded on the map into a smaller and smaller core area, the data developing from the election revealed a similar constriction of Republican voter strength and America's changing demographics. Romney carried the white, male, elderly and wealthy, the President got all the rest. That map and the statistics from voter exit polls casts a pall over the future of the Republican party. It is apparent, progressivism is slowly seeping into the interior of this large isolated land seemingly from its Oceanic, more-diverse, periphery. The final result was an Obama tidal wave of 332 electoral college votes (including Florida's 29 EC votes) vs 206 for Romney. Obama took a full 62% of the total electoral college votes and bested the Republican in the popular vote too. He did it under the most trying of economic conditions, with an unemployment rate now for the first time dipping below 8% in more than 40 months. Yet he won handily. Republican pundits were heard the day prior to the election, wrongly predicting a Romney "landslide" with 330 electoral votes. Thankfully, that did not happen....but I hear few of them now admitting that Obama's 332 would be considered an Obama landslide.
Early in the morning, Romney finally conceded. He gave a subdued, generally gracious speech, offering up his prayers for the newly elected President, and stating that the voters had "rejected him in favor of another candidate”. That is the part I disagree with. I do not believe this was personal, at least not on the part of the left. (There was and remains a great many Obama haters out there. ) The voters did NOT reject Romney, who (except for a powerful lot of "stretchers", and full-throated lies spouted during the campaign, which, by my mom's standards were fully deserving of a good soapy mouthwash) seems like a decent, likable sort. I imagine him as a fine father and husband. The voters did not reject him! They rejected the far right-wing policies he presented as his own and those very well-documented positions of his radical Tea Party "tea server" Paul Ryan, whom he chose as his VP.
Thus, whatever the Fox News TV talking heads say about this brutally long, unbelievably expensive, bitter election, the fact is that the electorate for once truly had a real choice. This was not a “tweedle dee” versus “tweedle dum” contest of the mid-to-late 20th century, where both parties offered up the same pablum under two different banners. Not so this time, in the Romney-Obama contest, the voters had distinct options between two very different governing philosophies and economic plans. (Well, perhaps the choice was clear up to the first debate, late in the campaign, when Romney, realizing he was slipping in the polls made a down-field sharp feint, a stiff arm, and a 90 degree turn to the left, landing up in Obama's lap and upsetting the President's normal equanimity to the point that he flubbed the rest of that debate.)
But as the results poured in last night, it was clear, the voters gave President Obama a resounding landslide victory (with today, November 8, 2012 Florida falling into his column) of 332 Electoral College votes to 206 for Romney, soundly rejecting the Republican Platform and Romney's plans to turn back the clock, giving a thumbs down on his proposals, his Neocon associates, and his antiquated vision of America.
The election also permitted the electorate to decide on that persistent and pernicious policy known as “Reaganism” and the Reagan dictum that “government is the problem, not the solution.” The voters soundly rejected that idea which was central to Romney's candidacy.
The voters also rejected the corollary Reagan concept of “trickle down economics” which claims that fire-hosing tax breaks to the super-wealthy would somehow magically create jobs, and "raise all boats on a rising tide". Over the decades of Republican ascendency (and during the Clinton years too) this nostrum (termed "voodoo economics by Repulican George H. W. Bush) was tried and simply never worked. The tide did rise, and a few of the boats grew into great big yachts and were buoyed on the flood, but the majority of row boats and skiffs were left stuck in the mud, the rising tide simply washing over the gunnels. These small boats needed rapid bailing just to stay dry. After thirty or more years of these "tidal" effects everyone knew that all it did was concentrate wealth in the hands of the top "one-percenters"---the captains of the big yachts. These mislabeled “job creators” generated wealth for themselves, sent jobs overseas, and stuffed the dough into their ship's lavish great cabins and motored their gas guzzling vessels south to squirrel their money away in the Caymans. They never did create jobs here in the USA. The voters wisely rejected that myth by voting for Obama.
The voters also rejected ideas espoused by Romney "advisors", sidekicks and " money bags", like Vegas and Qatar gambling tycoon, Sheldon Adelson, who gained access to power by donating millions of dollars to the Romney campaign, and who would have the US become the “tail” wagging to the dangerous foreign policy positions of the Likud mastiff. Other Romney advisors were also rejected by voters such as George Bush-cast-off neocons like Dan Senor and John Bolton, who would have advised the pursued catastrophic, bloody, and ineffective foreign adventurism reminiscent of failed-President George W Bush.
The voters rejected the Romney plan to INCREASE spending on our bloated military budget. They rejected the Romney's foreign policy of unending wars and ballooning “Defense” Department budgets. (They rejected the Federal funding for an increased military which is largely "welfare" for the oligarchs, corporatists and military industrial complex.) Instead, they voted FOR the President to bring our long-suffering troops home and trim expenditures on the military establishment so as to lower that figure back to realistic levels in accordance with the actual threats we face in the wider world.
The voters rejected the idea of reducing the number of teachers in the classroom and of cutting back on Pell Grants which give opportunities to untold numbers of our college bound youth.
The voters rejected Romney's promise to shut down and "replace" the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obama Care".
The voters rejected the radical-right policies and nostrums of the the Paul Ryan faction of the Republican Party. They rejected the idea of radical cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, and the idea of converting these popular and effective programs (the backbone of our minimalist US social safety net) into voucher plans that would be controlled and funded by the individual States.
The voters rejected the Romney plan to defund the Dream Act and his plan to favor “self deportation”. The voters rejected treating Latinos as second-rate citizens.
The voters rejected the idea of solving the US deficit and debt problem on the backs of the middle class. They rejected the idea of retaining the Bush tax cuts for high wage earners.
The voters rejected the idea of indiscriminately slashing the minimalist funds we expend on worthy cultural programs, and the unbiased news offered by PBS (and of course Big Bird!), expenditures which enrich the lives of multitudes.
The voters rejected the GOP’s plank concerned with women’s health care. The Grand Old Party claims to espouse “freedom” but with the glaring exception of the freedom of women of child-bearing age in the US for whom the white male Republicans would like to peek into their bedrooms, and under their skirts, to formulate legislation to control this group’s most private and sensitive decisions regarding their health, and reproductive choices.
The voters rejected Romney's plan to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides health care for all women.
The voters rejected the Romney idea that our deficit and national debt (which WILL eventually need corrective measures) are of paramount importance and need corrective action "right now” during the worst recession since the Great Depression of 1929. The Republican strategy of "austerity now" is simply another variation of the sinister and destructive Reagan policy of "strangling the Democrat Party beast" by denying it funds. In Reagan's day, the President raised the specter of Communism to bolster an argument for increased defense spending (who could vote against funds for our troops?). Reagan's scheme was to create annual deficits i.e. "tight money" that would limit the Democrats ability to enact or fund social welfare legislation and improvements to infrastructure. The modern GOP has come up with an alternate unreasonable fear, "fear of the deficit", a fear most economists (read Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman) believe is unfounded.
The voters rejected the Romney plan to press for an austerity budget now to deal with the middle class is necessary now and is to be coupled with tax cuts for the super wealthy and more funding for our already bloated military. That dog don't hunt. The voters figured that out right away...they rejected it.
Finally, in the face of Hurricane Sandy which charged ashore with 90 mile-per-hour winds, and a thirteen-foot tidal surge, voters emphatically rejected the idea that FEMA should be defunded or its functions passed off to the states to manage on their own.
In one way the voters DID reject Romney. He was rejected as being the one who would likely choose the next Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps he and his VP choice seemed too much a pair of ideologues for the nation as a whole.
Get the picture?
rjk
Early in the morning, Romney finally conceded. He gave a subdued, generally gracious speech, offering up his prayers for the newly elected President, and stating that the voters had "rejected him in favor of another candidate”. That is the part I disagree with. I do not believe this was personal, at least not on the part of the left. (There was and remains a great many Obama haters out there. ) The voters did NOT reject Romney, who (except for a powerful lot of "stretchers", and full-throated lies spouted during the campaign, which, by my mom's standards were fully deserving of a good soapy mouthwash) seems like a decent, likable sort. I imagine him as a fine father and husband. The voters did not reject him! They rejected the far right-wing policies he presented as his own and those very well-documented positions of his radical Tea Party "tea server" Paul Ryan, whom he chose as his VP.
Thus, whatever the Fox News TV talking heads say about this brutally long, unbelievably expensive, bitter election, the fact is that the electorate for once truly had a real choice. This was not a “tweedle dee” versus “tweedle dum” contest of the mid-to-late 20th century, where both parties offered up the same pablum under two different banners. Not so this time, in the Romney-Obama contest, the voters had distinct options between two very different governing philosophies and economic plans. (Well, perhaps the choice was clear up to the first debate, late in the campaign, when Romney, realizing he was slipping in the polls made a down-field sharp feint, a stiff arm, and a 90 degree turn to the left, landing up in Obama's lap and upsetting the President's normal equanimity to the point that he flubbed the rest of that debate.)
But as the results poured in last night, it was clear, the voters gave President Obama a resounding landslide victory (with today, November 8, 2012 Florida falling into his column) of 332 Electoral College votes to 206 for Romney, soundly rejecting the Republican Platform and Romney's plans to turn back the clock, giving a thumbs down on his proposals, his Neocon associates, and his antiquated vision of America.
The election also permitted the electorate to decide on that persistent and pernicious policy known as “Reaganism” and the Reagan dictum that “government is the problem, not the solution.” The voters soundly rejected that idea which was central to Romney's candidacy.
The voters also rejected the corollary Reagan concept of “trickle down economics” which claims that fire-hosing tax breaks to the super-wealthy would somehow magically create jobs, and "raise all boats on a rising tide". Over the decades of Republican ascendency (and during the Clinton years too) this nostrum (termed "voodoo economics by Repulican George H. W. Bush) was tried and simply never worked. The tide did rise, and a few of the boats grew into great big yachts and were buoyed on the flood, but the majority of row boats and skiffs were left stuck in the mud, the rising tide simply washing over the gunnels. These small boats needed rapid bailing just to stay dry. After thirty or more years of these "tidal" effects everyone knew that all it did was concentrate wealth in the hands of the top "one-percenters"---the captains of the big yachts. These mislabeled “job creators” generated wealth for themselves, sent jobs overseas, and stuffed the dough into their ship's lavish great cabins and motored their gas guzzling vessels south to squirrel their money away in the Caymans. They never did create jobs here in the USA. The voters wisely rejected that myth by voting for Obama.
The voters also rejected ideas espoused by Romney "advisors", sidekicks and " money bags", like Vegas and Qatar gambling tycoon, Sheldon Adelson, who gained access to power by donating millions of dollars to the Romney campaign, and who would have the US become the “tail” wagging to the dangerous foreign policy positions of the Likud mastiff. Other Romney advisors were also rejected by voters such as George Bush-cast-off neocons like Dan Senor and John Bolton, who would have advised the pursued catastrophic, bloody, and ineffective foreign adventurism reminiscent of failed-President George W Bush.
The voters rejected the Romney plan to INCREASE spending on our bloated military budget. They rejected the Romney's foreign policy of unending wars and ballooning “Defense” Department budgets. (They rejected the Federal funding for an increased military which is largely "welfare" for the oligarchs, corporatists and military industrial complex.) Instead, they voted FOR the President to bring our long-suffering troops home and trim expenditures on the military establishment so as to lower that figure back to realistic levels in accordance with the actual threats we face in the wider world.
The voters rejected the idea of reducing the number of teachers in the classroom and of cutting back on Pell Grants which give opportunities to untold numbers of our college bound youth.
The voters rejected Romney's promise to shut down and "replace" the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obama Care".
The voters rejected the radical-right policies and nostrums of the the Paul Ryan faction of the Republican Party. They rejected the idea of radical cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, and the idea of converting these popular and effective programs (the backbone of our minimalist US social safety net) into voucher plans that would be controlled and funded by the individual States.
The voters rejected the Romney plan to defund the Dream Act and his plan to favor “self deportation”. The voters rejected treating Latinos as second-rate citizens.
The voters rejected the idea of solving the US deficit and debt problem on the backs of the middle class. They rejected the idea of retaining the Bush tax cuts for high wage earners.
The voters rejected the idea of indiscriminately slashing the minimalist funds we expend on worthy cultural programs, and the unbiased news offered by PBS (and of course Big Bird!), expenditures which enrich the lives of multitudes.
The voters rejected the GOP’s plank concerned with women’s health care. The Grand Old Party claims to espouse “freedom” but with the glaring exception of the freedom of women of child-bearing age in the US for whom the white male Republicans would like to peek into their bedrooms, and under their skirts, to formulate legislation to control this group’s most private and sensitive decisions regarding their health, and reproductive choices.
The voters rejected Romney's plan to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides health care for all women.
The voters rejected the Romney idea that our deficit and national debt (which WILL eventually need corrective measures) are of paramount importance and need corrective action "right now” during the worst recession since the Great Depression of 1929. The Republican strategy of "austerity now" is simply another variation of the sinister and destructive Reagan policy of "strangling the Democrat Party beast" by denying it funds. In Reagan's day, the President raised the specter of Communism to bolster an argument for increased defense spending (who could vote against funds for our troops?). Reagan's scheme was to create annual deficits i.e. "tight money" that would limit the Democrats ability to enact or fund social welfare legislation and improvements to infrastructure. The modern GOP has come up with an alternate unreasonable fear, "fear of the deficit", a fear most economists (read Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman) believe is unfounded.
The voters rejected the Romney plan to press for an austerity budget now to deal with the middle class is necessary now and is to be coupled with tax cuts for the super wealthy and more funding for our already bloated military. That dog don't hunt. The voters figured that out right away...they rejected it.
Finally, in the face of Hurricane Sandy which charged ashore with 90 mile-per-hour winds, and a thirteen-foot tidal surge, voters emphatically rejected the idea that FEMA should be defunded or its functions passed off to the states to manage on their own.
In one way the voters DID reject Romney. He was rejected as being the one who would likely choose the next Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps he and his VP choice seemed too much a pair of ideologues for the nation as a whole.
Get the picture?
rjk
Thursday, November 1, 2012
HURRICANE SANDY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND MILITARY SPENDING
“For the past few years it has been hard to ignore America’s crumbling infrastructure,...America’s tradition of bold national projects has dwindled. The nation’s infrastructure is crumbling, it is time to revive it.” In: “The Cracks are Showing”, The Economist, June 26, 2008.
I've had the good fortune to have traveled around the world some and the curiosity to jot down my observations while on my way. I've enjoyed foreign roadways and infrastructure both from behind the wheel and as a passenger while traveling over large swaths of our own USA, and through Western Europe, Greece, and Turkey. So when I read that the USA ranks twenty third (23) behind Barbados (!) in infrastructure, I was not all that surprised. (See: Time, “Are Americas Best Days Behind It?”, Fareed Zakaria, March 3, 2011).
Most Americans sadly, do not travel enough to have a meaningful yardstick upon which to gauge the infrastructure of their own country. As a result, they can easily be swayed into thinking that highway potholes, crumbling bridges, dangling overhead electrical wires, intermittent train service, slow and spotty Internet service, an insufficient and outdated electrical grid, dangerous dams, poor quality drinking water, and so on, are just part of the natural scheme of things. They are NOT. Most modern industrialized nations far outstrip the USA, (the wealthiest, most militarized and most technically advanced nation in the world) in these critical matters, and our shortcomings are apparent even to a casual observer.
In 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers, (ASCE) published its annual report on the status of US infrastructure. It appears in the form of a school "report card”. In that year, 2009, the US again received a grade of “D", and a warning that it would take an investment of $2 trillion dollars to bring our infrastructure up to snuff. The 2012 report had a similar findings. But over those years, instead of infrastructure our leaders in Washington were busy sticking their noses into the business of other nations far away, spending our wealth on weapons, dropping bombs in those places and pursuing "nation building" abroad. As a result, the ASCE warnings went unheeded and US infrastructure projects remained unfunded.
In the 2009 survey ASCE analysts noted that many elements of US infrastructure were "below standard”. The category of "Aviation" was assessed as “D", "Drinking water" as “D-”, "Bridges" was graded a "D-", (noting also that one in four US bridges are "structurally deficient or obsolete"). For the category of "Highways", the engineers assessed many highways as obsolete and calculated that resulting traffic congestion on these roads "wastes 4 billion hours of American’s work-day each year". Regarding "Hazardous wastes", they note that Hasmat sites are too often leaking into groundwater water systems or unconfined. Our "Rail service" was assessed as out-dated, slow and inefficient or (as passenger service) nonexistent, and so on and on.
Underscoring these pronouncement of professional engineers is the now apparent and undeniable fact of climate change and the resultant vulnerability of our nation’s crumbling infrastructure to more frequent violent and damaging storms, (such as Sandy and Katrina), floods, super tornadoes, droughts, prairie and forest fires and other phenomena that are characteristic of a dynamic earth attempting to shed excess heat in a changing climate regime. Just a few days ago Hurricane Sandy, a huge Stage I hurricane, hit the northeast (October 29, 2012) with winds of 80-90 mph pushing up a thirteen-foot high storm-surge in front of it. The complex tropical storm mixed in with a cold mid-latitude cyclone over Pennsylvania to wreak havoc on unprepared shoreline communities in New Jersey and on NY City where, roads were inundated, bridges closed, the outdated exposed-wire electrical grid was snapped, tangled and grounded by high winds, electrical fires ignited in drowned substations, gas fires flared up, subways were swamped, schools closed, and vital connecting tunnels such as the Holland and Battery were flooded and closed down, bringing the nation’s financial and cultural center to a soaked,soggy, windy closure. Nearly one-hundred citizens perished. Billions of dollars of revenue were lost as a result of absenteeism, closures, and uncompleted jobs, and billions more in losses resulting from damaged buildings, infrastructure, roads and property.
Sandy was touted as a once in a “100 year storm”. But wait a minute, was not Katrina with its 175 mph winds and giant storm-surge also touted as a “once in a century” storm? that event was only seven years ago, in August 2005! So thus we have experienced two (2) “once in a century” storms in only seven years! Perhaps this concatenation of super storms will prize open the so-far close minds of climate-change deniers who should now, after Sandy, be forced to acquiesce to the climate scientists warnings that we should expect more such “once in a hundred year” storms as earth heats up due to increasing amounts of human-generated greenhouse gases.
That prospect and our long ignored infrastructure problem should drive us all to turn our attention back to our own nation again, back to "nation building"--but joining in that activity here at home. For too long, we have been mentally and financially engaged abroad, in costly and wasteful military adventurism...nay, some would call it imperialist fantasies or attempts at military world-domination. As a result of this neglect and a misguided national foreign policy we have failed to be good husbandry-men and women of our own land. We have foolishly squandered trillions of our wealth on unnecessary wars, and on war materiel. We tragically lost thousands of our soldier's young lives. In pursuit of a foolish foreign policy our Congress has "fire-hosed" tax dollars into exotic weapons, new ships, useless weapons systems, city-sized military compounds abroad, as well as spy and other unmanned drones. And either by design (on the part of the Republicans) or by neglect we have left our native homeland infrastructure to decay and become obsolete and vulnerable to changing climate and more vicious and powerful storms.
At this point in this essay, I must mention that the budget plan of Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney to INCREASE military spending to 4% of GDP is the absolutely wrong course to take. But his claim to want to DECREASE taxes for the super wealthy AND to further bloat Defense spending is unconscionable.
Perhaps, sadly, Hurricanes Sandy (and Katrina), a dangerous "lady of the night", might have been just the unhappy, costly and tragic visitor this nation needed to turn our leader's minds away from the boozy delirium, and senseless flirtation of unnecessary, counterproductive military adventurism and unnecessary war spending toward more practical and sensible pursuits. Perhaps its tragic impact and the realization of our vulnerable national state can save future lives if as a consequence of this disaster our nation's leaders turn back to basic, down-to-earth, sensible tending of our own national garden.
As the conservative, business-friendly international magazine, "The Economist" has noted..."it's time to tend to America's crumbling infrastructure". The well-being of our homeland, its roads, bridges, waterways electrical grid, etc., supports our nation's businesses, and the health and well-being of our citizenry. These elements make this nation great, and nourishes it real strength. Without these underlying elements, we CAN NOT have a strong nation or military. The fact is we can no longer afford to continue to toss more than 3% of our GDP in the form of military spending into rat holes around the world and ignore our own infrastructure here at home. America turn your eyes homeward!
My Dad’s favorite saying was: “First things first”! Our homeland must be first! He was right.
Get the picture?
rjk
I've had the good fortune to have traveled around the world some and the curiosity to jot down my observations while on my way. I've enjoyed foreign roadways and infrastructure both from behind the wheel and as a passenger while traveling over large swaths of our own USA, and through Western Europe, Greece, and Turkey. So when I read that the USA ranks twenty third (23) behind Barbados (!) in infrastructure, I was not all that surprised. (See: Time, “Are Americas Best Days Behind It?”, Fareed Zakaria, March 3, 2011).
Most Americans sadly, do not travel enough to have a meaningful yardstick upon which to gauge the infrastructure of their own country. As a result, they can easily be swayed into thinking that highway potholes, crumbling bridges, dangling overhead electrical wires, intermittent train service, slow and spotty Internet service, an insufficient and outdated electrical grid, dangerous dams, poor quality drinking water, and so on, are just part of the natural scheme of things. They are NOT. Most modern industrialized nations far outstrip the USA, (the wealthiest, most militarized and most technically advanced nation in the world) in these critical matters, and our shortcomings are apparent even to a casual observer.
In 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers, (ASCE) published its annual report on the status of US infrastructure. It appears in the form of a school "report card”. In that year, 2009, the US again received a grade of “D", and a warning that it would take an investment of $2 trillion dollars to bring our infrastructure up to snuff. The 2012 report had a similar findings. But over those years, instead of infrastructure our leaders in Washington were busy sticking their noses into the business of other nations far away, spending our wealth on weapons, dropping bombs in those places and pursuing "nation building" abroad. As a result, the ASCE warnings went unheeded and US infrastructure projects remained unfunded.
In the 2009 survey ASCE analysts noted that many elements of US infrastructure were "below standard”. The category of "Aviation" was assessed as “D", "Drinking water" as “D-”, "Bridges" was graded a "D-", (noting also that one in four US bridges are "structurally deficient or obsolete"). For the category of "Highways", the engineers assessed many highways as obsolete and calculated that resulting traffic congestion on these roads "wastes 4 billion hours of American’s work-day each year". Regarding "Hazardous wastes", they note that Hasmat sites are too often leaking into groundwater water systems or unconfined. Our "Rail service" was assessed as out-dated, slow and inefficient or (as passenger service) nonexistent, and so on and on.
Underscoring these pronouncement of professional engineers is the now apparent and undeniable fact of climate change and the resultant vulnerability of our nation’s crumbling infrastructure to more frequent violent and damaging storms, (such as Sandy and Katrina), floods, super tornadoes, droughts, prairie and forest fires and other phenomena that are characteristic of a dynamic earth attempting to shed excess heat in a changing climate regime. Just a few days ago Hurricane Sandy, a huge Stage I hurricane, hit the northeast (October 29, 2012) with winds of 80-90 mph pushing up a thirteen-foot high storm-surge in front of it. The complex tropical storm mixed in with a cold mid-latitude cyclone over Pennsylvania to wreak havoc on unprepared shoreline communities in New Jersey and on NY City where, roads were inundated, bridges closed, the outdated exposed-wire electrical grid was snapped, tangled and grounded by high winds, electrical fires ignited in drowned substations, gas fires flared up, subways were swamped, schools closed, and vital connecting tunnels such as the Holland and Battery were flooded and closed down, bringing the nation’s financial and cultural center to a soaked,soggy, windy closure. Nearly one-hundred citizens perished. Billions of dollars of revenue were lost as a result of absenteeism, closures, and uncompleted jobs, and billions more in losses resulting from damaged buildings, infrastructure, roads and property.
Sandy was touted as a once in a “100 year storm”. But wait a minute, was not Katrina with its 175 mph winds and giant storm-surge also touted as a “once in a century” storm? that event was only seven years ago, in August 2005! So thus we have experienced two (2) “once in a century” storms in only seven years! Perhaps this concatenation of super storms will prize open the so-far close minds of climate-change deniers who should now, after Sandy, be forced to acquiesce to the climate scientists warnings that we should expect more such “once in a hundred year” storms as earth heats up due to increasing amounts of human-generated greenhouse gases.
That prospect and our long ignored infrastructure problem should drive us all to turn our attention back to our own nation again, back to "nation building"--but joining in that activity here at home. For too long, we have been mentally and financially engaged abroad, in costly and wasteful military adventurism...nay, some would call it imperialist fantasies or attempts at military world-domination. As a result of this neglect and a misguided national foreign policy we have failed to be good husbandry-men and women of our own land. We have foolishly squandered trillions of our wealth on unnecessary wars, and on war materiel. We tragically lost thousands of our soldier's young lives. In pursuit of a foolish foreign policy our Congress has "fire-hosed" tax dollars into exotic weapons, new ships, useless weapons systems, city-sized military compounds abroad, as well as spy and other unmanned drones. And either by design (on the part of the Republicans) or by neglect we have left our native homeland infrastructure to decay and become obsolete and vulnerable to changing climate and more vicious and powerful storms.
At this point in this essay, I must mention that the budget plan of Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney to INCREASE military spending to 4% of GDP is the absolutely wrong course to take. But his claim to want to DECREASE taxes for the super wealthy AND to further bloat Defense spending is unconscionable.
Perhaps, sadly, Hurricanes Sandy (and Katrina), a dangerous "lady of the night", might have been just the unhappy, costly and tragic visitor this nation needed to turn our leader's minds away from the boozy delirium, and senseless flirtation of unnecessary, counterproductive military adventurism and unnecessary war spending toward more practical and sensible pursuits. Perhaps its tragic impact and the realization of our vulnerable national state can save future lives if as a consequence of this disaster our nation's leaders turn back to basic, down-to-earth, sensible tending of our own national garden.
As the conservative, business-friendly international magazine, "The Economist" has noted..."it's time to tend to America's crumbling infrastructure". The well-being of our homeland, its roads, bridges, waterways electrical grid, etc., supports our nation's businesses, and the health and well-being of our citizenry. These elements make this nation great, and nourishes it real strength. Without these underlying elements, we CAN NOT have a strong nation or military. The fact is we can no longer afford to continue to toss more than 3% of our GDP in the form of military spending into rat holes around the world and ignore our own infrastructure here at home. America turn your eyes homeward!
My Dad’s favorite saying was: “First things first”! Our homeland must be first! He was right.
Get the picture?
rjk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)