Fitting In or Standing Out: The US Role in the World

President Bush’s Inaugural Address Full Text: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/inaugural-address.html

Bipartisan public consensus on US Foreign Policy?
Taken from the PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll at: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/mandatepoll/Press01_18_05.pdf
Majorities of both parties polled agreed that on the following stances when it comes to US Foreign Policy in the second Bush term:
Make preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and the combating international terrorism the top priorities in US foreign policy
Strengthen the United Nations
Contribute US troops to UN peacekeeping missions
Participate in the International Criminal Court
Participate in the Land Mines Treaty
Only go to war with a government that is supporting terrorists if there is an imminent threat to the US or the UN Security Council approves
Use US military force to deal with humanitarian crises, especially to stop genocide
Do not use US military force to replace dictators with democratic governments
Do not use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack
Do not use torture to gain information in the war on terrorism
In the effort to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program, be willing to sign a non-aggression pact and provide North Korea with more food aid
Do not use military force against North Korea unless the US has approval from the UN, US allies and South Korea
Be even handed when dealing with the Israel-Palestinian conflict
Contribute troops to peacekeeping in Afghanistan
Include minimum labor and environmental standards in trade agreements
Do not have subsidies for large farming businesses, but have them for small farmers


Cost of War:
The Bush Administration is expected to request an additional $100 billion for war in Iraq, but this will not begin to address the "hidden cost" of the conflict – Pentagon officials and other government authorities say tens of billions of dollars more will eventually be needed to repair or replace heavily used equipment and to compensate for the wear and tear on members of the armed services.
If the war were to end today, according to a preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office the Army would still need at least $20 billion more than budgeted over the next three years just to be at the same level of preparedness as before the war.
The Army and Marine Corps, and a growing number of National Guard and Reserve units, are burning through trucks and armored vehicles at rates between five and 10 times the peacetime average. By some estimates, up to 40 percent of certain classes of ground equipment will have to be overhauled or replaced.
The Army briefing estimates that in fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, more than $35 billion could be needed to pay for backlogged equipment maintenance, battle losses, and to replace dwindling stocks prepositioned in the Persian Gulf.
For more on the costs of war, see, “War’s Hidden Cost’ Called Heavy,” at: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/14/wars_hidden_cost_called_heavy?mode=PF
For the next anticipated spending request, see “White House may want $100 Billion More for War,” at: http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605F.shtml

Iraq elections:
Iraqis will be voting for a 275-member Transitional National Assembly. The election will treat the whole country as one constituency. Political parties have submitted lists of candidates, and every third name has to be a woman's. Candidates have to be aged at least 30.
The assembly will choose the government and will be able to make laws. It will first elect from its members a president and two deputies. They in turn will choose a prime minister, who also has to be in the assembly. Its other main role is to draw up a draft constitution by 15 August 2005 and submit this to referendum by 15 October 2005.
If the constitution is approved, elections will be held by 15 December 2005 and a fully constitutional government will take power by 31 December 2005.
Farid Ayar of Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission said he expected 7 to 8 million Iraqis to vote in this month's national election and says that to encourage a high turnout, those living in insurgency-racked areas will be allowed to vote in safer communities.
Voters will be allowed to register and vote on the same day.
The Jan. 30 election will signal the emergence of Iraq's majority Shiites as the dominant group in racially and religiously diverse Iraq, ending decades of oppression by the Sunni Arab minority.
The U.S. military's ground forces commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, has said that while most of Iraq's 18 provinces are secure enough for elections, security remains poor in four provinces - Nineveh, Anbar, Salahadin and Baghdad.
The International Office of Migration is setting up voting places in 14 countries with a substantial expatriate Iraqi population. Someone wanting to vote has to prove Iraqi citizenship and be born before 31 December 1986. They will also have to vote in person from 28 to 30 January. An estimated one million people could vote in this way.
For a general information about the election, see “Q&A: Iraq Elections” at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3971635.stm
For more on the expected turnout and perils of Iraq’s elections, see “Half of Iraq Population Estimated to Vote,” at: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/world/10643550.htm

The Future of the World: a global community?
Taken from projections National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project at: http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_es.html

The likely emergence of China and India, as well as others, as new major global players—similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical landscape. The 21st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and India, comes into its own.
The world economy is likely to continue growing impressively: by 2020, it is projected to be about 80 percent larger than it was in 2000, and average per capita income will be roughly 50 percent higher.
An expanding global economy will increase demand for many raw materials, such as oil. Total energy consumed probably will rise by about 50 percent in the next two decades compared to a 34 percent expansion from 1980-2000, with a greater share provided by petroleum.
The nation-state will continue to be the dominant unit of the global order, but economic globalization and the dispersion of technologies, especially information technologies, will place enormous new strains on governments. In a rapidly globalizing world experiencing population shifts, religious identities provide followers with a ready-made community that serves as a “social safety net
The US economy will become more vulnerable to fluctuations in the fortunes of others as global commercial networking deepens. US dependence on foreign oil supplies also makes it more vulnerable as the competition for secure access grows and the risks of supply side disruptions increase.
While no single country looks within striking distance of rivaling US military power by 2020, more countries will be in a position to make the United States pay a heavy price for any military action they oppose. The possession of chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons by 2020 also increase the potential cost of any military action by the US against them or their allies.
Over the next 15 years the increasing centrality of ethical issues, old and new, have the potential to divide worldwide publics and challenge US leadership. These issues include the environment and climate change, privacy, cloning and biotechnology, human rights, international law regulating conflict, and the role of multilateral institutions. The United States increasingly will have to battle world public opinion, which has dramatically shifted since the end of the Cold War.

For other future projections based on current military, resource and health status, see the World Watch Institute Report “State of the World 2205” at: https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/01/11/

Counting On Our Future -Talking Points

The State of Social Security from “America Beyond Capitalism” by Gar Alperovitz
· Although Social Security provides substantial support for some retirees, in many ways it is best understood as a bottom line guarantee against true disaster for the elderly. The maximum monthly benefit in 2001 was $1,538; half of those on Social Security received less than $900 a month.
· A traditional pension once provided many Americans with a certain level of guaranteed income that could be counted on in retirement. However, in 1975 just under 40% of private sector workers had some form of pension plan. By 2003 only 20% of private sector workers

For more about existing social security benefits, see the Facts at a Glance portion of “Facts About Social Security Benefits,” from the Economic Policy Institute at: http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/SocialSecurityBetterDeal2004.pdf

Three Reform Models

In December 2001, a bipartisan, 16-member commission issued its recommendations for reforming and strengthening Social Security. Their report included three reform proposals. Currently, workers and their employers pay 12.5 percent of their income as payroll tax. Under Reform Model 2, the leading plan drafted by President Bush's Commission on Social Security, up to a third of that money could go into private accounts. This model establishes a voluntary personal account without raising taxes or requiring additional worker contributions.

Reform Model 2 –The Bush Administration Plan

· Workers can voluntarily redirect 4 percent of their payroll taxes up to $1,000 annually to a personal account. No additional worker contribution required.

· In exchange, traditional Social Security benefits are offset by the worker's personal account contributions, compounded at an interest rate of 2 percent above inflation.

· Plan establishes a minimum benefit payable to 30-year minimum wage workers of 120 percent of the poverty line.

· Benefits under traditional component of Social Security would be price indexed, beginning in 2009.

· Temporary transfers from the general budget would be needed to keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent between 2025 and 2054.

Source: 2001 report of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. (As reported on NPR 11/11/04 “Bush Eyes Privatizing Social Security in Second term)

To view the complete summary of the three models, see: “Bush Eyes Privatizing Social Security in Second Term” at NPR.org http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4164384



Need for change – need for privatization?

· According to the Social Securities trustees report, Social Security could pay all benefits through the year 2042. However, the formula is based on what some critics call overly pessimistic assumptions about our economic future: The SSA expects the U.S. economy to expand at an average annual rate of just 1.8% from 2015 to 2080—far slower than the 3.0% average growth rate the economy posted over the last 75 years. The Congressional Budget office calculates all benefits would be paid through 2052.
· On average less than a cent per dollar paid out by Social Security goes to pay administrative costs. The Bush Administration estimates a 5-cent per dollar loss on their individual investment account plan.
· Under the Bush Administration plan, a middle class worker retiring in 2022 would see a guaranteed benefit cut of 9%. A retire in 2075 would receive only half of the benefits promised.
· Under the Bush Administration plan a 45 year old worker today would see a cut in benefits of 15 percent – a 15 year old today would loose close to 40% when retiring – a loss of $160,000 in benefits.

For more on Social Security and the Privatization Plan, see “Basic Facts on Social Security and Proposed Benefit Cuts/Privatization” from the Center for Economic Policy and Research at: http://www.cepr.net/publications/facts_social_security.htm

For the impact of proposed Privatization plans on women and families, see the National Women’s Law Center report at: http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/SocialSecurityBetterDeal2004.pdf

For more on the formulas used to anticipate the demise of Social Security, see “The Social Security Administration’s Cracked Crystal Ball,” from the magazine, Dollars and Sense at http://www.dollarsandsense.org/1104econ.html