>I'd like to second what I think are some very important points by Chris B.
>in here.
I appreciate Max's support. And await the further criticisms?
(What could they be? - that we are indeed in an immediately revolutionary period?
- more interestingly perhaps that the NATO war is a war for the redivision of the world, for the redivision of the plunder of imperialism. Although there is an aspect to that, I suggest that NATO is so pre-eminent militarily that this war is about establishing its credentials as the hegemon of the world. What hampers it is the volume of democratic unease if not actual protest, in all of the 19 member countries. This process is shaping a set of criteria of legitimacy for enforcers of law and order on a global scale.)
Concerning Max's further observations about "military Keynesianism" I see there is some rather fast footwork by the Republicans that oddly might have that effect. I find it hard to guess how probable these scenarios might be.
>From an AP report:
>>>
On Sunday, Lott also predicted Congress
will tap Social Security's surplus for as
much as $6 billion more than the $6.05
billion Clinton requested to pay for the
conflict in Yugoslavia. The additional
money will be for other military needs,
which Lott says are direly needed.
< >
In his State of the Union speech in January, Clinton proposed setting aside most of the Social Security surplus to keep the system solvent when baby boomers begin retiring in a few years. The plan would invest some of the money in the stock market.
This year's expected federal surplus is $110 billion, all from Social Security taxes.
Lott said it is clear Social Security surpluses should be held in safekeeping for the nation's retirement program.
[However]
He said dipping into the surplus for the campaign in Yugoslavia is required because Clinton requested the money on an emergency basis.
"As an emergency, if it is approved, that means it doesn't have to be offset by cutting other programs or other spending. It comes out of the surplus net," Lott said.
"The only surplus we have is Social Security. But that's what the president has asked for."
He said Americans understand that a military emergency would require using the surplus, "but I think we need to understand ... it's really coming from Social Security, which we need to protect."
Clinton's request was solely for money to cover the cost of the Kosovo conflict. Republicans have demanded add-ons to alleviate what they consider Clinton administration slights to the military. Some lawmakers have suggested raising the total to $18 billion to $20 billion, or even more.
"I don't think we should take this opportunity to look at adding every military need might have been aware of," Lott said on ABC. <<<
Am I right in understanding this is an attempt to challenge Clinton to allow the management of this fund to pass completely out of government hands (something that Greenspan said was important). That Lott wants to pressurise him into conceding this, unbalance the budget, and increase gross military expenditure, at the expense of social security?
Chris Burford
London