Unlike Republicans, Obama Chooses Butter over Guns
"In
the age-old dilemma faced by all governments - that between guns and butter - Obama
chose the latter. Perhaps it's not for nothing that he was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize."
Not very much noted in our
media, the most important event not only of the brief history of the Obama’s Administration,
but perhaps modern America, has taken place. On Tuesday, the U.S. president
signed a new law on medical insurance, an issue that for over a year has been seething
with a passion the likes of which long-time observers of American politics can’t
remember seeing. The stakes were enormous - the future of the United States,
and, consequently, the rest of the world.
To understand the
significance of what happened, a small digression into the political party
environment of the United States is needed. Despite all of the apparent
similarities between the two major U.S. parties, they are quite different.
Oversimplifying and without nuance: Republicans are conservatives, concerned
primarily about American power; Democrats, in control right now, are liberals who
move questions of social welfare to the forefront. When coming to power, each party
not only implements its priorities, but lays traps for its opponents, which are
designed to ensure the continuation of the party’s plans, even after its
electoral defeat in a presidential election. For this purpose, Republicans
launch large-scale military programs while cutting taxes on corporations and
wealthy citizens, undermining the material foundation of “the welfare state,”
which they regard as a dangerous socialist venture. Democrats increase social
programs and cut taxes for the poor, placing long-term limitations on the
politics of force.
The Republican Administration
of George Bush Jr. and Richard Cheney undertook a breakthrough in their pursuit
of power - not only to address global terrorism, but also uni-polar dominance.
Meanwhile, Democrats came to power and sought to find ways to ensure the
American dream for the middle class: a home and medical insurance. In fact,
where home ownership and medical insurance is concerned, the wealthiest country
in the world lags significantly behind the countries of the old Europe, Canada,
or Japan. The income level of the very middle class, particularly its lower
segment, which usually votes for the Democratic Party, has stopped growing in
the recent decades, calling into doubt its success at the polls. The previous
Democratic administration - that of Bill Clinton - went down the path of
encouraging mortgages for low-income families whose ability to pay was questionable.
By the way, the need for banks to insure these mortgages was one of the reasons
for the growth of market in derivatives and the financial crisis of 2008-9. But
Clinton was unable to get health care reform through - it was blocked by
Republicans.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
Obama, with a solid majority
in both houses of Congress, declared the expansion of the number of Americans
covered by state-sponsored medical insurance a top priority of his first
presidential term, which should ensure his rightful place in the history books.
But at the same time, it should consolidate the electoral base of the Democrats.
Republicans didn't need an
explanation of what was happening: the possible strengthening of their
opponents and the bleeding of the component of military force in American
politics. Particularly since Obama became the first president to have allowed
himself to utter the expression “multi-polar world” - heresy to conservatives.
Republican opposition was unequivocal, rigid and uncompromising. Not without reason,
the argued that the country cannot afford expensive new programs in a time of
economic crisis - this really was about the most expensive social program in
the United States in many decades. Republicans have resorted to every possible method
of propaganda and procedural trick to stop the bill from going through -
relying on the opinion of a majority of Americans. Only a third of them
supported Obama’s initiative: those who have insurance assumed that the
expansion of the program would be implemented at their expense; those who were
left out believed the program to be insufficient.
Democrats were also divided.
The left was unhappy with the fact that even after the passage of the bill, tens
of millions of Americans will be left without insurance. The right feared that
insurance money would go to funding abortions. And a third of Senators and all members
of Congress face reelection in November. Two weeks before the decisive vote,
Obama was short 68 votes in the House of Representatives. The president took
responsibility, cancelled his foreign visits, met with Congress members of both
parties and appeared on every conceivable media outlet. The House of
Representatives voted last Sunday (when was the last time our Duma met on a
weekend?!), surrounded by thousands of protesters on Capitol Hill. The vote
ended with a score of 219 to 212. The 218 was needed to adopt the law. Not a
single Republican voted in favor.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
An additional 32
million people will get medical insurance. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that the law will cost taxpayers $938,000,000,000 over 10
years. And this, despite the fact that in 2009, the federal budget deficit was
$1.4 trillion, or 11 percent of GDP (the highest since 1942). This is no better
than modern Greece. Reducing the deficit is possible either by reducing
government expenditures or by raising taxes. And in the United States, both are
politically impossible. Of course, predictions of the default or collapse of
the U.S. dollar are from the realm of fantasy - the country accounts for a
fourth of global GDP, the dollar is its domestic currency, and money pours in
from the outside. But it is indisputable that America is entering a period of
limited financial resources, and enactment of this health insurance law makes this a
long-term problem.
Obama hasn't lessened
military spending, but has slowed its rate of growth. Pentagon plans outlined in
the Quadrennial
Defense Review are dominated by the need to act in more constrained
circumstances. In the age-old dilemma faced by all governments - that between
guns and butter - Obama chose the latter. Perhaps it's not for nothing that he
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
