 rich's taxes, how much they will actually pay remains to be seen. There are a million and one loop holes that they use to avoid contributing to the public treasury.
He has also already indicated that all spending increases will mean cuts elsewhere in the budget. With projected falling tax revenues due to the economic crisis, and an astronomical military budget (over $500 billion per year), additional cuts, especially in the public sector, are sure to come sooner rather than later. Cuts in federal programs will mean that the states and local government will have to make up the difference. To make ends meet they will either have to increase local property and sales taxes, or allow infrastructure, schools and other public services to deteriorate further. Either way, the the burden will be put right back on workers and the poor.
A couple of anecdotal comments by people close to Obama reveal their own expectations for his administration. Obama's vice president Joe Biden ominously said in a recent interview that within the first six months of Obama's presidency, his supporters' loyalty would be tested, and that they would need to rally behind him; a clear hint at some already foreseen controversial policy or development. And Tom Daschle, the Democrats' former leader in the U.S. Senate and rumored to be in line to become Obama's White House chief-of-staff, said recently that the winner would have only a 50 per cent chance of winning a second term in 2012. In other words, his closest insiders expect his policies to be unpopular. Why should we expect anything else from someone who supports the Patriot Act and who voted to approve increased government surveillance of U.S. citizens?
Big Oil and Obama's foreign policy
Many are sick of Bush and his ties to Big Oil, but a closer look at Obama's energy policies should give his supporters, particularly environmentalists, serious pause for thought. For starters, in addition to wanting to expand the use of wind and solar energy, he is a proponent of expanding the use of nuclear power and coal (though he calls it "clean coal"). Like McCain, he is also in favor of offshore drilling ("drill, baby, drill!"). Obama also voted in favor of Bush and Cheney's 2005 energy bill, saying "it was the best that we could do right now." Ironically, John McCain voted against.
When it comes to foreign policy, Obama will be more like Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton (who bombed Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia during his term of office, and whose economic sanctions on Iraq led to a million deaths) than the Bush neo-cons. In other words, he will continue to pursue and defend U.S. imperialism's interests abroad, albeit with less arrogance and with more diplomatic cover. His choice of Joe Biden (who was in favor of partitioning Iraq), is just one indication of this.
Attention has turned to the economy, but the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the situation in Pakistan, the entire Middle East and Latin America, and relations with Iran, Russia and China remain major challenges confronting the new administration. Obama will likely reach out to the Middle East with an expected major policy speech to be given somewhere in the Arab world. He may shift some troops around the region and call for "dialogue" with Syria, Iran and others, while keeping "all options on the table." But his fundamental policy in the region will not be much different from Bush's. It is no accident that one of his first stops after securing the Democratic nomination was to ingratiate himself with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) the main pro-Israel lobbying group, one of Bush's main supporters.
While skilfully avoiding any real commitment on Iraq, Obama has successfully pulled off another "bait and switch" trick to get anti-war voters to vote for a pro-war candidate. In fact, he has said explicitly that any troops withdrawn from Iraq should instead be sent to Afghanistan! However, U.S. imperialism's adventure in Iraq is doomed and its combat troops will eventually have to be pulled out. Nonetheless, th