The budget as mirror: Hard power and harder hearts

By Max J. Castro
majcastro@gmail.com

Follow the money. Soaring rhetoric and good intentions aside, what counts and what really defines a nation, a society, or a community is who gets what and why. It’s the state of social and economic justice or, to paraphrase 1970s folk/rock singer Joni Mitchell, why some people get the choice cuts and others get the marrowbone or nothing though to eat.

The budget is a Rorschach test that tells us and the world about who we are, what we value, and how we imagine ourselves in relation to the rest of humanity, alive or not yet to be born, at home and abroad.

What do the budget proposals being offered by Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Democratic administration in the White House — and the budgets at the state and local levels — say about our values and priorities?

Let me start from the macro, global level, and work my way down to the state and local levels. Many countries at various levels of development — from small nations of the former Soviet Union to Greece, Spain, Great Britain, Ireland and the United States — have reacted to the ongoing crisis by throwing average working people under a bus, mainly those who work for their money (or used to before they became unemployed or pensioners) while trying mightily to ensure the health of the “financial system,” namely the big banks, the hedge fund managers, and all those high net-worth individuals whose money works for them.

To this end, specifically to bail out the main culprits whose reckless behavior brought on the crisis, the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve, along with governments and central banks in Europe, have spent trillions of dollars. The giant deficits that have resulted from these gigantic government outlays, from sharply decreasing government revenue as a result of the Great Recession, and from the ruinous U.S/British/NATO wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, must now be whittled down.

Who will pay the piper? Those least responsible and least able will pay. This approach is not only unjust, it is economically destructive as it decreases employment, depresses demand, and cuts into government revenue, thus deepening the crisis even more.

Not surprisingly, fierce protests have erupted against such a policy, especially in Greece and to a lesser extent in Britain and Spain. But nowhere has public outrage burst forth anywhere near the magnitude of Tunisia or Egypt; so far the protests in European countries have not been on a scale to force governments to change course, much less overturn them.

In the United States public outrage has scarcely been manifest because the bulk of the pain has yet to be felt and because the big Republican victory in the November election has been seen as a mandate for big cuts in government spending. Yet there already have been several dramatic instances of callous, counterproductive or simply irrational cuts in government programs at the state and local levels.

In Arizona, state legislators have been trying since 2009 to eliminate an organ transplant program benefitting dozens of very sick patients. In 2010, they succeeded, and despite heartrending appeals from patients and their families, GOP Governor Jan Brewer refused to reinstate the $5 million program by using some of the $30 million in federal discretionary stimulus money remaining from the $185 million the federal government allocated the state. Two of the potential transplant patients denied coverage died within weeks of the cutoff in funds.

Camden, New Jersey, a city plagued by a very high crime rate, recently was forced to fire half of its police force. In the same state, Republican Governor Chris Christie cancelled construction of a much needed rail line to New York City despite the fact that the federal government would have covered most of the expense.

But the most savage cuts of all may come in Florida, where more than two-thirds of the members of each house of the legislature is Republican and newly elected Governor Rick Scott has just unveiled a budget proposing a $4.6 billion cut in spending. Over two thirds of that will affect education. Under the plan, Miami-Dade County Public Schools would lose $214 million. “A $214 million cut is the beginning of the demise of our public school system,” Superintendent Antonio Carvalho told The Miami Herald. Meanwhile, Governor Scott is proposing a big cut in corporate taxes.

Now the biggest fight of all is about to unfold, with President Obama offering a budget that would trim the deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. Two thirds of deficit reduction would come from vital programs, including subsidies for home heating, and one third would be in the form of tax increases on the wealthy. The Republican plan, while still in the works, is sure to demand slashing domestic programs more deeply and would fight against any tax increases on the wealthy.

While talk of “shared sacrifice” and “tough choices” currently pours out of the mouths of politicians of both parties, the fact is that while some departments and people are called to sacrifice greatly others are not asked to sacrifice at all.

Everything from human services to national parks is expected to take a big hit, but growth in the Pentagon budget continues unabated. This year, the Defense Department budget will total a cool $553 billion, nearly as much as the military expenses of all other countries combined. China, with a population four times greater than the United States, spends about one-seventh the U.S. outlay. This year the Pentagon budget will increase by 3 percent, not counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Adjusting for inflation, the Pentagon budget has increased by 65 percent in the last ten years and is expected to swell to $735 billion by 2020.

In contrast — and to underscore this country’s continuing and even increasing reliance on “hard power” over “soft power” — Republicans in Congress are proposing a whopping 13 percent cut in the already meager State Department budget, which includes foreign aid. Foreign assistance already accounts for less than one percent of the U.S. budget and less than 0.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product. That’s much less than many other rich countries, and under a quarter of the 0.8 percent of GDP that developed countries pledged to devote to foreign aid more than a decade ago. In addition, much of purported U.S. foreign is in the form of military assistance to a handful of countries, including Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, and Colombia. A good proportion of the remainder benefits U.S. shippers and other corporations.

An empire, especially one reliant mostly on hard power, is a very costly proposition. Increasingly for the United States, the cost includes a criminal neglect of social needs and justice at home and a cavalier disregard for non-military international obligations. The question is when, if ever, the people of the United States — like the people of Tunisia and Egypt — will rebel against this sorry state of affairs.