Politicians by nature promise more than they can deliver. When the promises involve finances in the form of new programs, they frequently offer benefits beyond what the country can actually afford. It's natural to do so; and happens all the time.
Confronted subsequently with deficits, the first line of attack that politicians use is the budget cut-back, i.e. program (including payroll) slashing. We find state governments use this method with good results; spending is kept in check.
But debts can mount overtime after one federal administration succeeds another. Unforeseen catastrophes intervene adding to the mounting deficits. So, how should these politicians deal with an ever-increasing debt that at some time or other, becomes overwhelming--approaching or surpassing the level of the country/s GDP?
Austerity Programs are Tricky
Politicians are programmed to 'gut' response: at this stage, they institute an austerity programs. Be it noted, that the IMF is notorious for its attempts at supervising austerity programs it devised for the Latin American countries in the 1980's and 1990's; and today, no countriy in South America wants this organization on its shores! SA autserity programs were an economic disaster, which, finally, these nations have come out of. Sometimes, they simply defaulted on the IMF loans, but in all cases that I'm familiar with, the governments to the South abandoned IMF edicts and advice.
Little wonder. Did not the French Revolution start because the people were sick and fed up with austerity forced upon them by a high-living royalty? And did not the Germans, burdened with the Dawes Plan etc. committing it to reparations to the victors of WWI, throw off austerity by turning to the Nazis? Humans find austerity repugnant to the human spirit.
On the contemprary scene, the Greeks have taken to the streets to protest the austerity program forced upon them by the EU. Interestingly, the ECB (European Central Bank) is supplying eros since these demonstrations, apparently recognizing the limitations of austerity to turn a country's finances around without bringing about violence and bloodshed. (I argue that the violence does not end under auterity programs until the country is thrown into anarchy.)
The London Riots, August 9-11, 2011
With a new conservative goverenment in power, Britain launched its own austerity program to rid the deficit burden. The basic idea is to eliminate as many social programs as it can and to weaken the overall safety-net. Cutting out child-care run by the government, cutting back on senior lunch programs are within ken of its austerity philosophy.
The riots took place in poverty neighborhoods of London and Birmingham, UK's second largest city, and in other industrial towns. These neighborhoods are ethnically composed largely of Muslims, who have immigrated during the recent Labor government's regime. Burnings and lootings resembled to some onlookers as "bits...like Berlin or London in World War II" US Today.
Causes cited, e.g., by those at the scene and commentators on-TV, include class warfare between the rich and the poor, because the austerity measures prey heavily on the "deprived," i.e., the poor. Then, too, on the FOX network news, a British dignitary claimed there had been a lax-hiatus on the part of the police to immediately quell the violence. He further said had not the Labor government permitted in so many immigrants culturally different from the British, there would have been no turning to the violence as an acceptable means of protest.
In a major address, David Cameron, Prime Minister, attributed the violence to the work of inner-city gangs and kids in these segregated neighborhoods. He called attention to the looting of stores by mere children as evidence of the presence in Great Britain of a culture that condones violence ("It's a culture that glorifies violence.") and teaches an inferior morality; and he denied the claim by some Labor legislators that the country is in social dysfunction and despair. From this I derive the opinion that Mr. Cameron decries the Muslim faith.
Could it happen here in the USA?
On the Hannity Talk Show after the Riots, Mitt Romney was asked, "Do you think the riots could happen here?" Presidential Candidate Romney replied, 'When there's inadequate leadership at the top, riots are a real possibility.' Evidently, Romney doesn't think much of PM David Cameron's leadership.
Nevertheless, some analysts on these talk shows have noted the patience of the downtrodden. For instance, up to now the unemployed have not taken to the streets to protest their woeful financial condition. Yet, with the coming of the end of their unemployment checks, some of these may be motivated to visibly show their indignation.
Already, the blacks, led by Tavis Smiley and Professor West of Princeton University are touring the country's poor neighborhoods to observe their plight but may also be singling out leaders who can unite their communities. Specifically, any austerity program contemplated by the Tea Party must be countered with resistance, according to these men.
There's a target group the poor have identified in class warfare terms as the source of their problems, be it unemployment or poverty: viz., the rich who won't pay their "fair share." Obama's speeches in which justice is appealed to, have confirmed the rich as the poor man and middle class' warring adversary.
A Better Way to approach Indebtedness
If you look at indebtedness as indicative of a national crisis approaching the magnitude of threatening the very existence of the country, then the rightful approach to handling the problem is akin to dealing with any national emergency: by mobilizing the country's people to contribute what they severally are trained and skilled to do in order to save the nation.
I contend, deep-pocketed indebtedness must be handled as a state of war.
Be it noted that the Russians in the late 1980's were confronted, I believe, with the gravity of austerity programs. In my opinion, they acted courageously in giving up the pursuit of an Empire and in embracing the notion of a federation of independent states, each of which must make its contribution to the continuance of the Russian Bear. Their decision as to how to handle their indebtedness is embodied in the present Russian Constitution.
Meta-Elements of the Austerity Disaster
1. The austerity proposal. Those who recommend austerity imply 'Austerity, yes; but not for me!' Accordingly, they seek out groups upon whom to prey.
2. The accusation of deliberate overspending or pursuing flagrant policies leading to deep indebtedness. The charges are made and accepted in social parlance.
3. Austerity measures are undertaken at the expense of a group of individuals deemed philanderers. The punishment is inflicted, causing great social harm.
4. Provisions for retaliation. Those singled out for punishment and deprivation of rights are empowered to retaliate. Fightings and violence breaks out.
5. Down the line: anarchy. Neither side--the imposers nor the imposed upon--give in until death is widespread or the death-knell is silenced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment