The Ugly Economics of Privatized War

Common sense commentaries: June 7 - 11
Jim Hightower - jimhightower.com

06.10.04 - THE UGLY ECONOMICS OF PRIVATIZED WAR

Sometimes it takes the unspeakable horror of war to unveil ugly truths about national policies that our so-called leaders don't want us to notice, much less discuss.

Take, for example, the horrible news coming out of Iraq about contract workers for Halliburton and other war corporations being brutally killed and their bodies barbarically desecrated. Naturally, the first reaction is shock and outrage -- but then obvious questions come to mind: Why has so much of our military been corporatized, and who are the Halliburtons getting to take these dangerous jobs?

The first question reveals the ugly fact that the military itself has become a for-profit enterprise. Corporations not only provide the weaponry, but increasingly they also provide the war personnel -- everyone from armed troops to essential supply squadrons. This is rationalized on the basis that a Halliburton can do it cheaper. But do they? To get people to go to Iraq, Halliburton pays $80,000 to $100,000 a year for a truck driver or mess cook, plus health care and life insurance. Not to mention the overhead and guaranteed profit that Halliburton tacks onto each of the pay stubs it submits to us taxpayers. A soldier doing comparable work is paid a fourth of that.

The second question speaks volumes about America's ugly economic policies. By deliberately pushing outsourcing, union-busting, and low-wage Wal-Mart jobs, our corporate and political leaders have created a huge pool of the working poor. These are the people who, out of necessity, will take Halliburton's pay check, even though it means separation from family, 14-hour days seven days a week, and exposure to kidnapping, torture, and death. Unlike soldiers, these contract workers are poorly prepared -- they get only one week of training.

What we have here is an immoral system of war profiteering at the expense of taxpayers, the working poor... and America's democratic values.

"High-paying jobs lure workers to Iraq." Austin American-Statesman, May 23, 2004.
"Recruiters at job fair play up the dangers of working in Iraq." Austin American-Statesman, May 23, 2004.
www.goarmy.com

FANTASIES OF CORPORATE IDEOLOGUES

It's always enlightening to have the glories of corporate globalization explained to us by conservative pontificators who try to convince us that globalization is the height of morality, for it indirectly aids the poor -- a group of people they never care to aid directly.

Not long ago, we were treated to an example of such enlightenment by William Safire, the old Nixon speechwriter who's now a pundit for the New York Times. He offered a touching, hypothetical story of a low-income mother whose 12-year-old boy had said to her: "Momma, I need new shoes because the old ones with the holes hurt my feet, and the other kids in school are laughing at me." But, Safire tells us sadly, his fictional momma had to say to her boy that she "couldn't afford no $50 on new shoes made in America."

Glory Be and Hallelujah, Safire's morality tale ends happily -- for momma found a store that was "having a clearance of shoes made in China or Indo-someplace. I bought him a pair of fine leather shoes for $24. You shoulda seen my boy's face light up."

In case you missed the moral of this literary gem, Safire pounds it into us in the next sentence of his column: "Free trade is helping that lady make ends meet because her hard-earned dollar now has more buying power. If those fast-talking protectionists had their way, the high cost of living would deny her boy those shoes." Gosh, Bill, thanks for that little lecture.

Meanwhile, moving from fiction to real life, you might observe that Nike doesn't lower the price on its shoes just because it pays workers in Indo-someplace a dollar a day, instead of the $10-an-hour it used to pay U.S. workers. No, Nike simply pockets the savings. Also, if "Momma" had not had her middle-class job offshored by the likes of Nike, she wouldn't be poor -- and then she could afford "$50 on new shoes made in America."

Instead of pushing more trickle-down fantasies, lets invest in America's middle-class again.

"My Anti-Stump Speech," New York Times, February 23, 2004.