Paul Craig Roberts, once of supply-side fame, as written a disturbing piece, Obama’s Budget, on line at Counterpunch. Every liberal still starry-eyed over the election needs to read it – surprise surprise! The new administration is carrying forth with the Bush policies on spying and detention. Little noted, Obama’s “withdrawal” plan for Iraq leaves 50,000 troops there permanently. The joke’s on us! That was McCain’s plan! That was Bush’s plan! That’s a knee-slapper!
Here’s an excerpt:
Obama is requesting $130 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during 2010 plus a $75 billion supplemental request for the wars during 2009. This $205 billion is on top of $534 billion for the Pentagon in 2010, for total military spending of $739 billion.
The Chinese government’s budget shows China’s military spending at $59 billion in 2008. (The Pentagon claims Chinese military spending is between $97 billion and $139 billion.) Russia’s military spending in 2009 is projected to be about $50 billion.
That is, we are outspending China and Russia combined by possibly as much as seven-to-one. Roberts further speculates that since Obama has adopted the Cheney/Bolton hard line against Iran, that perhaps he intends to open up a third front in our war on peace. Or, call it a fourth front, with Pakistan being the third.
In the Reaganist view of the country, government is the enemy of prosperity and needs to be reined in. Since government programs are popular and the public supports funding, these programs have to be undermined. One way to do that is to create so much debt that sustaining them becomes an impossibility.
Reagan used military spending to do this, as did Bush. The military budget is beyond criticism – no one dare cut it. Nor do they talk about deficits in terms of what the military is doing to us. It’s always Social Security (self-funded) and Medicare, and for the less-educated, “welfare”. Out-of-whack military budgets are seen as essential to security. Propaganda rules.
“Starving the beast” has always been a threat, but it has never materialized. Social programs have increased funding since 1980, and Bush even added a pharmaceutical industry subsidy (that somewhat benefits seniors) to Medicare.
But past budget deficits were mild compared to the maniac we now have in the White House. It could be that “The One” will be the one who undid progressive movement. Isn’t it ironic?
Piece of Mindful 
It’s been little noted because it’s not true. Those 50,000 troops are to be removed at the end of 2011, in accordance with the SOFA.
I assume your next comment will be that you don’t believe that, but it is what his plan states.
LikeLike
Yes, it is ironic.
Predator drone strikes in civilian areas in Pakistan. ROCK AND ROLL!!! Making friends and influencing people.
You had a good post going, but then you had to go kook: “Since government programs are popular and the public supports funding…” Yeah, right, the public supports them. How many voluntary checks get sent to the Treasury? More accurate would be, “the public supports government programs as long as someone else pays.”
LikeLike
Jeff: The farther off fulfillment of a promise, the less likely it will happen. I am more quoting Thomas Ricks than believing Obama, even if Obama himself believes it. So you’re pretty close to right, I guess. Ricks says, by the way, that we are there for the long haul – a permanent troops presence for the foreseeable future. That would make McCain right when he said it could last a hundred years.
Fred – you’ve got that conservative self-centeredness going for you. I’ll give you that. People aren’t capable of weighing options and making rational decisions. They can’t weigh the overall good of a program like, say, Social Security, and conclude that even though it is costly, it is worth it. They can’t look at a program like Medicare, and decide that even though it is expensive, it is better to take care of our seniors than leave them to the insurance companies to be feasted on.
LikeLike
My guess is you belong to some kind of warm and fuzzy religious cult.
LikeLike
Are you like, mental?
LikeLike
(In the Reaganist view)…these programs have to be undermined.
Not true and nothing close to it has happened. Almost every social program dangled in front of Congress, legislatures, county and city boards in the Reagan era got funded and baselined. You yourself say a little later Social programs have increased funding since 1980. The beast is feeding well.
The latest budget numbers are over the top. Take Barack’s 3.6 trillion budget, add the .8 trillion stimulus, toss in an odd .4 trillion bailout here and there, divide by 300 million Americans, and we’re looking at $16,000 per warm body in this country. A family of four gets a $48,000 coupon. Wow.
LikeLike
A family of four gets a $64,000 coupon per year.
LikeLike
I think I said as much about Reagan. Early in his term he attacked Social Security and go this hat handed him. He then parlayed it into a massive tax hike on workers. You could say it was a loss turned into a lesser win.
But starve the beast is the philosophy advocated by conservatives like Grover.
And yeah, all of this pump priming has me concerned.
LikeLike