INTRODUCTION: DOMESTIC ISSUES OBSCURED BY THE CONSTANT TALK OF WAR
If you beat the war drum loudly enough, can you drown out discussion of all other domestic issues? It certainly seems like the
Bush administration is trying. The rush to war is dominating the US agenda, drawing attention away from a whole host of
pressing problems. While Iraq remains the focus of the nightly news, congressional discussion, and the campaign trail, other
issues naturally fade into the background. And this is the most helpful place for them to remain if President Bush wants to
maintain his approval rating. Whether or not the Iraq war is a case of "wag the dog," it is certainly diverting attention from
policies that might otherwise be threatening the current administration's very existence.
The ailing economy is perhaps the biggest and most obvious problem facing the US at the moment. The stock market is doing
poorly. The deficit is growing. Millions of people have lost their jobs. The Bush administration's budgeting demonstrates a
policy of going after social spending, especially to finance expensive war efforts. The problems with the economy seem to
have a very close relationship with Bush's tax cuts, and with the ever growing costs of Bush's war policies.
Several other major issues have also been pushed off the front page (but just barely). Details of energy and corporate
scandals continue to surface, but the coverage of Iraq has muted the stories. Environmental issues are treated as
inconsequential, despite the fact that by many accounts, the US is speeding up the probability of climactic disaster by killing
the Kyoto Protocol and instituting oil-friendly policies at home. Trade problems have driven up the price of steel and lumber
domestically, and could possibly spark punishing trade wars with powerful entities such as the European Union.
These issues can't be sidelined forever. Pollution doesn't fix itself; poverty and illness won't just go away. So while President
Bush prosecutes a war on Iraq in the name of national security, our security is silently slipping away.
ONE LINK: A CLASSIC CASE OF MISDIRECTION
The Email Activist provides an excellent statement on the current situation: "The Bush administration’s domestic policy has
been an utter failure for everyone except the wealthy. The gap between the rich and poor continues to grow. The budget
surplus that prompted last year’s raid on the Treasury turned out to be an accounting fiction. Rampant corporate corruption
on an unregulated Wall Street has wiped out the life savings and retirement portfolios of countless citizens and has eliminated
thousands of jobs. And since September 11, our constitutional rights have been vanishing faster than al-Qaeda operatives . . .
So why has all this bad news pretty much disappeared from the national radar screen? The answer is Iraq. The Bush team is
successfully manipulating the media (and the Congress) into shifting all attention away from its shameful failures by announcing
its intention to take out Saddam Hussein. It’s a classic case of misdirection. Like a pickpocket, the Bush administration is
stealing your wallet with one hand while distracting you with the other one." This short article includes a sample letter to send
to your representatives that highlights the main points made in the article.
theemailactivist.org
(Editor's Note: For other actions opposing war on Iraq, please see our own action page at: moveon.org .
)
WAR DOMINATES THE AGENDA
In this compelling article, the author asks us to "magine the 43rd Presidency without Osama bin Laden, the year 2001 with
an uneventful September 11," and summarizes the many problems that would be besieging President Bush without a war to
split America's focus.
peace.moveon.org
This pro-Bush article still manages to make an excellent point about the President: "Polls show that only one issue works in
Bush's favor: terrorism. On the environmental [sic], global warming, prescription drug plans for the elderly, the right of HMO
patients to sue in court, campaign-finance reform, corporate oversight and every other major public question, Americans
back the approaches preferred by the Democrats. Only on education and tax cuts (both already passed) has Bush the
makings of a national majority." For this reason, it only makes sense for Bush to continue to focus on the issue of Iraq: "The
president always has the power to control the subject of the national debate. As Bush uses this power to focus on the
dangers Saddam Hussein poses for the U.S. and for Israel, what other issues will really matter?"
nypost.com
Indeed, the issue of Iraq is dominating Bush's campaigning. Bush spends the majority of his fundraising speeches discussing
war, with very little mention of other pressing domestic issues. The author conjectures that this may be a move calculated to
win support from Republicans.
peace.moveon.org
ENERGY RACKETEERING AND CORPORATE SCANDALS
In this excellent article titled "The Art of Changing the Subject," the author argues that "...it seems all anyone in Washington
can think or talk about is terrorism, rebuilding Afghanistan and un-building Iraq. It leads one to wonder, what happened to all
those domestic issues? Well, I checked. Those issues are still with us. And, while the cat's away at war, administration mice
are having a field day with them." Aside from discussing the controversial new proposals on logging (which are also
mentioned in the environmental section of this bulletin) the article provides updates on big business accounting and energy
racketeering.
peace.moveon.org
THE ECONOMY
In 2001, unemployment rates skyrocketed to 5.8 percent. 2 million people lost their jobs.
wsws.org
There has been a mild recent upturn in the economy this year that has some people optimistic; however, the National Bureau
of Economic Research is hesitating to issue an official end to the recession which began in 2001. The group is mainly
concerned that the economy may take another sharp downturn. They will partly base their decision on a report on
Septembers payrolls coming out this Friday. Economists predict that it will indicate that unemployment has risen to 5.9%.
peace.moveon.org
On Tuesday, Sept. 24, the Dow broke at its lowest levels since 1998. Investors fear that things will only get worse.
truthout.org
Because of the poor market, many people will have to delay retirement, and may have less money when they do retire. The
age group closest to retiring suffered the most losses.
peace.moveon.org
The deficit is also bigger than originally expected. This is because, according to USA Today, " The accounting tricks used by
U.S. companies are nothing compared with Washington's bookkeeping circus." Some of the examples cited in the article
include:
The Office of Management and Budget recently admitted that the deficit for the current year is going to be more than 50
percent bigger than previously reported: $165 billion, not $106 billion, as was claimed five months ago.
Last year's $127-billion surplus would actually have been a $515-billion deficit if the accounting was done according to
regular rules.
When Congress was desperate last year to justify accelerating the massive tax cut, it simply shifted the date when
corporations were required to make a quarterly tax payment, resulting in a one-time windfall of $33 billion, heisted from the
following year.
The 2001 alternative fiscal report prepared using real-world accounting standards shows $17.3 billion in money that simply
couldn't be accounted for.
usatoday.com
According to the linked article, recently released information on the US economy indicated that:
The percentage of Americans living in poverty rose to 11.7 percent, the highest rate in a decade. The number of poor
Americans rose by 1.3 million since Bush took office.
The American middle class has suffered too. The median household income declined 2.2 percent, to $42,228, after
adjusting for inflation - the first decline in household income since 1991.
Particularly bad news for Republicans, the figures show that poverty last year increased most in the suburbs, in the South,
and among whites.
And, the figures confirmed Democrat charges that the Bush tax cuts would help only the wealthy. They showed that the
most affluent fifth of the population received more than half of all income last year, up from 45 percent in 1985. The figures
show that the top 5 percent of households were the only group surveyed for whom income rose last year.
peace.moveon.org
Even with the distraction of war, recent polls show that Americans blame Bush for the poor economy, and tend to side with
the Democrats on the issue.
smirkingchimp.com
TRADE WARS
Recent tariffs on lumber industries have been enacted in order to protect US trade interests, angering close US neighbor and
biggest trading partner Canada. Canada has pledged to make a complaint to the WTO about the tariffs [which it has done
since this article was published -Ed.]. A new farm bill has only added to the tension around US trade policies.
peace.moveon.org
This excellent article summarizes the protectionism characteristic of the Bush administration with specific examples and a
discussion of the global perception of the US's actions, which seem to be threatening global trade negotiations. Basically, it
seems to be a case of "do as I say, not as I do." The US has been imposing tariffs on steel, Canadian lumber, Australian lamb
meat, and Vietnamese catfish, and more heavily subsidizing the agriculture industry -- this despite the fact that the US has
been the biggest advocate of decreasing agricultural protection in Japan and domestically, and is the leading advocate of free
trade, or trade without restrictions (such as tariffs). The steel tariffs have sparked international anger and could result in the
EU imposing its own heavy tariffs on the US if the US does not offer compensation for the money lost. Japan could also act
to punish US industry, meaning that the steel tariffs may trigger an international trade war with the US.
island.lk
Yet the US continues to pursue new free trade agreements: "Under cover of the corporate (and independent) media's
obsession with GW Bush's maniacal 'war on terror,' the US is pursuing new trade negotiations to expand the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) debacle to Central and South America. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)
aims at creating a free-trade zone throughout the western hemisphere, with a target date of January 2005. The effects of
which could have an even more dismal impact on millions of people throughout North and South America then has the latest
imperialist government's war." This article debunks some of the official claims regarding the benefits of FTAA.
counterpunch.org
THE ENVIRONMENT (AND OIL)
Under the leadership of President Bush, the US has backed out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol -- the agreement by which more
than 100 nations pledged to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. The US pullout basically
kills the treaty, because "although it accounts for only 4 per cent of the world's population, it is responsible for 25 per cent of
the emissions of gases that cause the greenhouse effect." The reason behind the administration's aversion to environmental
issues is obvious: Bush remains committed to serving the interests of the oil and energy industries that profit off of pollution.
peace.moveon.org
A new energy bill which could potentially have been able to help reduce America's dependence on oil as an energy source
(and thus dependence on oil sources in the Middle East) contains loopholes which will essentially mean "increas[ing] our
dependence on imported oil and enshrining it as national policy, " according to the Sierra Club. It is expected to pass within
the next couple of weeks. Republicans have also revived talk of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
peace.moveon.org
At the recent UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, Colin Powell was jeered for defending the
US's environmental record. The US seemed to remain committed to advocating business-friendly solutions at the summit.
iht.com
President Bush did not even attend the summit in Johannesburg, despite the fact that so many other world leaders did,
allegedly because he was too "preoccupied with his fight against terrorism which has now shifted to the Islamic state of Iraq."
allafrica.com
Is the Bush administration trying to undermine NEPA?
truthout.org
A new EPA report contains no section on global warming, making it the first report in six years to omit information on climate
change related to greenhouse gases. The decision to omit the section was made by top EPA officials with White House
approval, and is drawing fire from environmental groups.
nytimes.com
Meanwhile, according to a US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, "[I]t is possible that the global warming trend
projected over the course of the next 100 years could, all of a sudden and without warning, dramatically accelerate in just a
handful of years - forcing a qualitative new climatic regime which could undermine ecosystems and human settlements
throughout the world, leaving little or no time for plants, animals and humans to adjust."
commondreams.org
Another important report concludes that no US stream remains unpolluted. The report also proposes a set of ecological
indicators to help better assess the environmental health of the US.
peace.moveon.org
The Bush government also recently announced the "Healthy Forests Initiative," which advocates "mechanical thinning" (aka
logging) of forests with the justification that it is supposed to help prevent forest fires. The initiative would enable companies
to log forests with almost no restrictions -- and ironically, would probably increase, not decrease, the chance of forest fires.
alternet.org
Bush campaign contributions are closely linked to the administration's environmental policies, Earthjustice and Public
Campaign charge in a detailed new report. According to the report, "Industries now reaping the benefits of an administration
intent on eliminating important environmental and public health safeguards are the same ones that helped underwrite the
Bush-Cheney campaign and the RNC with more than $44 million in contributions"
publicampaign.org
SOCIAL SPENDING AND CHANGES TO SOCIAL PROGRAMS
How will the US fund a war with Iraq, which by some estimates could have a $200 billion price tag? By using Social
Security: "The Social Security surplus -- the money in the locked box that everyone agreed during the 2000 presidential
campaign was supposed to stay sealed -- is currently being used to finance general government operations. This is,
apparently, the well into which President George W. Bush plans to dip in order to finance his next war. He has not told us of
any other. Social Security trust funds are the only accounts to tap because the surplus outside of Social Security has long
since vanished. It was wiped out by tax cuts, slow economic growth and the war in which we already are engaged."
wnyc.org
The Bush administration's proposed budget for 2003 "plans to shift more of the financial burden of social service provisions
to the states, leaving state and local governments with an aggregate budget deficit of almost $100 billion." In order to deal
with the deficit, states will probably have to cut back on social programs such as road construction, policing, education funds,
etc. The reason for the shift is that a large proportion of money is earmarked for security concerns related to the "war on
terrorism," leaving less money available for basic public services. Bush's tax cuts are likely also to blame.
salt.claretianpubs.org
While the Bush administration continues to advocate more war, health care for veterans appears to be a low priority. A Bush
appointee at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Laura J. Miller, recently sent out a memo to local administrators telling them
to stop healthcare outreach programs to vets so that the Department could save money. In other words, if the Bush
administration just doesn't tell veterans about the healthcare that they have earned by virtue of their military service, then the
government won't have to pay for it. The link is to an actual copy of the memo.
peace.moveon.org
Medicare is also suffering under the Bush administration. Bush "is proposing deep reductions in Medicare payments for a
wide range of drugs and medical devices used to treat people who are elderly or disabled." Ultimately, this could mean that
hospitals won't be paid enough for certain services, and may have to stop offering them, meaning that patients would no
longer have access to certain treatments.
nytimes.com
The number of people without insurance has also jumped in the past year. There were 41.2 million people without health
insurance in 2001, up 1.4 million from 2000. According to experts, this indicates that the number of people without health
insurance is likely to continue to rise, largely due to "rising health-care costs, state cutbacks in Medicaid, unemployment
increases and employer decisions to pass along most costs to workers."
startribune.com
Meanwhile, Health and Human Services committees, which provide expert advice on public health to Bush administration
officials, are being overhauled in order to eliminate views contrary to those of the Bush government.
peace.moveon.org
The Bush administration is also proposing changes to welfare that would require that recipients work longer hours and be
pushed out of job training and education programs.
peace.moveon.org
CC |
