Cutting Social Security in the Name of National Security

As a number of people have observed, the National Security Strategy Obama released last week prioritizes the economic vitality of the US as one source of security. Much of this discussion places a predictable focus on trade, technology, and education. But I was shocked by the almost mindless privileging on deficit reduction in the document.

For example, the overview paragraph that introduces the importance of our economic health puts reducing the deficit on par with education, science, energy, and health care.

At the center of our efforts is a commitment to renew our economy, which serves as the wellspring of American power. The American people are now emerging from the most devastating recession that we have faced since the Great Depression. As we continue to act to ensure that our recovery is broad and sustained, we are also laying the foundation for the long term growth of our economy and competitiveness of our citizens. The investments that we have made in recovery are a part of a broader effort that will contribute to our strength: by providing a quality education for our children; enhancing science and innovation; transforming our energy economy to power new jobs and industries; lowering the cost of health care for our people and businesses; and reducing the Federal deficit. [my emphasis]

The paragraph immediately following tries to connect all of these ideas directly with security. Yet its explanation for the importance of deficit reduction is so vague as to be meaningless.

Each of these steps will sustain America’s ability to lead in a world where economic power and individual opportunity are more diffuse. These efforts are also tied to our commitment to secure a more resilient nation. Our recovery includes rebuilding an infrastructure that will be more secure and reliable in the face of terrorist threats and natural disasters. Our focus on education and science can ensure that the breakthroughs of tomorrow take place in the United States. Our development of new sources of energy will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Our commitment to deficit reduction will discipline us to make hard choices, and to avoid overreach. These steps complement our efforts to integrate homeland security with national security; including seamless coordination among Federal, state, and local governments to prevent, protect against, and respond to threats and natural disasters. [my emphasis]

We don’t get any better explanation of the importance of deficit reduction in the paragraphs dedicated to economic issues later in the document. The NSS first claims that deficit reduction, along with an emphasis on savings and reforming our financial system, will be all that it takes to make the US economy more export-driven–a claim that ignores a number of the reasons we’ve become less competitive internationally.

Save More And Export More: Striking a better balance at home means saving more and spending less, reforming our financial system, and reducing our long-term budget deficit. With those changes, we will see a greater emphasis on exports that we can build, produce, and sell all over the world, with the goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2014. This is ultimately an employment strategy, because higher exports will support millions of well-paying American jobs, including those that service innovative and profitable new technologies. As a part of that effort, we are reforming our export controls consistent with our national security imperatives.

And then it throws in a paragraph dedicated to deficit reduction which offers little to explain why that–rather than a range of other actions–is so central to our national security (though it does make it pretty clear this deficit reduction won’t focus on military spending).

Reduce the Deficit: We cannot grow our economy in the long term unless we put the United States back on a sustainable fiscal path. To begin this effort, the Administration has proposed a 3-year freeze in nonsecurity discretionary spending, a new fee on the largest financial services companies to recoup taxpayer losses for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and the closing of tax loopholes and unnecessary subsidies. The Administration has created a bipartisan fiscal commission to suggest further steps for medium-term deficit reduction and will work for fiscally responsible health insurance reform that will bring down the rate of growth in health care costs, a key driver of the country’s fiscal future.

The thing is, there are a number of economically-related issues that are more closely connected with our national security yet receive inadequate attention, in some cases because doing so would conflict with the ideology of the deficit hawks.

Manufacturing: For example, there is absolutely no discussion of the role of manufacturing in national security. The NSS sees investing in science, technology, engineering, and math education as one means to keep American competitive technologically. It calls for federal investment in science research. But it neglects the way in which manufacturing turns this know-how into capacity that has always been central to US dominance. At a time when we risk losing key capacities to make our nifty war toys because of the decline in manufacturing, this silence is particularly troubling. But rebuilding our manufacturing capacity takes more than investment in basic science; it requires a concerted strategy to help the US compete with the mercantilist economies that increasingly dominate manufacturing.

Real Financial Reform: While the NSS–as the fourth blockquote above makes clear–pays lip service to reforming our financial system, it never explicitly acknowledges that this must mean more than restoring stability. It must also incent investment in productive capacity rather than bubbles. And the Administration has repeatedly stopped far short of such reforms. Indeed, the Administration has pointedly avoided doing the things that might return our economy to making things again, rather than encouraging finance as a key driver of economic growth.

Infrastructure: The NSS does address the role of our infrastructure in national security. It notes the necessity of protecting our infrastructure.

Security at home relies on our shared efforts to prevent and deter attacks by identifying and interdicting threats, denying hostile actors the ability to operate within our borders, protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure and key resources, and securing cyberspace. That is why we are pursuing initiatives to protect and reduce vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure, at our borders, ports, and airports, and to enhance overall air, maritime, transportation, and space and cyber security.

It notes the importance of our digital infrastructure to protecting our electrical grids.

Our daily lives and public safety depend on power and electric grids, but potential adversaries could use cyber vulnerabilities to disrupt them on a massive scale. The Internet and e-commerce are keys to our economic competitiveness, but cyber criminals have cost companies and consumers hundreds of millions of dollars and valuable intellectual property.
The threats we face range from individual criminal hackers to organized criminal groups, from terrorist networks to advanced nation states. Defending against these threats to our security, prosperity, and personal privacy requires networks that are secure, trustworthy, and resilient. Our digital infrastructure, therefore, is a strategic national asset, and protecting it—while safeguarding privacy and civil liberties—is a national security priority.

The document’s most sustained focus on infrastructure focuses on public-private partnerships.

Improve Resilience Through Increased Public-Private Partnerships: When incidents occur, we must show resilience by maintaining critical operations and functions, returning to our normal life, and learning from disasters so that their lessons can be translated into pragmatic changes when necessary. The private sector, which owns and operates most of the nation’s critical infrastructure, plays a vital role in preparing for and recovering from disasters. We must, therefore, strengthen public-private partnerships by developing incentives for government and the private sector to design structures and systems that can withstand disruptions and mitigate associated consequences, ensure redundant systems where necessary to maintain the ability to operate, decentralize critical operations to reduce our vulnerability to single points of disruption, develop and test continuity plans to ensure the ability to restore critical capabilities, and invest in improvements and maintenance of existing infrastructure. [my emphasis]

This was written, of course, before Obama admitted he was wrong to trust BP in its response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Where I was wrong was in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios.

But the discussion of investing in our publicly owned infrastructure is limited to one sentence.

Our recovery includes rebuilding an infrastructure that will be more secure and reliable in the face of terrorist threats and natural disasters.

We did invest in infrastructure as part of the recovery plan–but primarily that which was shovel-ready. As a result, we haven’t even begun to address vulnerabilities in some aspects of our infrastructure (like water and sewer) that would make easy targets of attack. And ongoing infrastructure investment–which contributes both to resiliance in case of attack and international competitiveness–is precisely the kind of no-nonsense national security action that falls by the wayside when you make deficit reduction a more important goal that overall economic recovery.

Domestic terrorism: Largely in an effort to avoid describing Islamic extremism as the source of terrorism, this document uses netural language that might also apply to domestic terrorists.

Empowering Communities to Counter Radicalization: Several recent incidences of violent extremists in the United States who are committed to fighting here and abroad have underscored the threat to the United States and our interests posed by individuals radicalized at home. Our best defenses against this threat are well informed and equipped families, local communities, and institutions. The Federal Government will invest in intelligence to understand this threat and expand community engagement and development programs to empower local communities. And the Federal Government, drawing on the expertise and resources from all relevant agencies, will clearly communicate our policies and intentions, listening to local concerns, tailoring policies to address regional concerns, and making clear that our diversity is part of our strength—not a source of division or insecurity.

But the NSS doesn’t really consider the unique danger represented by domestic terrorists who would receive less national security scrutiny. And just as importantly, it doesn’t consider some of the underlying causes–like increasing economic insecurity and inequality–that might contribute to such domestic terrorism. Doing so, of course, would require balancing the ideological preferences of deficit hawks against real economic development. But again, that’s not going to happen once deficit reduction becomes a goal unto itself, as it is here.

In short, the Administration has rather bizarrely stuck deficit reduction into the national security strategy while ignoring several equally–probably more–important issues that the ascendancy of the deficit hawks has led this country to neglect. Which is just one more indication of how dangerous and counterproductive the deficit scolds are to this country.

image_print
87 replies
  1. bobschacht says:

    Good morning!
    Thanks for keeping your eye on the ball, and actually for juggling 4 major balls at once (Manufacturing, Real Financial Reform, Infrastructure, and Domestic Terrorism). Real Financial Reform is at a critical juncture right now, with the Senate and House working on a final bill, while the public is distracted by the Oil Volcano.

    Bob in AZ

    • Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle says:

      Can someone explain to me why the Democrats(especially the Obama type) are so in love with Pete Peterson? Has Peterson ever voted for a Democrat? Ever(even an Evan Bayh type)? I know he hands out money to both parties. But he doesn’t have Democrats interest at heart.

      • BoxTurtle says:

        Can someone explain to me why the Democrats(especially the Obama type) are so in love with Pete Peterson?

        I know he hands out money

        And you need an explaination?

        Boxturtle (Seems like you got a pretty good understanding)

      • Jeff Kaye says:

        What Democratic interests? Seems they’ve handed the keys to the car to Peterson and the oligarchic elite.

        Jane explains here how they’ve been planning this for a long time.

        • Frank33 says:

          As the kids say WTF. Peterson has become a Democrat! And He is a fundraiser for Democrats. Who could have anticipated? And guess who is Peterson’s BFF as the kids call it? The White House Chief of Corruption Rahm Emanuel.

          That White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met Sunday night at the apartment of Jane Hartley and Ralph Schlosstein with Dem fund-raisers such as Orin Kramer, Stan Shuman, Roger Altman, Ann Hess, Robert Zimmerman, Pete Peterson and Joan Ganz Cooney.

          • Jeff Kaye says:

            Not a surprise. But then, this says more about the direction of the Democrats than about Peterson. The Democrats have turned into an out-and-out right-centrist party, and trending even farther to the right, as the GOP spirals out into right-wing fruitcake land, leaving the Democrats to fill the void of the old Reagan coalition.

            And the left? Well, the liberals are all right-centrist now. The rest of the left? What’s left of it is still married to small organizations, or inert, or… blogging ;-)

  2. BoxTurtle says:

    Obama hasn’t managed to implement one thing in the manner he promised. Not one. Why should I worry he’ll suddenly succeed with this one?

    Boxturtle (At least when Bush was president, Cheney could get things done)

    • BayStateLibrul says:

      Could it be that it’s virtually impossible to govern in the 21st
      Century of USA?

      • BoxTurtle says:

        Cheney had no problem running things when he was in charge. Available evidence suggests ObamaLLP is incompetent.

        Boxturtle (Of course being a Chicago politician, Obama could just be returning some favors)

        • BayStateLibrul says:

          A henchman can govern? Short term yes, long-term no.
          I think you have to break it down between domestic and foreign affairs…
          Bush/Cheney… 8 years to run nation… did nothing domestically, all
          consuming as the “War Prez”
          Didn’t the bail-out prevent a “panic”?
          No slack given to Obama?
          Actually, I’d like to see a woman prez

      • Mason says:

        Could it be that it’s virtually impossible to govern in the 21st
        Century of USA?

        The answer is “Yes,” if the person attempting to govern is a deeply corrupt and extremely lame doormat without values, principles, or empathy.

        Otherwise, the answer is “No.”

    • spanishinquisition says:

      “Boxturtle (At least when Bush was president, Cheney could get things done)”

      That’s the one good thing I see about the Obama admin is that they are pretty ineffectual at actually getting things done. Obama reminds me of Carly Fiorina who was great at PR/Sales, but horrid at actually administering a company.

  3. ghostof911 says:

    Our commitment to deficit reduction will discipline us to make hard choices…

    For one, we could reduce the spending on defense to the level it was pre-WW II. And why not?

    • BoxTurtle says:

      And why not?

      Scary Brown Moslems.
      Scary Brown Mexican Drug Traffickers.
      Scary Brown Iranians.

      Scary Brown Boxturtle (BOO!!!!)

  4. fatster says:

    Apologies: O/T

    Supreme Court: Suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke their Miranda protection during interrogation

    LINK.

    • DWBartoo says:

      The law is, increasingly, in the “men and women” who shape, bend and “fashion” it, the tool of tyranny, its “blindness”, a lack of humanity and conscience. The law and justice have parted company.

      DW

      • DWBartoo says:

        It is said that “ignorance is no excuse” when it comes to the law.

        Is the ignorance of the law itself, much of any excuse, save as a handmaiden to arrogant, unbridled power?

        DW

    • DWBartoo says:

      Belatedly, thank you, fatster.

      No one is faster … (or wiser in their “choices”)

      Linking us, all ways, to many things.

      Much appreciation.

      DW

  5. Minnesotachuck says:

    The late John Boyd, widely regarded as America’s deepest strategic thinker, sketched out a short list of principles against which to evaluate a nation’s grand strategy. Boyd presented something of a moving target since he was constantly revising and reformulating his stuff. The following is my favorite rendition:

    + Ensure the nation’s fitness, as an organic whole, to shape and cope with an ever-changing environment.

    + Strengthen national resolve and increase the nation’s internal political solidarity.

    + Weaken the resolve of the nation’s adversaries and reduce their internal cohesion.

    + Reinforce the commitments of our allies to our cause and make them empathetic to our success.

    + Attract the uncommitted to our cause.

    + End conflicts on terms that do not sow the seeds for future conflicts.

    By these criteria the Bush/Cheney years were a disaster. The policies they pursued and the incompetence with which they implemented them led to results that were contrary to every one of them. Our adversaries couldn’t have hoped for more if they’d managed to plant their own Manchurian Candidate (maybe they did?). Sadly Obama is not doing much to improve the situatiion.

    • bobschacht says:

      And what, pray tell, is “our cause” in this scenario? As I read it, “our cause” is solely and only about survival and self promotion. I don’t see any other principles or values in this “strategic vision” to fight for. It looks like a “My Mother, right or wrong!” kinda thing. Actually, I think Boyd’s strategy looks a lot like Cheney’s.

      bmaz and EW, since you both seem impressed by Boyd, please help me understand what he means by “our cause,” if it is something other than rampant jingoism.

      Bob in aZ

      • Minnesotachuck says:

        And what, pray tell, is “our cause” in this scenario? . . . Actually, I think Boyd’s strategy looks a lot like Cheney’s.

        Bob, apologies for being so late in responding to your comment, but I’ve been otherwise occupied since shortly after posting my comment this morning.

        As I understand the term “grand strategy”, it is the activity in which the leaders of a nation-state determine what are its core interests, what specific objectives it should pursue in order to advance those interests, and a broad brush description of the policies laying out a path for achieving those objectives. This set of interests, objectives and policies would constitute the “cause” (or “causes”) as Boyd is using the term explicitly in the fourth and fifth items on the list, and implicitly in the others.

        My understanding of Boyd’s intent when he put forward these principles was for them to be used as a measuring stick for assessing whether the causes suggested or already chosen are appropriate. (I don’t see any specific interests, objectives or policies either explicitly stated or implied within this framework.) When the elements of a proposed grand strategy are viewed through this prism, among the things that should bubble to the surface are the likelihood of the objectives being achieved, and also the probably downsides if they are not. If the latter are deemed too severe, then perhaps a Plan B ought to be developed.

        For better or worse, governments seldom explicitly state their grand strategy “causes” for public consumption and, I suspect, neither state them explicitly for internal consumption nor even think consciously them through. This may be because of an awareness that the statements would be politically incorrect or because they are beliefs that are so widely shared that they’re accepted as part of the landscape and thus not recognized as something that needs stating. Cases in point: the in the Domino Theory and the assumption of a lock-step, joined-at-the-hip identity of interests on the parts of the USSR and PRC during the 1950s and 1960s. Another one is the belief in the necessity of controlling as much of the world’s petroleum production and distribution infrastructure ever since the First World War. With the causes unstated explicitly or in some cases not even consciously recognized by the national leadership implicitly, it becomes necessary to do what’s being done in this thread, namely trying to infer what’s behind the curtain.

        To get a handle on how Boyd himself might view America’s strategic situation were he still alive (he died in 1997) I suggest the various writings of his protoges in the military reform movement he founded and led. Google up such names as Franklin Spinney, Pierre Sprey, Winslow Wheeler, William Lind and Chet Richards. You’ll find their op eds in places like Counterpunch and Mother Jones, among others. I also suggest the collection of coordinated essays by these guys and others published in book form as America’s Defense Meltdown. Judging from these writings, Boyd would not be happy.

        • bobschacht says:

          Thanks for your reply.
          My position remains that a strategic vision based on “our cause” that does not articulate what that cause is, is vacuous.

          Bob in AZ

    • archiebird says:

      “Our adversaries couldn’t have hoped for more if they’d managed to plant their own Manchurian Candidate (maybe they did?). ” And according to Daniel Estulin, Bilderberg investigative reporter extraordinaire–They did!” (I’m not really a conspiracy nut, but he hit that one on the head)

    • Mason says:

      Sadly Obama is not doing much to improve the situatiion.

      He’s making it infinitely worse by covering up Bush Administration criminal activity and war crimes, plus he’s legitimizing and institutionalizing the systematic destruction of our economy and our civil rights while dramatically escalating the murder of innocent people with predator drones and laughing about it.

  6. BoxTurtle says:

    OT but related to prior discussions via CBS:

    investigators, who have already been on the coast for a month, have sent letters to BP instructing the company to preserve internal records related to the spill.

    About time. Hope nothing has vanished in the meantime.

    Boxturtle (Strategic loss of email would not shock me)

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Within the range discussed here, a lower federal deficit doesn’t make the economy more stable and “enhance security”; it assures that the government will have more room to expand its debt later in order to fund the military and pay for corporate subsidies and bail-outs. Which makes ordinary Americans less secure.

    That’s not the change, leadership or security Americans voted for in putting this insecure corporatist in office. Ordinarily, I would say that I hope their behavior in the voting booth this November reminds him of that. But he and his party, their “opposition”, and the media are impervious to such criticism, just as politicians of both parties are impervious to the need to resign owing to their incompetence, moral turpitude or grossly embarrassing behavior.

  8. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Wall Street has decreed that manufacturing – and innovation generally – cannot be sited in the US, on the basis that our costs are too high. Never mind their own grossly inflated fees and incomes. It is saying that their government agrees with Wall Street that employing ordinary Americans, that allocating them a fair share of the economic pie they help bake, which allows them at least to sustain but not grow their incomes and pay for their communities, is an “unaffordable luxury”. A once mildly progressive party has abandoned its voters in favor of governing for a small, global elite.

    Instead of being considered “normal”, instead of being considered an inescapable consequence, it ought to be considered a shrill wake-up call to voters that they ought to throw the bums out.

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The clearest sign of a government’s priority is that it appears in a wide variety of guises. Here, the economic priorities appear in a “national security” guise.

    • Larue says:

      All to achieve benefit to the elite, and forgo any support or investment in non-elites beyond military service.

      Great read Mz. Wheeler, and very thoughtful comments already thru #23 . . .

      I have only one semi related question.

      Will we the people simply allow this all to play out (failure of system is inevitable) or will we the people begin some form of change implementation to try and prevent system failure.

      I guess, that’s a diary question in and of itself . . . sorry, EW, back to the thread . . . .

  10. emptywheel says:

    Btw, there’s one more paragraph which really took me aback on this front–the NSS’s description of the country’s economic infrastructure.

    Economic: Our economic institutions are crucial components of our national capacity and our economic instruments are the bedrock of sustainable national growth, prosperity and influence. The Office of Management and Budget, Departments of the Treasury, State, Commerce, Energy, and Agriculture, United States Trade Representative, Federal Reserve Board, and other institutions help manage our currency, trade, foreign investment, deficit, inflation, productivity, and national competitiveness. Remaining a vibrant 21st century economic power also requires close cooperation between and among developed nations and emerging markets because of the interdependent nature of the global economy. America—like other nations—is dependent upon overseas markets to sell its exports and maintain access to scarce commodities and resources. Thus, finding overlapping mutual economic interests with other nations and maintaining those economic relationships are key elements of our national security strategy.

    It puts OMB, the only role of which is in budget disciple, first among the agencies contributing to our “economic growth.” It doesn’t include Labor, which is not surprising, but telling. And it includes Commerce which doesn’t do much of anything but trade delegations and metrics.

    • Larue says:

      National Security built and run to serve the needs of the elites.

      Not to serve the country, or the masses.

      They’re doing it well.

  11. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Our global economic competitiveness, our collective ability to cooperate and compete with other countries businesses is an important point. But the road we are taking leads toward a phantom economic security, because we imagine ourselves able to obtain it through war and intimidation. Dangerously, that such means of extraction consume more economic, social and moral resources than they gain doesn’t matter when those who steer us down that road first siphon off their take before any other consideration. (Massive outsourcing of intelligence and warfighting is an example.)

    Rather than address those issues, this document chooses an Orwellian approach. We enhance our security by making ordinary Americans insecure, by cutting their jobs, by deregulating predatory business practices, by cutting more holes in an already hole-filled safety net. Which makes the question, whose security is this document addressing?

  12. Jane Hamsher says:

    One point I’d make — cutting Social Security wouldn’t affect the deficit even if you wiped it out. It pays for itself. You could of course raid the trust fund and default on the bonds, but any savings would come from open theft, and not a reduction in benefits per se.

    • temptingfate says:

      Yeah but if in the process of wiping out SS you also wipe out the outstanding debt owed to the fund then all of those trillions get wiped off the books. That would be a big win for the Fed and others who have profited from the misdirection.

    • Larue says:

      Cutting SS in the ruse to lower deficit spending is an illusion to enable the elite to privatize SS and LOOT us, and it.

      I don’t see we the people stopping that, anymore than we’ve stopped the march to fascist totalitarianism which has raged unchecked since Reagan . . . . despite the fact that what once were only DFH’s decrying the system the masses now have the evidence of their lives falling apart . . . and so far, it matters not one whit that the truth has spread and the left, right and the center all know it’s a royal scam (albeit the depth of knowledge of the scam varies from left to right).

      What will it take to tip the balance, aside from the system collapsing of it’s own weight which is inevitable at some point?

    • b2020 says:

      That might prove irrelevant in two respects.

      For one, for the trust fund to make up for Social Security contribution shortfall, the money the US government borrowed from the trust fund has to be repaid from general revenue. That means tax incrases, (military) spending cuts, or more “real” deficit (because Obama, like Bush, dismisses the obligation to the trust fund as malleable, while treasuries are not).

      Further, not only can Obama avoid to repay the trust fund from general revenue, he can actually pivot into using future trust fund pre-payments as subsidy for his general (military) deficit spending again. How? In order to save Social Security and the trust fund, the trust fund can never be drawn upon – eternal surplus! So benefits are “deferred” and “revised” and “adjusted”, to ensure that FICA tax cashflow is net positive once more, and our retirement will be safe because if all fails, there is always a trust fund – always!

      Yes, it makes no sense, but so does the whole “Save Social Security” debate. Prepare for the audacity.

  13. dakine01 says:

    Yeah, let’s make ourselves more secure by making those with the least amount less secure.

    Can we say “shit for sense?”

  14. temptingfate says:

    This reads like a recipe for neofeudalism. Enhance the power of those at the top while making the military even more important because of it’s ability to protect those at the top. National security must be enhanced because almost spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined apparently still hasn’t made us safe. So long as there is bird in the sky or a worm in the ground it might be a drone or a covert virus send to destroy our financial monopolies.

  15. Frank33 says:

    These maggots all work together to steal everything. An audit of the Federal Reserve and AIG is not likely with all this massive fraud. Will the Obama Administration continue to protect these financial arson secrets? Yes.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/01/fire-geithner-now.html

    Geithner is facing renewed scrutiny due to his questionable actions while at the NYFed. As reported on Bloomberg and in the NYT, secret emails show that the NYFed under Geithner’s command prohibited AIG from reporting that it was passing government bail-out funds directly to counterparties, including Goldman Sachs…

    Geithner is the protégé of Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Rubin, also from Goldman, and he got his job at the NYFed through the efforts of Pete Peterson. In addition to the AIG deal, Geithner had the NYFed provide $29 billion of funding for J.P Morgan Chase’s hostile takeover of Bear Stearns. In the deal, the NYFed got $30 billion of questionable collateral. Geithner hired Blackrock in a no-bid contract to manage these assets. Blackrock is a spin-off of Pete Peterson’s Blackstone Group, and was 49% owned by Merrill Lynch, headed by John Thain (another Goldman alum). As head of the NYFed, Geithner’s closest advisors were Thain, William McDonough (Vice Chairman at Merrill), Gerald Corrigan (Managing Director at Goldman), Jamie Dimon (JP Morgan), and Richard Fuld of Lehman’s. The head of the NYFed’s Board of Directors was Stephen Friedman, former Goldman Sachs Chairman.

  16. Hugh says:

    But I was shocked by the almost mindless privileging on deficit reduction in the document.

    Why? This is almost pure Peter Orszag, Obama’s OMB director. Wrapping it up in a national security strategy is just another way to merchandize the message that entitlements must be slashed. In their eyes, Social Security is a bigger threat than al Qaeda.

    • temptingfate says:

      Would that be the next couple of number threes and their families or anyone we put an al Qaeda label on?

    • Larue says:

      Nah, that meme is the ruse . . . the elites just want to loot SS and we the people, again.

      Deficit spending is a meme, it’s a ruse unto itself . . . it’s a fear factor trick.

      We all know this.

  17. Kassandra says:

    Most important statement I see: “long term growth of our economy and competitiveness of our citizens.”

    Now just who are we gonna “compete with? China; where the workers try to throw themselves to their deaths because of the hideous working conditions? Where the CEOS have put up nets to catch them and put them back to work?
    How about Thailand where the workers are being gunned down cause they’re tired of working for nothing?
    Double talk corporate style

  18. demi says:

    I have two questions.
    The first is on topic. For some time, I’ve been underemployed and having a very challenging time finding something full time that pays. Should I elect to take early Social Security?
    And, second, how do I obtain drugs that alter my perception to talk to some of the FDL commenters?

    • bobschacht says:

      …how do I obtain drugs that alter my perception to talk to some of the FDL commenters?

      Depends on how you want to talk with them. Do you feel a need to chastise them severely? Or validate what they are saying with love and kisses?

      Bob in AZ

      • demi says:

        Do you think I am too severe in my tone sometimes? I apologize for that if I am. It happens, sometimes.
        Other times, I like to lift people up. I’m sure you have no problem with that. Pretty sure. :)

        • bobschacht says:

          Other times, I like to lift people up.

          Good. You are a welcome participant. We need a lot of that lifting people up around here, what with this boatload of cynics and pessimists. That hopey changey thing ain’t working out too well for us, at the moment.

          Bob in AZ

    • dakine01 says:

      Should I elect to take early Social Security?

      My best friend/housemate’s father is retired from the SSA.

      His statement to me on taking the early SSA is “You’re a fool if you don’t”

    • nomolos says:

      My local SS people were very pleasant, very helpful and sat with my spouse and I a couple of times before I decided to take early SS because, frankly, at my age I was “unemployable”. The age at which the early taking makes sense is dependent on the retirement age for your birth year (among other things). Call and talk to your local SS office.

      As for the mind altering drugs I would suggest growing a couple of plants yourself and to hell with the asinine laws. Prozac = legal Weed= Illegal fucking nuts!

    • Primrose says:

      On taking early retirement. You won’t be eligible for Medicare until you are 65, so if you have insurance it will continue to come out of your pocket — and likely more expensive than what you will pay as a senior.

      Be sure you get an estimate of your benefits. From that the government will take $90 for Medicare and you will still need a supplemental policy and you should do solid research to see which one fits your needs. My policy costs me an extra $183 per month, not including what the government takes.

      You may need to keep your part-time job just to make ends meet. But before you reach 65 there is a limit as to how much money you can make before the government starts taking away your social security benefit at the rate of $1.00 for every $2.00 you earn. After you reach 65, the limit goes up.

      If you take early retirement you will lose your maximum monthly benefit. It’s a gamble only you can make. And remember, gas and food are not considered when calculating the COLAs. That’s why there has been no cost of living increase this year (or even next year) even though the cost of living for seniors has gone up dramatically.

      You have a lot of research to do before you can make a fair assessment of your situation.

  19. Hugh says:

    I would note that while reducing dependence on foreign oil is mentioned peak oil and peak energy are not. I have not yet looked at the NSS document. Are they mentioned? Similarly, is climate change?

    • Hugh says:

      Reviewing the document climate change is mentioned 23 times and has a short section on page 47 dedicated to it. Peak oil and peak energy are not mentioned at all per se in the document.

      I would note that the emphasis on cybersecurity is problematic for the integrity of the web. I remember reading a cybersecurity report from the Bush Administration. Someone said at the time in reaction to it that you can’t have a truly secure web without massive government surveillance of it.

  20. gordonot says:

    Improve Resilience Through Increased Public-Private Partnerships

    Resilience:

    1 : the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress
    2 : an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change

    So when public schools are defunded, Wall St. hedge funds are there to take them over and squeeze their remaining assets for every last drop of profit.

    When regulatory agencies (MMS, for example) are in the way of profits, private companies can supply staff free sex and drugs to take their minds off the worry and bother of oversight.

    I could go on like this, but I think the choir is singing.

  21. jaango says:

    Marcy,

    Thanks for you post.

    For the past couple of weeks, I have writing a response to the Defict Hawks, and done from my perspective as a “Native American/Chicano/Military Vet”. Of course, I am probably ‘blowing smoke up my tail pipe’ but my exasperation is with my fellow Democrats for ‘buying into this’ propaganda pollution. Thusly, this solution lies with the ever-increasing demographics of the Spanish-speaking community and for the next generation of leadership as for addressing their ‘needs’ and resuling in a blueprint for both what to do and what not to do.

    Consequently, your writing to this issue on Obama’s National ‘strategic’ Strategies, is at best, a “hold harmless” document since his thinking is both thin and thick, and with a well-misplaced direction for Progess and Success.

    Consequently, my first “big idea” is to spend more monies on “voter registration” and less on “candidate selection” for public office. Otherwise, my being desingated for being an “enemy combatant” because I disagree with the conventional thinking among the Democrats and the Republicans, my new and obvious ‘gitmo’ will be found at Alactraz.

    And if you think I am kidding, come visit the Sonoran Desert and in particular Arizona, and “listen” to what is not being said by the folk on the Right and among the feeble-mindedness and for what passes for the Democrats.

    And it’s blogs like the Lake, that will make the difference in our ‘conversation for shaping our future together.

    Jaango

      • econobuzz says:

        I never thought I would see, in my lifetime, a Democratic president who would call for deficit reduction in a recession. Particularly one who has access to one of the (supposedly) best economic minds counseling him.

  22. gordonot says:

    There are 23 instances of environment, mostly not having to do with the natural environment. This one speaks of of sharing:

    We will encourage Brazilian efforts against illicit transnational networks. As guardian of a unique national environmental patrimony and a leader in renewable fuels, Brazil is an important partner in confronting global climate change and promoting energy security. And in the context of the G-20 and the Doha round, we will work with Brazil to ensure that economic development and prosperity is broadly shared.

    “Broadly shared,” in this context means, I think, “all your bases are belong to us.”

    • Mason says:

      “Broadly shared,” in this context means, I think, “all your bases are belong to us.”

      And all the Brazilian oil in a vast oilfield recently discovered in the Amazon.

  23. Mary McCurnin says:

    Deficit hawks tend to forget that we were forced to pay for social security. Do they expect us not to use what we paid for? Sort of like the looming health care bill. We will have to pay for a lack of good controled coverage.

    Assholes.

  24. Hmmm says:

    Five things:

    1. They want to see savings increased. There is merit there, but keep in mind that means more money on deposit with the financial sector. That’s a set-up for the next S&L failure/confiscation.
    2. They want to see less spending. This chokes off the same domestic industrial production they claim to want to encourage.
    3. Still no national industrial policy after all these years, WTF?
    4. The note on watching for radicalization of domestic US citizens carries implications not distinguishable from yet more surveillance of citizens and social-norm enforcement. Not exactly the American idea.
    5. Social Security, cold dead fingers, raise contribution cap, etc.

    Is anyone in Congress or any of the departments/agencies pushing back on this Neofeudalist Manifesto?

  25. Mason says:

    The National Security Strategy is 100% bullshit and should be rejected by every thoughtful American as yet another shot fired by our corporate owned government against We the People of the United States in the Second Civil War.

    The only terrorists who represents a threat to us are the uber rich corporate plutocrats who would eliminate our jobs by outsourcing them to foreign countries and steal our social security to reduce us to serfs as they wage endless wars for profit and control of natural resources and gamble with our money in the Wall Street Casino.

    Hence, the reference to domestic terrorists, which is a reference to those of us who realize that our corrupt President Doormat and his league of corrupt senators and representatives are our true enemy.

  26. Hmmm says:

    Does principled opposition in a citizen to the National Security Strategy make one a domestic terrorist?

    • Mason says:

      Does principled opposition in a citizen to the National Security Strategy make one a domestic terrorist?

      Obama has declared that he has the absolute power to answer that question and, if he decides the answer is “Yes,” he also has declared that he has the absolute power to order that person terminated with extreme prejudice without notice or a hearing.

      • Jeff Kaye says:

        Let us not forget that our friends in Congress gave the executive much the same power in passing the AUMF and the MCA. The latter gives the President the power to determine, for instance, what is or isn’t a war crime, thereby negating Geneva.

        The U.S. has long labeled certain principled oppositions as “terrorists”. They did this to anarchists and leftists in the 1920s (the Palmer raids), to leftists, mostly the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, in the early 1940s (Smith Act prosecutions), to leftists, and mostly Communist Party members in the 1960s (McCarthy era), to leftists, civil rights activists in the 1960s (Cointelpro), and basically to union militants for over a hundred years (too many cases to list here, but simply refer to the history of the United Mine Workers, or PATCO, or the rise of the CIO).

        Their strategy is an old one.

  27. Hmmm says:

    Here’s an idea: let’s default on a few bonds instead of SS. Just to keep the quants on their toes, shake it up a little.

  28. konst says:

    Our recovery includes rebuilding an infrastructure that will be more secure and reliable in the face of terrorist threats and natural disasters.

    Meaning a police state. Dissent not allowed.

    Our commitment to deficit reduction will discipline us to make hard choices, and to avoid overreach.

    There is absolutely no way in which the US can pay back the debt. The only realistic option is to repudiate the debt which is Greece’s only hope too.

    These steps complement our efforts to integrate homeland security with national security; including seamless coordination among Federal, state, and local governments to prevent, protect against, and respond to threats and natural disasters.

    Meaning the police state will be prevalent at every level.

    Striking a better balance at home means saving more and spending less, reforming our financial system, and reducing our long-term budget deficit. With those changes, we will see a greater emphasis on exports that we can build, produce, and sell all over the world, with the goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2014. This is ultimately an employment strategy, because higher exports will support millions of well-paying American jobs, including those that service innovative and profitable new technologies. As a part of that effort, we are reforming our export controls consistent with our national security imperatives.

    That won’t make any difference because the Federal Reserve manipulates the signals businesses depend on to plan.

    And then it throws in a paragraph dedicated to deficit reduction which offers little to explain why that–rather than a range of other actions–is so central to our national security (though it does make it pretty clear this deficit reduction won’t focus on military spending).

    Probably because the MIC is running the show together with the “too big to fail” banks.

    The Administration has created a bipartisan fiscal commission to suggest further steps for medium-term deficit reduction and will work for fiscally responsible health insurance reform that will bring down the rate of growth in health care costs, a key driver of the country’s fiscal future.

    One thing people have to understand is that the decisions of commissions have been decided beforehand. The commission is formed to convince the public and create the illusion of democracy.

    It must also incent investment in productive capacity rather than bubbles. And the Administration has repeatedly stopped far short of such reforms. Indeed, the Administration has pointedly avoided doing the things that might return our economy to making things again, rather than encouraging finance as a key driver of economic growth.

    I don’t think that will work. To prevent bubbles one thing they must do is restore the Glass–Steagall Act.

    Security at home relies on … securing cyberspace. That is why we are pursuing initiatives to protect and reduce vulnerabilities in … cyber security.

    That’s the biggest lie of all.

    Our daily lives and public safety depend on power and electric grids, but potential adversaries could use cyber vulnerabilities to disrupt them on a massive scale.

    No they can’t disrupt power and electric grids by cyber vulnerabilities. That’s the biggest scams of all.

    Improve Resilience Through Increased Public-Private Partnerships

    Sounds like a kleptocracy.

  29. Hmmm says:

    It’s a hardening of the American empire. It might hold for a while, but it’s a sign of decline, not strength.

  30. papau says:

    I can not see the way cutting social security benefits – unless you mean the benefits being paid now – will affect the deficit.

    If it is cutting SS “deficit” projections for 30 years from now – that is nuts since raising the wage and benefit cap makes more sense.

    Only if the goal is trying to avoid paying off the gov loans that were issued to finance the Bush tax cut for the rich does this exercise make any sense.

    Indeed immediate deficit reduction is simple – stop the toys for boys and every man a General program over at Defense. Then kill the outsourcing and bring the work back in house – in Defense and every other Department and Agency. Then fix the tax code and end the rewards for going overseas – while also hiring a 1000 folks to do the auditing of internationals’ use of Code Section 482 – the place where the international companies claim the earnings are not subject to US tax because the were earned overseas – indeed kill 482 and give credits for taxes actually paid overseas. Then screw the WTO until union rights, the environment, worker safety, etc are agreed to as to being required parts of trade treaties. Until then bring back tariffs. A trade war is not to be feared when you import as much as we do and can add buy USA to our gov spending.

    And most important get single payer health with a national budget cost approach where the gov can indeed do price controls of medical procedures.

  31. PJEvans says:

    TPM actually seems to think this document is about national security. I don’t think they’ve actually read it yet. And they certainly haven’t read about it here.

  32. oldoilfieldhand says:

    Thanks Marcy! You continue to amaze us! Wasn’t it the Bush Administration consigliere that told us (paraphrasing here) “”Hell, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter””.

  33. b2020 says:

    On a related note, it is heartening to see EW’s headline. It is becoming very clear now that the US military hegemony is no longer sustainable, and the security machine is beginning to eat its host population in earnest.

    We let them die over here so that we can kill them over there.

    “While not passing a COBRA extension, Congress did manage to vote for an incredibly expensive second engine for the F-35, which the military says it doesn’t need and really doesn’t want.”
    http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/28/house-drops-cobra-extension-democrats-cede-moral-high-ground-on-health-care/

    The House of Representatives, defying the Pentagon for a fourth straight year and a presidential veto threat, voted to preserve a second engine program for the multinational F-35 fighter jet…
    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/05/28/engines-vs-ui/

Comments are closed.