The problem to solve is the mounting and indeed crushing national debt, and the debilitating national deficit.
To find a solution, the first thing NOT to do is to blame another country for ones own unsustainable way of life.
If ones way of life is to live beyond ones means, either you have to borrow more to sustain it, or make it sustainable.
Since the national debt is part of the problem in the first place, borrowing more is not a logical or viable solution.
This leaves reducing expenditures as the only option, which becomes a matter of what to cut first and what not to cut.
There are just five places to cut from: the tax-cut, oil subsidies, the military, and stimulus and social programs.
By "tax cut" I mean to cut the cut itself which benefits the rich 5% at the expense of society, and stinks of elitism.
By "oil subsidies" I mean to CUT THEM OFF! They amount to billions, from your bank account straight into that of EXXON which already topped Fortune 500 at $19 billion profit in 2009.
By military expenditure, at $700 billion a year, the U.S. out-spends China's $115 billion 6 to 1, from whom the U.S. borrows its billions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
By stimulus packages I do NOT mean more jobs in oil and coal; I do mean more investments in green tech and green jobs.
By social programs I do NOT mean old age security, education, health care, insurance and environmental protection.
The U.S. aims at cutting $4 trillion over 10 years. The Republicans want it to come from reducing tax-cuts and social programs 50/50. The Democrats theoretically should stand for cutting tax-cuts, and reducing as few social programs as possible.
Inexplicably, incredibly, Obama seems to be driving for reducing the tax-cut less and cutting social programs more, 25/75, including old age security, which not even the Republicans have had the audacity to suggest. He is giving the Republicans twice as much as they demand, unnecessarily, sacrificing the weakest in the process. What is he thinking?!
But they are really not so weak. In fact, the Seniors make up the most vigorous as well as rigorous sector of the voting public. They have traditionally favored the Democrats. If Obama loses their support in this election, he might as well hand the presidency to Sarah Palin.
And what would Palin's solution be? I dread to think, but if I must, she must do what Obama did not even dare to mention. She must:
1. slash the tax-cut, especially for the rich;
2. cut the oil subsidy to zero;
3. reduce the military spending by 50% in the coming decade;
4. stimulate only for long term benefits;
5. leave the social programs alone!
None of which of course she would do, nor would Obama, by the look of it.
Lots of power struggles to come, but what wisdom is there at the controls of that power? Maybe December 21, 2012, is the end of the world after all.
Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
Anthony-Marr@HOPE-CARE.org
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.facebook.com/Anthony.Marr.001
www.facebook.com/Global_Anti-Hunting_Coalition
www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.youtube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com (AM's 3rd-book-in-the-making)
www.myspace.com/Anti-Hunting_Coalition
www.ARConference.org
No comments:
Post a Comment