In an era in which we’ve seen the rise of both neo-liberals and neoconservatives, politicians readily willing to compromise previously stated values, California Congressman Ron Dellums has raised his voice against such expediency throughout his 12 years in office. Previously a social worker and a member of the Berkeley City Council, Dellums has risen to prominence as an outspoken member of the House Armed Services Committee. Highly respected in the black community, he is the only openly Socialist member of Congress. Though he often ends up on the losing side of votes in this Reagan- fearing period, he remains a politician trying to turn his beliefs into effective public policy. The Republicans consider him a sufficient threat that they have targeted a half-million-dollar war chest against him this November. Iwish that I had a recipe for the revolution. I would simply mimeograph it and pass it out to you and we would go forward to bring change in this country and change throughout the world; bring peace and freedom and justice to all of our people. But I am not arrogant enough or presumptuous enough to assume that I have the answer. The Thwarted Debate The general election is a phenomenon that takes place in this country every four years. It is a time when the American people supposedly pause, reflect upon the leadership of the past four years, look at the nature of the problems and issues and policies that affect their lives, and make some decisions about change. It is an important moment in the history of America. In my estimation, it is a time when the American people must grapple with the critical problems of our times. But when you look back to 1980, to the Republican convention in Detroit, there was no debate. Everyone in this country knew that Ronald Reagan was going to be the standard bearer of the Republican Party, so the Republican Party engaged in no debate. They went to Detroit and ratified the politics of a personality. They even withdrew from some of the historic positions of the Republican Party, and embraced a platform that was comfortable for Ronald Reagan. The Democratic Party met in August in New York. They had a sitting president. We all know that President Carter sat in the White House and acted out the Rose Garden strategy, in some way holding the magical belief that the Iranian crisis would catapult him back into political office. And so there was no debate. Despite the efforts of Ted Kennedy and a few others to begin a modest discussion, it did not occur. The Democratic Party went to the convention and closed the convention without engaging in a meaningful debate, analysis or discussion of the critical issues of our time. And then came the general election, and there were one or two skirmishes that we euphemistically referred to as debates: the instant analysis focused upon Jimmy Carter’s smile and Ronald Reagan’s personality. I maintain that we are facing incredible human misery at this very moment because America did not debate the critical issues of our time. We cannot afford to make that mistake again in 1982. Without significant discussion or significant debate, and with only 26% of the eligible electorate voting, Ronald Reagan was catapulted to the highest political office and defined his victory as a mandate to rewrite history. 74% of the American people either didn’t go to the polls or voted for someone else. I never could understand how that was a mandate for significant change. The one place where I agree with Reagan is that when he was elected, somebody clearly was saying, we want change. But there was never a debate with respect to the direction in which we should move, and to what degree we should change. Ronald Reagan won, and in January 1981, on the occasion of a joint session of Congress, Ronald Reagan presented to the American people Reaganism and Reaganomics. That night, Ronald Reagan suggested that we had a profound responsibility to significantly reduce government expenditures, reduce taxation, and expand America’s military True Defense By Rep. Ron Dellums budget. This administration proposed in 1981 a rapid, substantial, and sustained growth in America’s military budget. Rapid in that prior to Reagan’s election, the military budget never exceeded 24 or 25% of our national budget. Yet right now the President’s proposed budget could bring the military budget to 29% of the total. Within a relatively short period of time, America’s military budget will exceed 37% of the total budget: a rapid increase in our military budget. Substantial in that in 1980, America’s military budget was 173 billion dollars. Ronald Reagan’s first military budget proposal was 226.3 billion dollars. This is a 53.3 billion dollar increase in one year: a substantial increase in America’s military budget. But the night of that joint session of Congress, Ronald Reagan said, “We’re going to significantly reduce government.” So he cut 48.5 billion dollars in budget authority and social programs. While in an unceremonious ^1?his administration has a myopic view of the world. They see only two nations: the United States and the Soviet Union. Everything else is terrain on which you act out this elaborate super-power struggle. submission to the United States Congress, two weeks later, away from the television cameras and unreported by the American media, he introduced a military budget to increase America’s military spending by 53.3 billion dollars. One does not have to be a brilliant mathematician to understand that he wasn’t reducing government expenditures, only reducing government expenditures in certain areas. A rapid, substantial increase in America’s military budget, and a sustained increase because this administration is not talking about stopping this year or next year with military increases. Let me give you some figures that ought to startle you. They are figures that I define as obscene. I went to Congress in January 1971. At that time, America’s military budget was below 90 billion dollars. Ten years later, in 1981, America’s military budget was 173 billion. 1982, 226 billion. This year, Ronald Reagan asked for 258 billion dollars. Alice Rivlin of the Congressional Budget office indicated that by fiscal 1985, this administration’s military budget proposal will exceed 325 billion. By fiscal 1987, America’s military budget will be in excess of 422 billion dollars per annum. Which means that by the end of this decade it is conceivable, unless we radically alter the course of history, that we will have a military budget in excess of 500 billion dollars per annum. If that doesn’t shock you, let me put it a different way. During the decade of 1970s — and remember, during part of that period of time we were bombing and maiming and killing people in Vietnam in a war that many of us defined as illegal, immoral and insane — America spent one trillion dollars on the military budget. Yet we will spend more than 1.6 trillion dollars in the first five years of the 1980s. The conservative projections are that we will exceed three trillion dollars in the 198Qs. The more progressive analysis is that we will exceed 4 to 4.5 trillion dollars on the military function alone by the end of the 1980s. Which means that in a short span of ten years, our military budget will triple or quadruple. Financing the Dream Now the question that you must ask is, if this administration is proposing this kind of rapid, substantial, sustained growth in America’s military budget, how will it be financed? Well, at the risk of being overly simplistic, I think there are three ways that it can be done. You either levy new taxes; or you engage in deficit spending, that is, you spend more than you take in; or thirdly, you move to the non-military side of the budget and you cut powerfully and deeply in order to offset the increases on the military side. Let’s see what this administration has done, looking at these three alternatives. First of all, in fiscal year 1981, Ronald Reagan was not about to raise the taxes. As a matter of fact, he suggested a 750 billion dollar, three-year tax cut that now has this country’s economy and much of the world quaking. Ronald Reagan did not go to the American people and say, “As I perceive the nature of the world, it is so frightening and so dangerous and so unstable that we must now tax the American people in order to increase our military arsenal, building an ever- increasing monument to military madness.” He did not do that in 1981. He did not talk about levying new taxes to finance this incredible military machine. While engaging in deficit spending, Ronald Reagan was praying at the altar of the balanced budget. Remember him going around the country in 1980 saying all we had to do was balance the budget, then in some way all of the critical problems of our time would magically go away? Unemployment would be reduced. The housing industry would prosper. The cities would flourish. All we had to do was balance the budget. But a few months into the administration Ronald Reagan said, “I get off my knees. I can’t pray at the altar of the balanced budget. This is the first promise I have to break to you. I won’t be able to do it for several years, because I am busy building a monument to military madness.” So in the first year, Ronald Reagan decided to move into the non-military side of the budget and cut profoundly and very deeply. And I advance this notion: that those budget cuts were never about reducing inflation. And whatever reduction has taken place in the inflation rate in this country has nothing to do with significant cuts in America’s federal budget. Every study that I’ve seen indicates that you can only reduce the inflation rate by maybe one- or two-tenths of one percent if you cut 25 billion dollars from the budget. Let’s say Ronald Reagan cut 50 billion. That reduces inflation by four-tenths — two-fifths of one percent. Those cuts of 48.5 billion dollars were to offset the 53.3 billion dollars in the military budget. And it was easy to do, because all he had to do was attack programs that served constituencies that did not put him in the White House. He attacked programs that were designed to help the powerless and the poor and the destitute in our society. He attacked programs that are perceived as controversial; programs that don’t have universal constituencies. Very easy to do. Challenge welfare, challenge food stamps, manpower programs, education programs, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education., Challenge people who are powerless. But then came the second year and a 258 billion dollar military budget. Now Ronald Reagan had to look at his three alternatives again. “How do I finance this? Do I levy new taxes?” Politicians usually don’t levy new taxes in election years. They do it in off election years. But Reagan needed a war tax and so new taxes were levied. The recent tax increases are not sufficient to balance the budget; they are only a palliative, so Ronald Reagan must continue to engage in deficit spending. Clearly we have a huge deficit. The amount changes every day. Some of us assume that by the time the smoke clears, America’s deficit probably will exceed 180 billion dollars. And we continue to cut profoundly and deeply into programs and ideas that serve human beings. Perhaps one of the most insidious results of all these cuts is something that most people have never focused upon. Because when we talk about Reaganomics and Reaganism, the two things Representative Dellums spoke at The Portland Observer’s First Annual Awards Banquet this July, and his comments have been updated with material from a phone interview conducted after Reagan’s August tax increases. The speech was transcripted and edited by Micheale Williams, former Congressional Aide and campaign manager for Rep. Dellums. The Clinton St. Quarterly wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Black Community TV, Channel 23, Cable Systems Pacific, and Art Alexander for providing an audio tape of the speech. Clinton St. Quarterly
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz