Chomsky here covers and ties together a wide range of issues, including the true cost of America's empire, the significance of Obama's recent jobs proposal, and the real reasons why corporate interests and conservatives are intent on demolishing extremely successful public programs like Social Security.

::::::::

Introductory summary of this article  

President Obama recently sent his new jobs proposal to Congress with a plan to pay for the $447 billion package by raising taxes on the wealthy.   The healthcare system, the huge military spending as a result of 9/11 and the stupid foreign policy that provoked it, the very low taxes for the rich and corporations -- are fundamental problems that have to be dealt with if there's going to be anything like successful economic and social development in the United States, he points out.   As Texas Gov. Rick Perry calls Social Security a "Ponzi scheme," and Democrats buy into the narrative that the program is in crisis, Chomsky notes that "to worry about a possible problem 30 years from now, which can be fixed with a little bit of tampering here and there, as was done in 1983, makes absolutely no sense at all -- unless you're trying to destroy the program."

The origins of 9/11 according to Ron Paul, with a follow-up from Chomsky

Congress Member Ron Paul of Texas recently drew boos from the crowd and a rebuke from other candidates on the podium when he criticized U.S. foreign policy in pointing out the roots of 9/11 that most Americans don't want to face:

We're under terrorist threat because we occupy so many countries, he said. We're in 130 of them. We have 900 bases around the world.    And we're going broke because of it.

The purpose of al-Qaeda was to attack us so that we would go over there where they can target us more easily.   And they have been doing exactly that and have been bleeding our economy of resources and bankrupting our country at the same time.   They have initiated more attacks against American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11.   But what would you expect them to do?   Our troops are there, in the hundreds of thousands, occupying their land!   And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we are deluded.

To be honest with ourselves we must squarely face the obvious question:   What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we are doing to all those countries over there?

This idea that the whole Muslim world is 'responsible' for attacking us just because we're "free' and prosperous is silly.   Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda clearly told us that they attacked America because, a) we had military bases on their holy land in Saudi Arabia, b) we militarily and financially assist the Israelis in their persecution of the Palestinians, and c) we have been bombing and otherwise  killing  hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, including thousands of children, for more than a decade, with sanctions as well as bombs.

If this had been done to America, what would your reaction be?    So how can we blame them for their reactions, without being stupid?

Chomsky responds to what Ron Paul said

I think what Ron Paul said is completely uncontroversial.   You can read the same thing in government documents.   You can find it in polls.   Maybe people don't like to hear it, but, as I've mentioned before, it goes back to the 1950s.  

Right after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal, to its credit, did a study of privileged Muslims, sometimes called "monied Muslims" -- people in the Muslim world who are deeply embedded in the U.S. global project:   lawyers, directors of multinational corporations and so on, not the general population.   And their concerns were very much like what Eisenhower and the National Security Council were concerned about in the 1950s:   Then as now, there was a lot of antagonism to U.S. policy in the region, partly because of its support of dictators that are blocking democracy and development, just as the National Security Council concluded in 1958.

And by 2001, there were much more specific things:   particularly a lot of anger about the U.S.   backing for Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories, settlements, the bitter oppression of the Palestinians, and also, something that isn't discussed much here but that meant a lot there--and remember, these are privileged Muslims, leaders, i.e. those who kind of carry out, implement the general U.S. economic and social policies in the region.   That other thing, besides the U.S. support of Israeli crimes, was the sanctions against Iraq.   This was 2001, remember.   The sanctions against Iraq were brutal and destructive.   They alone killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, many of them children who died because of the filthy drinking water that resulted from the U.S. blockade on equipment and chemicals necessary to repair and reestablish functional water filtration systems.   Both of the international diplomats who administered the Oil-for-Food program -- distinguished international diplomats like Denis Halliday, and then Hans von Sponeck -- resigned in protest because they regarded the sanctions as genocidal.   The sanctions were, in effect, a kind of a mass slaughter of Iraqis.   And were actually strengthening Saddam Hussein.   They were compelling the population to rely on him just for survival.   These then were major U.S. crimes of the 1990s.   And privileged Muslims, monied Muslims, in the Saudi Arabia, elsewhere, were bitterly opposed to this, not because they hate our freedoms, but because they despised America's murderous and brutal policies.

How U.S. foreign policy helped bin Laden and hurt the USA

According to at least one CIA analyst, the U.S. actually became Osama bin Laden's biggest ally by allowing itself to be drawn into so many wars abroad.   Bin Laden wanted to draw the United States into what intelligence agencies called a trap, which would inflame and incite hostility in the Muslim world, which he hoped would help mobilize people to his cause.   I don't think that happened to the degree he wanted it to, but it did help, and is still helping, to bankrupt the U.S.    There was a recent estimate, in a study out of Brown University, which estimated the cost just of the two wars at about $4 trillion.   If you count in the costs of homeland security, which now employs a million people all across the country, the total cost is probably double that.   So, between the wars, the housing bubble, and the Bush tax cuts for the rich, . . our leaders, our banks, and our big corporations have created the economic crisis we're now in.

More American jobs

In his challenge to Republicans, Obama said in his new jobs proposal that he intends for the $447 billion package to be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy.   Around $400 billion would be raised by eliminating a number of deductions claimed by wealthy taxpayers.   This latest jobs plan is one of the better things Obama's done.   Problem is, it doesn't go anywhere near far enough;   but at least it has elements that are going in the right direction.  

The stimulus package, tax cuts, and deficit reduction

During the lame-duck session, the serious question was what to do with the Bush tax cuts, which were carefully designed so that, at the beginning, everyone got a little, and you had a feeling taxes were being reduced.   But they were also designed so that as the 10-year period ended, the tax cuts were overwhelmingly going to the very rich.   However, the larger population is strongly opposed to that.   Take a look at polls during the lame-duck session, when this was coming up:   very strong support for increasing taxes for those with incomes over, say, a quarter-million dollars a year.   Yet Obama didn't push that.   If he had gone directly to the public, and made his case to us as forcefully and passionately as he could, he probably could have overcome the opposition of the financial institutions and the new Republican congressional delegation.   But he played it safe and didn't even try.   And more's the pity.   For us.

The current proposal goes partially in that direction by indirectly increasing taxes through elimination of deductions.   But the tax code must be fundamentally revised.   Why?   Because it's become highly regressive.   In fact, the share of GDP (equivalent to the national income) which is comprised of taxes, is far lower than it's been over the past 20 or 30 years, particularly for the rich.   And all of that needs to be changed.   There is a stimulus in Obama's program, which is a good idea, but it's much too small.   And this crazy concentration on deficit reduction, when the really serious problem is massive unemployment, is a very serious error.   One can easily understand why the banks and insurance companies and all the fat cats like it, but it's completely wrong for trying to extricate ourselves from our very serious economic crisis.   The deficit itself is not really a major issue, by any means.   In fact, I don't even think it's a serious issue, at least in the short term.   But if you do want to take it seriously, it's pretty easy to trace it to its roots.

Deficits, health care, and the economy

Dean Baker, a very good economist, has done the calculations which show that if the United States had a healthcare program similar to those of other industrial countries, which is by no means a utopian dream, not only would there be no deficit.   Instead there'd now be a surplus!   And the military budget is now probably half the deficit, thanks to all the insanity that followed 9/11.   It's way out of line with anything needed, certainly for any defensive purpose, and also for any justifiable purpose.   Ron Paul, who you heard before, was quite right about that.   The U.S. is spending about as much as the rest of the world combined on military spending -- technologically very advanced, new destructive techniques developed far beyond what any other country has.   First of all, it shouldn't be done, on principle, but it also ends up being harmful to us, essentially for the reasons Ron Paul mentioned.   And it's very expensive of course.   So, that plus the hopelessly dysfunctional healthcare system -- these are fundamental problems that have to be addressed if we are to extricate ourselves form this economic crisis before it gets much worse.

If all this had been addressed a long time ago we wouldn't be in the pickle we're currently in.   At the time of the healthcare reform, depending on how the question was asked, the large majority of the population was in favor of some form of national healthcare, which would be incomparably more efficient and more humane than what we currently have.   But Obama just dropped that.   The public option remained a possibility and was supported by almost two-thirds of the population.   But Obama just dropped it.   (Reliable investigative reporters claim that he made a secret deal with the big health insurance companies and Big Pharma to drop it in return for their promise not to spend billions of dollars on negative TV advertising that would prevent his reelection.)    

So, everything, really, is in the hands of the insurance companies and Big Pharma.   We continue to have roughly twice the per capita healthcare costs of comparable countries, yet some of the poorest health outcomes.   What we are stuck with is a large, almost unregulated, privatized system that generates billions of dollars in profits for its owners, who, with all that money, can hire as many lobbyists as they need to get their way in Congress.   Yes, it's highly inefficient system and it's also a very inhumane system -- not to mention the tens of thousands of people without insurance, and many more with not enough insurance.   But that can be changed, and should be changed.   And if it was, the deficit issues would largely disappear.

Our national debt and the economy

Yes there's a long-term debt problem and we can easily trace that to its roots, too.   Ronald Reagan, who fiscally was totally irresponsible with his extravagant military spending and mammoth tax cuts for the rich, tripled the U.S. debt and shifted the U.S. very quickly from the world's leading creditor to the world's leading debtor.   George W. Bush continued this folly with his equally insane fiscal policies, including more huge tax cuts for the rich, and the wars that he told his biographer he would launch if he ever became president.  

Ultimately the way to deal with our financial problem, in the long term, is with appropriate economic growth -- sensible economic growth.   Yes, that can be done, but it's not going to be done through deficit reduction programs or tampering with entitlements, as is currently being suggested.

Infrastructure development is significant, and Obama at least mentioned it.   He talked about work sharing, which is quite an important proposal.   But will anything actually be done?   Work sharing was effectively done in Germany, and it cut down unemployment very sharply, led to substantial economic growth, even through the recession.   Those are options that could be pursued.   At least Obama mentioned it ("keep hope alive")   But they should be pushed harder.   They should be expanded.   There are elements there that could turn into a constructive program -- but not until the core issues are dealt with.

The core issues

-   Our enormous unemployment, much of which is seriously in danger of becoming permanent unemployment.  

-   The deterioration of manufacturing, meaning offshoring of manufacturing.   The only way that can be dealt with is by cutting back on the overvalued dollar, which would improve possibilities for exports.  

-   The healthcare system, which is grotesque -- it's an international scandal;  

-   The outrageous amounts of military spending along with obscene amounts of spending on "Homeland Security," which now employs one million Americans, all across America, at a cost no one will tell us;

-   The comparatively very low taxes for the rich and for corporations

All these are fundamental problems that have to be dealt with if there's going to be anything like successful economic and social development in the United States.

The entitlements crisis?

Once again, Social Security is not in any crisis.   The trust fund alone will fully pay benefits for another 30 years.   And after that, taxes will easily provide almost the same benefits.   To worry about a possible problem 30 years from now, which can be fixed with a little bit of tampering here and there, as was done in 1983--to worry about that now just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever -- unless you're trying to destroy the program!   It's a very successful program.   A large number people rely on it.   It doesn't pay munificently, but it at least keeps people alive -- not just retired people, but people with disabilities and others.   It has very low administrative costs, is extremely efficient, and is no burden on the deficit.   The effort to try to present the Social Security program as if it's a major problem, is nothing more than a stealthy way of trying to undermine it and destroy it.

There has been a lot of opposition to it since the 1930s, on the part of "extreme wealth and privilege," especially financial capital.   They don't like it, for several reasons.   One is that for the rich, it's meaningless.   For anyone who's had a fairly decent income all their life, it's a tiny addition to your retirement and therefore doesn't mean much.   Another, and much more important reason is that if the financial institutions and the insurance companies can get their hands on this huge financial resource, this immense amount of capital, they can make billions in profits from it.    For example, if it gets privatized in some way, such as through vouchers, that would provide a huge bonanza for the Wall Street crowd.   They would have trillions of dollars to play with -- the banks, the investment firms and so on.

But there's an even more disgusting reason why they're opposed to the current Social Security program, and it's rather similar to the reason for the effort to pretty much dismantle the public education system:   Social Security is based on the principle that you care about other people.   You care whether the disabled widow across town is going to be able to have food to eat.   And if you're rich, and want to get richer (no matter what the costs to others), that's a notion you have to drive out of people's heads.   The idea of solidarity, sympathy, mutual support -- that's doctrinally dangerous.  

For most of the rich, the preferred doctrine is:   just care about yourself, don't care about anyone else.   For that's a very good way to trap and control people.   The very idea that we're in it together, that we care about each other, that we have responsibility for one another, well that's sort of frightening to those who want a society which is dominated by their power, authority and wealth, in which the rest of us are passive and obedient.   And this provides a considerable part of the drive, on the part of small, privileged sectors, to undermine what is a very efficient, very effective system on which a large part of the population relies, actually relies more than ever.   Why reliant?   Because their wealth, i.e. the wealth of the larger part of the middle class, was very much tied up in the housing market.   Their homes represented the bulk of most of these folks' personal wealth.   And that wealth quite predictably collapsed -- totally collapsed for vast numbers of middle-class Americans.   These folks aren't (yet?) destitute by the standards of, say, slums in India or southern Africa, but very many of them are suffering severely.   And now many of them, growing numbers of them, have nothing else to rely on except the pittance that they're getting from Social Security.   (Ten thousand baby boomers now reach the age of 65 every day!)   To take Social Security away from them would be just disastrous.   And yet that's the Republican plan.

    Here is where you should click to read the source article. 

Authors Bio:

Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 8 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writing about that which interests me most.