|
[http://www.aframnews.com/html/includes/left_nav_1.htm]
|
War on Improvised
Greedy multinationals tax America’s needy
“The government is balancing
the budget on the backs of the poor,” is a persisting lament that has
reached a crescendo in wake of double-digit unemployment rates and spiraling
gasoline prices, that is negatively impacting every enterprise-- in America
the bountiful--like an uninhibited virus ravishes a computer’s operating
system. Team Bush’s all consuming “War on Terrorist” notwithstanding,
conspiracy theorist in the hood truly believe that “The New World Order”
(that excludes America’s people of color and/or non-European Third World
nations), is at hand.
Unfortunately, far too many made in America Africans, who can no longer read
the handwriting on the wall-- like their slave ancestors could-- fail to
heed the warning signs. Thus, they truly believe that this great nation is
simply going through a phase and shall, indeed, bounce back from one of the
worse economic downturn since the Great Depression, of 1929-41. Conversely,
there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that the state of 2004
America has little resemblance to the 1929 economic crash, insofar as the
New World Order engenders the nation’s problems. So, suffice it to say that
The Haves of the world are circling their wagons to wage a war on the Have
Nots, who would do well to learn the meaning of the term multinational.
In essence, there’s nothing transpiring in 2004 America, that the rich and
greedy didn’t intend to happen, because they have long demonstrated a
propensity to emulate gods (empowered to proclaim, “The earth is ours and
all that dwell within”), therefore no longer “Pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one
nation under God...,” and gives less than a damn about the nation’s tired,
huddled masses. Perish the thought that African American News & Issues is
speaking strictly from a Black perspective. For sure, mainstream America’s
watchers on the wall, such as economist Viven A. Schmidt, shares our
perspective in his essay, “The New World Order, Incorporated: The Rise of
Business and the decline of the Nation State.”
Schmidt’s 1995 essay revealed, “When George Bush announced the beginning of
a ‘New World Order,’ he had in mind a world in which democratic governments
would together keep peace in the world and make it possible for everyone to
be free to prosper in a liberalizing international economy. Peace, as we
quickly came to see, was a pipe dream, as has been global prosperity. The
only part of the agenda that has been continuing on schedule is the
liberalizing. Capital has become increasingly mobile and business
increasingly international as borders that act as barriers to trade fall and
as regulations that constrain commerce are lifted. What are the consequences
of this liberalized new world order for the nation-state?
“In this essay I argue that however beneficial it may be for global
prosperity and business, the jury is still out regarding its effects on
global democracy and government generally. Thus, nation-states are
experiencing the disruptive effects of the new economic world order at
different rates, and although many will undergo a weakening of the
nation-state and of the voice of the people, a few may find one or the other
strengthened--Italy and Japan being cases in point. Overall, however,
democracy is at risk.” Lest we forget, Schmidt was alluding to Pres. George
W. Bush’s daddy at the time. Even so, Jeff Faux’s March 4, 2004 article, in
The American Prospect Online Magazine, blasted George Walker, the son, who
seems hell-bent on finishing what George Herbert Walker, the father,
started.
“During the 2000 presidential TV debates, George W. Bush relentlessly
repeated the tired Republican mantra that government, especially the federal
government, is the enemy of American workers. As president, he's turned that
rhetoric into reality. Actually, Bush is as much a big-government guy as was
Lyndon Johnson or FDR. But in his case, Bush has used federal power to
undercut workers' bargaining power, dumping workers out of the middle class
and kicking the ladder away from those trying to get in,” the condemning
article indicted. “Jobs in factories and services that pay good wages and
offer decent benefits are disappearing. As a result, the overwhelming
majority of Americans (those who must work to put food on their tables and
roofs over their heads) are more financially insecure and have seen their
living standards erode.
“Bush could have responded by providing funds to cash-strapped states for
investment in education, health, and infrastructure, which would have in
turn created jobs. Instead, he used the economic downturn to rationalize
permanent tax cuts that will transfer more after-tax income from the working
middle class to the rich. At this point, even the most gullible of voters
can see that the Bush tax cuts were not aimed at creating jobs. Inevitably,
the administration has been forced to downsize its claims that it's reviving
the job market. It is now clear that the accelerated shifting overseas of
technical and white-collar jobs undercuts upward mobility for workers in
America. Politicians, pundits, and even some economists are now having
second thoughts about free-trade agreements that protect the rights of
investors but not the rights of labor.
“Unfortunately, the Bush administration has no such second thoughts.
Disguised as a migration agreement, Bush has proposed that businesses be
allowed to import Mexican workers. The workers would have no rights, no
protections, and no mobility. If the boss doesn't like a worker (for
complaining about bad working conditions, for example, or for any reason,
really), it's back to Mexico. Bush's proposal is widely recognized on both
sides of the border as a way to undermine wages and working conditions in
the United States. In 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked the American
people, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" When John
Kerry poses that question later this year, the answer, by virtually every
measure, will be "no."
And, there’s little doubt that disenfranchised African Americans (and most
people of color worldwide) have been targeted to be the Have Nots, which
will serve the New World Order’s Haves. For sure, there is a real and
present danger facing 2004 Black America. Ultimately, when our people don’t
work, our neighborhoods—from beer joints to churches that survive on their
wages and/or welfare-- simply can’t work. To make matters, even worse,
skyrocketing gas prices severely jeopardize Black American’s “hustle jobs,”
that range from driving their own 18-wheelers to cutting yards. Yet, we’ve
become so distracted by Bush’s war on terrorist, until we fail to realize
that the New World Order’s Haves are escalating their war on the
impoverished.
|
