[Marxism] Likely domestic policy changes under Obama

[Joaquin Bustelo]

I appreciated Fred's comments about how support for Obama from the ruling
class and their political circles reflects a belief that there is a need for
a shift in the U.S.'s stance in world politics. 

I think this sector is now a majority of the ruling class and its political
circles, and how big a majority is reflected in the many nice things William
Mellon Scaife wrote about Mrs. Clinton after meeting with her as part of a
team from the local Pittsburgh paper which he owns.

Scaife is the billionaire ultrarightist who spent untold millions trying to
prove the unlikely proposition that the supposedly good terms the Clintons
received in an Arkansas land deal known as Whitewater in 1978 or 1979 were a
payoff for favors the governor did for another principal in Whitewater in
1985 or 1986. His journalistic outlets -- the Pittsburgh Tribune Review and
newsmax.com -- were among the chief promoters of scandal mongering against
the Clinton administration and of Clinton's impeachment.

In other words, should for some reason Obama crash and burn, the same
political operation will be put in place with her. 

I disagree with Fred on this: "On domestic policy, I expect little real
change, because the key here is the mobilization of social forces for
change." I don't think the key to ALL domestic policy changes is struggle by
working people. The Bush administration's domestic policies were just as
unrealistic as its foreign policy. Some require urgent repair, from a ruling
class point of view. Others, there is simply no reason to continue with
them. 

Fiscal policy will be different. Much smaller deficits, or none at all. To
begin with, there WILL be a big tax increase (probably in the form of
letting the Bush cuts lapse).

There will almost certainly a change in immigration enforcement policies, if
not an overall deal on immigration reform, as the current level of
repression is economically untenable, and has been sustained thus far only
because of the slide into recession (and a real depression in the housing
sector). BTW Obama is on record saying he wants comprehensive immigration
reform DONE in his first year in office. The problem for the ruling class is
simply choosing between legalization and guest worker, or more precisely,
how little legalization and how much guest worker they can get away with.
That will be worked out in Congress. 

A more interesting question is whether Obama will take on the
military-industrial complex and kill a number of system and platform
development programs that are monstrously expensive and the Iraq experience
shows are worthless, like ultra advanced fighter jets that could defeat the
ones the Soviets might build IF the USSR still existed.

Part of this is star wars, obviously.

But also part if the absolutely *ASININE* Bush "vision" for space
"exploration" with a permanent base supposedly collecting moon rocks and
then sending people to Mars. The scientific community involved finally got
up the courage to challenge Bush with a report last week emphasizing what's
been known since the 1960's -- that human beings would receive potentially
lethal doses of radiation in a few weeks or months outside the protective
envelope of earth's magnetic field, and that much smaller doses can lead to
cancer or other illnesses years later.

"It hasn't really gotten the airing that it needs. In the committee we
stewed over this for a long time before we said anything," said retired
space shuttle astronaut James van Hoften, who chaired the committee of the
National Research Council. 

You can bet the "stewing" wasn't over science but politics. Officially,
everyone in NASA is Rah-Rah over Bush "vision," as that is their bread and
butter. Unofficially, everyone who knows the first thing about science
--which describes pretty much everyone in NASA save a few members of the
astronaut corps and upper management-- think the guy is a complete jackass.
That is why no research is being done on surviving extreme radiation in
space, and instead all the money is going into developing the new crew
vehicle, which was be used just as well --or better-- in getting into low
earth orbit as in going to the moon.

Bush the Father also adopted a similar exploration "vision" that went into
garbage cans everywhere the day Bill Clinton was sworn in, and I suspect the
same will happen now. 

Instead, a renewed commitment to the International Space Station, which the
U.S. officially abandons in 2010, will fit in nicely with the "imperialism
with a human face" foreign policy stance.

And there will be a big push to get universal health care done, I suspect
after the mid-term elections. The details don't matter too much as long as
there is some structure/pool that will eventually let employers shift their
health care costs onto the public. That is what all the big corporations
want. 

And there's going to be a lot of dismantling of the "homeland security"
state, things like requiring tourist to pass security-clearance type
investigations and tons of other idiocies. Some things may be politically
sensitive, like airport screening, but for a lot of other stuff, it's going
to be like the nuclear attack drills of the 50's, once Kennedy came into
office, the drills and a bunch of other crap just went away. Obama would be
foolish to use terrorism scares, Bush cried wolf so many times that Obama
doing so would only associate him with Bush and discredit him.

And for very good and practical political reasons, there's going to be a big
increase in voting rights and civil rights enforcement, accompanied by what
in essence will be a purge of the justice department career (not just
political appointee) personnel. This because it is a cheap concession to his
own base in the Black community, is something that probably he personally
believes in, and it will help the Democrats electorally. 

Finally, there will have to be a reworking of regulations for the financial
sector. Now that it's policy that big financial firms will NOT be allowed to
fail, there is simply no reason NOT to ultra-leverage investments so as to
increase the returns, since much of the downside risk is covered by the Fed.
This is the "moral hazard" economists warn about -- covering people's losses
after they acted imprudently tremendously alters risk-reward equation and
therefore encourages risk-taking out of proportion to possible rewards.

Real regulation doesn't have to be "invented" for this new high-flying
financial sector. Reserve requirements (how much liquid capital that it owns
a bank has to have on hand) plus appropriate reporting to enforce it *might*
be enough; and limits on leveraging (ratio of debt to capital) of investment
funds are also likely. 

In a sense Fred is right, because this isn't some big overall shift in
domestic policy, since basically in terms of domestic policy, Bush has been
a do-nothing president apart from tax cuts. But Obama will definitely pursue
a different image on domestic policy than Bush has.

Joaquin