![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
What is not on the table ...
Nov. 16th, 2010 05:11 pmI think this illustrates why reformist politics are incapable of making necessary changes. Earlier today, Bart Calendar linked to this little piece from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
It includes various possibilities for deficit reduction, and keeping the corrupt system going. It excludes other possibilities for deficit reduction, and I think it is revealing what it excludes or, just as invisibilizing, includes in only incomplete form.
For example, it has check-boxes for reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan "to 60,000 by 2015" or "to 30,000 by 2013," but not "to 0 by 2011." Admittedly, it's harder to pull out in 6 weeks than to invade in 6 weeks. Even if they take 8 weeks or 10 weeks, it will save lives and, oh, right, also save money relative to the permanent occupation. I figure, based on the other two estimates, this should save something like $121 billion by 2015 and $189 billion by 2030.
It has no check-box for ending the drug war. It has no check-box for ending the persecution of undocumented immigrants. Okay, that could save as much as another $77 billion per year, and would roll back the police state. (based on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs )
So for 2015 -
Eliminating earmarks and farm subsidies - saves $28 billion
Cutting the military - saves at least $82 billion w/o cutting medical benefits
Ending the occupations - (NOT ALLOWED BY THE NYT) - saves $121 billion
Ending the drug war - (NOT ALLOWED BY THE NYT) - saves $77 billion
So that saves $308 billion - and these are rather modest reductions; I'm not sure how much more could be saved by cutting the USN and USAF for something less ambitious than global empire-building.
These are just examples. One could debate the role of tax policy, loopholes, tax subsidies, and regressive taxation in American capitalism. It's likely that the insurance cartels would be weaker if they didn't have special tax cuts that people too sick or poor to get insurance don't have.
My point here isn't to save the system. It's to point out how that system protects the interests of the ruling class - and of those it finds useful - and of nobody else. If we look at things in that light, military adventurism, the military-prison-industrial complex, and corporate welfare aren't flaws in the system. They are the system. Can you imagine the civilian government acting against the military-prison-industrial complex? Not likely. Can you imagine the military-prison-industrial complex taking over the civilian government? I don't think it would involve tanks on the streets. I don't think it would involve a coup. It would just be another day of politics-as-usual.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
It includes various possibilities for deficit reduction, and keeping the corrupt system going. It excludes other possibilities for deficit reduction, and I think it is revealing what it excludes or, just as invisibilizing, includes in only incomplete form.
For example, it has check-boxes for reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan "to 60,000 by 2015" or "to 30,000 by 2013," but not "to 0 by 2011." Admittedly, it's harder to pull out in 6 weeks than to invade in 6 weeks. Even if they take 8 weeks or 10 weeks, it will save lives and, oh, right, also save money relative to the permanent occupation. I figure, based on the other two estimates, this should save something like $121 billion by 2015 and $189 billion by 2030.
It has no check-box for ending the drug war. It has no check-box for ending the persecution of undocumented immigrants. Okay, that could save as much as another $77 billion per year, and would roll back the police state. (based on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs )
So for 2015 -
Eliminating earmarks and farm subsidies - saves $28 billion
Cutting the military - saves at least $82 billion w/o cutting medical benefits
Ending the occupations - (NOT ALLOWED BY THE NYT) - saves $121 billion
Ending the drug war - (NOT ALLOWED BY THE NYT) - saves $77 billion
So that saves $308 billion - and these are rather modest reductions; I'm not sure how much more could be saved by cutting the USN and USAF for something less ambitious than global empire-building.
These are just examples. One could debate the role of tax policy, loopholes, tax subsidies, and regressive taxation in American capitalism. It's likely that the insurance cartels would be weaker if they didn't have special tax cuts that people too sick or poor to get insurance don't have.
My point here isn't to save the system. It's to point out how that system protects the interests of the ruling class - and of those it finds useful - and of nobody else. If we look at things in that light, military adventurism, the military-prison-industrial complex, and corporate welfare aren't flaws in the system. They are the system. Can you imagine the civilian government acting against the military-prison-industrial complex? Not likely. Can you imagine the military-prison-industrial complex taking over the civilian government? I don't think it would involve tanks on the streets. I don't think it would involve a coup. It would just be another day of politics-as-usual.
