Hi Keith et al,
At 06:54 PM 2/25/2002 Monday , Keith wrote:
>Hi Lawry,
>
>M'mm . . . Your excerpt from the Boston Globe (below) is very curious . . . .
>
>On the face of it, Bush's proposed increase in defence spending is quite
>extraordinary. It seems to me that there can be up to three explanations --
>or perhaps all of them.
>
>One is that Bush is indeed planning a major war against a foreign power
>such as Iraq and really does need all the new equipment.
>
>The other is that he's doing some old-fashioned Keynesian pump-priming --
>which means that despite the emollient words that Greenspan is expected to
>say in a day or two about the American economy the adminstration do not
>really believe him.
>
>The other is that Bush is going to spend an awful lot of money on home
>defence against terrorism and wants to disguise it within an even larger
>figure so that the American public will not be scared. When you think about
>it, the 11 September plane crashes, although well-planned and largely
>successful from Osama bin Laden's point of view, were really quite amateur
>efforts. If, in the ensuing months, a state secret service were to plan
>terrorist attacks on America then infinitely more destruction and loss of
>life could ensue (nuclear bombs in suitcases and all that). Also, there's
>the curious matter of the anthrax scares. According to reports in our
>newspapers a day or two ago, the FBI apparently know who did it (someone
>who worked in an official defence biochemical establishment) but cannot be
>arrested for fear of revealing official information. Perhaps the Americans
>want to beef up security almost everywhere.
>
>[snip]
>Keith
>
>_________________________________________________
>Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>_________________________________________________
>
There is a fourth explanation, one that Republicans have used for
decades.
That is by beefing up the military, they suck money out of the
social programs they detest, claiming that there isn't enough
money to fund them. "Of Course, Security Is More Important Than
Feeding the Poor, Saving the Environment, etc".
Of course, reducing taxes does the same thing, so that ploy
is also used. Together, they make a politically attractive
program that seems to have logic on its side but in reality
is simply a way to defeat more progressive social programs.
And pump up the Military-Industrial Complex which pumps large
sums into political coffers.
Recession seems the only way that the clues the public into
what is actually happening.
Dennis Paull
Half Moon Bay, Calif.
