Iraq War

Austerity Chic: It's This Year's "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

Richard Eskow — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:38:31 -0400

Sometimes our political commentariat seems to go fashion-crazy. When a new trend gets popular it overwhelms everything in its path: logic, poltical divisions, even expert opinion. The latest vogue is deficit reduction, and our nation's Anna Wintours tell us we simply have to have it. In Washington, screaming about being in the red is the new black.

Call it "austerity chic," and it's catching on fast. We've already written about an odd quartet of recent austerity-chic pieces from pundits that included Tom Friedman and Anne Applebaum. These pieces tell us why we should find this new style appealing: Self-denial is what makes a nation great.

We've seen this herd mentality before, of course, most notably in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The experts warned us what would happen, but our keyboard-clacking dedicated followers of fashion thought they knew better. Ever eager to issue the clarion call for sacrifice - on somebody else's part - they issued their calls to arms. Their support played a pivotal role in building support for the invasion.

How'd that work out for you?

Once again, the experts tell us that the warning lights are flashing red and the fashionistas aren't listening. That was made clear again this morning, when a conference call was held to announce that 300 economist and civic leaders have signed a statement saying that "there is a grave danger that the still-fragile economic recovery will be undercut by austerity economics." The statement, released by the Institute For America's Future*, adds: "A turn by major governments away from the promotion of growth and jobs and to premature focus on deficit reduction could slow growth and increase unemployment - and could push us back into recession."

Contrast those sentences with the fetishized way Friedman approached reduced spending in his column. "The Greatest Generation's leaders were never afraid to ask Americans to sacrifice," he writes, whereas today's Americans "had a values breakdown." Here's what Friedman's missing: With 15 million people unemployed and 44 million in poverty, a lot of people are sacrificing right now. As for Applebaum, her orgiastic descriptions of "axe-wielding," "slashing" British budget cuts have to be read to be believed (although I did provide a summary here, if you're the type who shuts their eyes during slasher movies.)

Friedman and Applebaum aren't the only dedicated followers of fashion to join the austerity trend, of course. As we noted in the Friedman/Applebaum piece, Megan McArdle high-fived another business writer for dismissing retirement as a "vacation" while adding that "decades-long" vacations are an indulgence we can no longer afford. And Fareed Zakaria has flirted with the Austerians more than once, although he leans more toward letting all the tax cuts expire. Zakaria's followed at least two other trends recently - the notion that fear of Obama is hampering business investment and the idea that the Great Recession was really your fault - so this isn't a great surprise. (I'm not as down on Zakaria as it might sound. He's a smart guy and his TV show's usually quite interesting. Maybe his "fashion sense" just gets in the way of his common sense.)

In the world of political fashion, Republicans set the trend and others follow. Austerity chic's no exception. As with Iraq, it has just enough Democratic support to provide the "bipartisan" gloss needed to give it critical mass. The latest supporter is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who upped the rhetorical ante recently by declaring the deficit a "national security threat." Erskine Bowles and Rep. Steny Hoyer are among the other prominent Democrats who have jumped on the bandwagon.

But if some Democrats are including are wearing a splash of this year's color, right-wingers are painting their faces with it. John Boehner's call for a 15% cut in domestic spending would plunge the nation back into a deep recession. The Tea Partiers' calls for deep cuts in Social Security would immediately plunge 20 million seniors into poverty, followed shortly thereafter by a massive spike in unemployment as their purchasing power leaves the economy. And their cuts to Medicare and education would further crush our already-wounded economy. (For more information, see Adele Stan's Five Ways the Tea Party Agenda Screws Tea Party Supporters.)

As Dean Baker pointed out on this morning's call, government spending is not the cause of our current deficits. Two wars and a massive tax cut turned a surplus into a massive deficit. (I'd add a massive bank bailout with no reqruiements to limit profits or increase lending.) And, as Baker observed, greater unemployment always leads to greater deficits. Robert Reich, another participant in the call, observed that last quarter's slowdown in the growth of the economy is a warning sign in an already-grave situation. Theresa Ghilarducci suggested that an increase in Social Security could help stimulate growth. All agreed that greater spending is urgently needed to stimulate the economy, leaving deficits to be addressed once economic conditions are healthier.

If "austerity" is this year's "WMD," that doesn't mean that's deficits aren't a concern. They are, and so is the need to keep powerful weapons out of the wrong hands. It's a matter of proportion and priority. The economists who signed today's statement understand the need to reduce the deficit. But they also know that the economy needs to recover first, and that budget cuts - like military might - must be directed toward genuine threats.

Right now the 300 people who signed this statement are as outnumbered as the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae. Let's hope they do as well. As for Applebaum and Friedman, is it churlish to point out that they were both cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq? I don't think so. Then, as now, they embraced and promoted a Beltway trend without sufficient thought or foresight. And they've demonstrated a stubborn resistance to face reality in both cases. Applebaum greeted the bipartisan Baker report on Iraq with resentment. She continues to insist, against most experts' opinions, that we won't know whether the war went well for at least a decade. And now, unbowed by past errors, she's trying to drum up support for an attack on Iran.

As for Friedman, he said "we need to give the war six more months" so many times that observers began describing these intervals as "Friedman units." Friedman's enthusiasm for that war led him to the most notorious moment of his career, when he told Charlie Rose that it didn't matter which country we attacked. Any Muslim nation would do, he said, as long as Muslims everywhere saw "American boys and girls going door to door and saying ... you don't think we care? ... You think this bubble fantasy, we're just going to let it grow? Well, suck on this."

That was fifteen Friedman units ago, and people change. Friedman's done his mea culpa on the war, which is commendable, and his support for a government-backed "green revolution" is an excellent idea (one that contradicts his newfound austerity passion). Still, he's about to do another major disservice to the American people. He may think it's wise and even inspirational to frame spending cuts as a form of national sacrifice. But the wrong people will be sacrificed,especially in this political climate The economists who signed today's statement understand better than Friedman does what will happen if austerity wins the day.

When asked what piece of fashion advice she would give, Catherine Deneuve suggested that women look in the mirror before going out and remove one piece of jewelry. Austerity-for-its-own sake is a bauble that makes its wearer look overdressed and leaves other people unclothed. We need to have the courage to invest in the future, rather than slashing spending out of political trendiness and a failure of nerve.

A lot of people are hurting right now. To let them languish would be Washington's way of telling them to "suck on this." But helping them would also help the economy recover and grow, which would benefit everybody. It would also send a message to them, and to the world, the this country still believes in its own future. It would be a signal of renewed confidence in the American Dream.

Sure, it will be hard work to turn things around, but it's like the old folks used to say: Hard work never goes out of fashion.

_______________________

*I am a fellow at the Campaign For America's Future, the Institute's sister organization.

(UPDATE: Yet another fashionista dresses himself in austerity chic as a journalist applauds.)

(UPDATE II: Via Glenn Greenwald, we learn that Digby told us of an an austerity-chic pioneer who can afford all the newest fashions.)

For more information on the statement, see here, here, and here.

Iraq Explodes

OurFuture.org Staff — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:35:08 -0400

When Will Cheney's Tower Of Lies Finally Come Tumbling Down?

OurFuture.org Staff — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:12:49 -0400

The Trauma of 9/11 Is No Excuse

OurFuture.org Staff — Sun, 31 May 2009 23:03:27 -0400

The Cheney Legacy

Jeff Morris — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:15:26 -0400

For some time now, people have been wondering how the historical Presidential legacy of George W. Bush will read. That it will be terrible, is now almost universal in consensus. I'm now thinking how the legacy of the most authoritarian, abusive of power, secretive, Vice President in U.S. history should read also. I will never understand how so many questionable actions of Bush/Cheney went unchallenged for so long. I will never understand how the legality of so many of their actions weren't challenged by Congress, or in the courts, much sooner.

During the run up to the Iraq invasion, our nation and our news people must have been asleep or under the spell of post 9-11 induced opportunistic Patriotism. VP Cheney and his office were perhaps the biggest offenders in the cherry picking and manipulation of pre war intelligence, the exaggerated claims of dire threats, and the main authors of why Iraq posed such an imminent threat to the U.S. that a preemptive invasion was necessary for our National Security.

The sixteen words of yellow cake uranium from Niger, the bogus threat of the consequences coming back to us in the form of a mushroom cloud, and other phony exaggerated threats, were for the most part drafted by the VP and his office. In the end Bush/Cheney sold it to Congress and the American people and got their permission slip for the unnecessary invasion. Which brought nothing but death and destruction to a nation and people who had nothing to do with 9-11, and who never posed any real threat to the U.S.

Once the invasion started, VP Cheney then awarded hundreds of billions of dollars in no bid contracts to his old company (Halliburton) and its subsidiary Company KBR only. Talk about a vested interest in wanting to start the unnecessary war! Talk about a conflict of interest! Yet Congress, and sadly a good portion of the American public, didn't question this all very much. I still have a hard time wondering how this was legal. Five and a half years later we now see how it's cost us as a nation dearly. In troop deaths, in a record deficit, in a badly damaged image around the World....

If you examine the worst offenses of this Bush/Cheney administration ( exaggerated threats in the run up to the Iraq invasion ,Torture policies, Guantanamo Bay, exposure of an undercover CIA agents identity, NSA warrant less spying program, Military Commissions act, Patriot Act.... )they seem to have a common thread. Follow the trail back and they all lead to the same place. VP Cheney and his office. The man is a War Criminal, War Profiteer....yet received 5 different deferments during the Viet Nam War, when it was his turn to step up to the plate and serve his Country. A draft dodger, and perhaps the loudest voice in favor of sending yours and my kids, grand kids... off for a third, fourth... tour of duty in his unnecessary Iraq oil War.

On JFK's Inauguration in Jan. 1961, outgoing Pres Eisenhower gave a final speech. He warned us of a possible coming threat to the U.S. He called that threat "The Military Industrial Complex" When our Military and Corporate Giants march America, hand in hand, into an unnecessary War for Big Business and Corporate Profits. Sadly, 42 yr later Eisenhower's warning became fulfilled prophecy with the 2003 unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

Sometimes I think I know why the Republicans at the top picked Bush back in 2000 to be their Presidential nominee. They needed someone who's bulb was dim enough to wake up every morning, look himself in the mirror, and say "I'm the President Of The United States". Also someone dumb enough to never figure it out that he isn't the one really calling the shots. Our real "shadow President" Darth Cheney called the shots, and got everything he wanted! Including hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money siphoned from the U.S. Treasury and into the coffers of his old Company!

Jeff Morris-Saugerties, N.Y.- DeJaVu57

With A Compass, Not A Roadmap

Eric Lotke — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:14:55 -0500

The complaints are starting on the new Obama administration. Some are concerned that he filled his administration with former Clinton hands, reflecting the old school (if more competent), not the change we need.

“What worries me is there is not one person in the senior group who is the outsider to this club,” cautioned Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect. “Where is the diversity of opinion in this economic team?”

David Sirota of our own Campaign for America's Future observes that some terrific progressives have been appointed to high-level positions in the Administration, but they are political jobs, not substantive ones. They are “positions that are focused on selling policy, whatever that policy may be. “ In contrast, the “policy advisers who actually craft policy are almost all right-of-center, Establishment choices.”

Discontent is coming from the other direction as well, as Democrats increase estimates of the cost to revive the economy. During the campaign Obama pledged roughly $150 billion in spending over 10 years to create new jobs for clean energy and rebuilding schools. Now Congressional Democrats are estimating immediate expenditures in the $700 billion range. The GOP has created a spendometer to track the continuing increases.

Obama himself dodges questions about cost. “It is going to be of a size and scope that is necessary to get this economy back on track,” he said in his November 24 press conference. “I don't want to get into numbers right now.”

The question for progressives is whether to demand the details or question his choices.

Both seem premature. Political change happens with a compass, not a roadmap. Obama has clearly indicated which way he wants to lead: in the direction of clean energy, massive public investments, an exit from Iraq and “affordable, accessible health care for all Americans.” These are important and fundamentally progressive goals.

Digby sees a positive side to the appointments to political -- if not substantive -- positions. Simply using progressive language drives our country in a positive direction.

Let’s hope that those old Clinton hands will have the skills and experience to navigate the changing terrain. Obama’s job is to set a direction. Our job is to push him forwards and keep him on course.

Costs of Worn-out Iraq Equipment High

Alexander Sewell — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:33:11 -0400

The U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that it will take years and cost about $200 billion to repair or replace equipment that was worn out or broken in the Iraq war.

More than $13 Billion for Iraq Reconstruction Unaccounted For

Armand Biroonak — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:06:18 -0400

A former Iraqi official recently estimated that more than $13 billion meant for reconstruction projects in Iraq was wasted or stolen through elaborate fraud schemes.

Iraq War Costs

Armand Biroonak — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

The federal government has authorized $656 billion for the Iraq war. Of that total, $152 billion was appropriated to fund the Iraq war during the current fiscal year. That amounts to more than $12 billion per month and $416 million per day.

Contractors Used Heavily in Iraq War

Armand Biroonak — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0400

A record number of private contractors are used in Iraq--receiving almost 20% of funding for operations or $85 billion-- these contractors are often not held accountable for their use of the money.