While Russian liberals are criticizing the academic concept of Sergei Glazyev intended to increase the government’s role in the crisis period and abandon the idea of privatization, the ideal of free-market theoreticians, the U.S. economy is showing signs of imminent collapse. Obama has already acknowledged that the sequestration will adversely impact the defense and quality of life.

On Friday (after a failed attempt of the republican and Democratic wings of the Congress to agree on the state expenditure), U.S. President Barack Obama signed a decree to start the curtailment of the national budget. What are the implications of this unprecedented step? Here are some specific numbers from the official website of the White House and Research Centre Global Research: 600,000 people will lose their right to food stamps, 700, 000 jobs will be lost, 70,000 children will be excluded from the day care programs. The program of budget savings proposed by Barack Obama generally provides savings of about a trillion and two hundred million dollars, including 400 billion by cutting back on health insurance plans, 130 billion – Social Security and, 35 billion – reduction of pensions for the retired federal employees, who, as an sign of discontent, could significantly weaken the system of public administration.

In the first financial year that in the U.S. ends on October 1^st, spending cuts in the federal budget will amount to $85 billion, with $50 billion in security agencies and defense. Obama, speaking on the day after the signing of the directive, was visibly frustrated, saying that, in addition to social programs, sequestration may significantly weaken the U.S. defense, thousands of military will be laid off, and the march of the aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf will have to be postponed.

Compared to the 16-trillion-dollar U.S. debt, the savings do not look convincing, but may lead to very negative consequences for American society. In the short term, the economic recovery in the U.S. will be slowed down (consider how growth is calculated with inflated securities and distorted numbers of actual production). The quality of life of the middle class who is mostly paying for these savings will be reduced.

Muddling and lumpenization of the middle class, coupled with growth of nationalism, will inevitably exacerbate separatist tendencies in the United States that have been previously subdued by high quality of life. First of all it is a donor state Texas with 30 million-strong population where in the last four years 40 percent of all new jobs in the U.S. were created. Every third Texan believes that the state has the right to self-determination, while 25 percent favor an immediate withdrawal from the U.S. The directive of the feds to tighten their belts is unlikely to reduce the number of supporters of independence. Furthermore, when in the 1930s the independent Republic of Texas signed a contract to join in the United States, it was subject to the reservation that Texas could leave the federation at any time.

In the eight southern states, including Florida and Alabama, where significant part of the population is black, the movement for the proclamation of a new African republic has been developing for many decades. In 1968 a temporary” black government” was created that was immediately dismissed by a powerful strike of the FBI, which, however, did not prevent the idea of ​​withdrawal from the United States. There are separatists in California and Michigan, and, given the growth prospects of the minority population to 50 percent, it is clear that the tendency to separate will increase.

There could be another, implicit consequence of reducing military expenditure under sequestration. A number of personnel changes in the Obama administration demonstrated that the foreign policy is fundamentally changing toward less aggressive and non-confrontational military decisions. The appointment as Secretary of Defense of 66 year-old Chuck Hagel, known not only for his intolerance toward homosexuals but also a statement that the U.S. Congress is under the thumb of the Israeli lobby, gives reason to conclude that the U.S. policy in the Middle East is more humanitarian or less carnivorous. In a potential conflict with Iran Israel cannot expect military help from the long-term ally. From this perspective, the forced reduction of military spending is a great excuse to gently exit the geopolitical situation fraught with war in a diplomatic manner, without offending the ally in the Middle East.

Another obvious thing is that costly U.S. policy of promotion and protection of its interests around the globe has exhausted itself. It has been replaced with other methods – financing of color revolutions and use of the information networks. Instead of costly air strikes and ground operations computers and psychological operations are used involving networks of activists. It is no accident that the U.S. military created Cyber ​​Command, and the documents on strategic geopolitical planning introduced a new term – “diffusive wars.”

The reduction in military spending should not deceive anyone, as spending on the war only moved into a different, more effective area. The well-known law of the American political establishment – “nothing personal, just the interests of the U.S.” – apparently does not change, regardless of the price to be paid.

Yuri Skidanov

Pravda.Ru

Read the original in Russian