Ten

« Well, that sucked | Main | Little Chips, Big Pollution »

November 06, 2002

GOP Victories Power Defense Stocks

That's the headline from Reuters. Along with the body phrase that "The pharmaceuticals sector, which is also seen as a big winner in the GOP victory, was also higher."

To the winners go the spoils.

Posted by Nathan at November 6, 2002 02:08 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nathannewman.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/331

Comments

You omitted reference to this key line:

"We believe that the reality is that the overall size of the defense budgets will be largely unaffected. Both parties maintain they are in favor of rising defense budgets," Wachovia Securities analyst Sam Pearlstein said in a note to clients ahead of the election.

Kinda blows your whole "Dems and Repubs are so different" line, but it's true.

Posted by: max robinson at November 6, 2002 04:28 PM

I take history more seriously than random analysts. In real dollar terms, Clinton took defense spending from $332 billion in 1993 down to $271 billion by 2000 (and this with Gingrich pushing for higher defense spending). Bush is projecting defense spending up to $358 billion by 2007 (all in 1996 dollar terms).

Posted by: Nathan Newman at November 6, 2002 04:50 PM

This statement will be on the DSA Web Site soon.

Heads Should Roll

The big winners in Tuesday?s election were the insurance, defense, drug,
and finance industries. And, of course, the big losers were poor and
working Americans. We can expect more right-wing judges to make it
through the Senate; further tax cuts for the wealthy; increased defense
spending; renewed efforts to privatize Social Security; and
boondoggles for the insurance companies instead of real prescription
drug benefits. The military and strategic doctrines of the Bush
Administration will get even less scrutiny and the rush to war will
continue.

The Democrats failed to mount an effective critique of both the foreign
and economic policy of the Bush Administration. If more Democrats had
waged campaigns like the one Paul Wellstone had mounted before his
tragic death, we would not be talking about a government completely
controlled by the Republican Party. The national Democratic Party
leadership ignored Bush?s tax-cuts for the rich and the resulting
massive budget deficit designed to prevent any progressive social policy
initiatives. In addition, they made almost no mention of corporate
irresponsibility, perhaps because they are afraid of cutting themselves
off from the corporate PAC contributions that have fueled the mainstream
Democratic drift to the center.

Yet, despite the depressing results, there remains an enormous amount of
work to be done. The Republicans will attempt to use the lame-duck
session to pass onerous appropriation bills with far- reaching riders, so
that the so-called moderate Republicans will be spared difficult votes
in the next Congress. The deal on TANF Reauthorization, a three-year
renewal with modest progressive improvements, is certainly in danger.
Progressives and their institutions must organize themselves to bring
even more public pressure to bear on Congress immediately.

Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe?s

self-congratulatory statement on the election results is a prime example
of the kind of leadership progressives can do with out. As we approach
the next election cycle we must insist that campaigns be run on
anti-corporate issues of relevance to working Americans. Progressive
elected officials in the House and Senate need to demand that
Congressional Democrats reconstitute their leadership and their campaign
committees so they can effectively challenge the Republican agenda.

Progressive activists must continue to expose the low-wage economy and
to demand legislation and fiscal policies that raise the incomes of the
bottom sixty per cent of the population. We must continue to work to
strengthen democratic institutions, especially the labor movement. We
must continue to oppose the rush to war, the erosion of civil rights and
liberties, and the scapegoating of immigrants.

Much will be made of the historic nature of the Republican achievement.
1934 represents the last time a president?s party picked up
Congressional seats in mid-term elections. But the causes of these two
seemingly similar events are radically distinct. Roosevelt enacted
far-reaching legislation that improved the lives of millions; Bush
passed far-reaching tax cuts benefiting only the wealthy and then rode a
wave of patriotism in response to September 11th that, coupled with
ineffective opposition, helped him achieve his victory.

History also tells us that Bush should be a one-term president. All
previous presidents who won the office while losing the popular vote
have lost the next election. But as this election should teach the
Democrats, the point is to make history, not rely on it.

Frank Llewellyn
National Director
Democratic Socialists of America

Visit our Web Site: WWW.DSAUSA.ORG

Posted by: Frank Llewellyn at November 6, 2002 07:20 PM

This statement will be on the DSA Web Site soon.

Heads Should Roll

The big winners in Tuesday?s election were the insurance, defense, drug,
and finance industries. And, of course, the big losers were poor and
working Americans. We can expect more right-wing judges to make it
through the Senate; further tax cuts for the wealthy; increased defense
spending; renewed efforts to privatize Social Security; and
boondoggles for the insurance companies instead of real prescription
drug benefits. The military and strategic doctrines of the Bush
Administration will get even less scrutiny and the rush to war will
continue.

The Democrats failed to mount an effective critique of both the foreign
and economic policy of the Bush Administration. If more Democrats had
waged campaigns like the one Paul Wellstone had mounted before his
tragic death, we would not be talking about a government completely
controlled by the Republican Party. The national Democratic Party
leadership ignored Bush?s tax-cuts for the rich and the resulting
massive budget deficit designed to prevent any progressive social policy
initiatives. In addition, they made almost no mention of corporate
irresponsibility, perhaps because they are afraid of cutting themselves
off from the corporate PAC contributions that have fueled the mainstream
Democratic drift to the center.

Yet, despite the depressing results, there remains an enormous amount of
work to be done. The Republicans will attempt to use the lame-duck
session to pass onerous appropriation bills with far- reaching riders, so
that the so-called moderate Republicans will be spared difficult votes
in the next Congress. The deal on TANF Reauthorization, a three-year
renewal with modest progressive improvements, is certainly in danger.
Progressives and their institutions must organize themselves to bring
even more public pressure to bear on Congress immediately.

Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe?s

self-congratulatory statement on the election results is a prime example
of the kind of leadership progressives can do with out. As we approach
the next election cycle we must insist that campaigns be run on
anti-corporate issues of relevance to working Americans. Progressive
elected officials in the House and Senate need to demand that
Congressional Democrats reconstitute their leadership and their campaign
committees so they can effectively challenge the Republican agenda.

Progressive activists must continue to expose the low-wage economy and
to demand legislation and fiscal policies that raise the incomes of the
bottom sixty per cent of the population. We must continue to work to
strengthen democratic institutions, especially the labor movement. We
must continue to oppose the rush to war, the erosion of civil rights and
liberties, and the scapegoating of immigrants.

Much will be made of the historic nature of the Republican achievement.
1934 represents the last time a president?s party picked up
Congressional seats in mid-term elections. But the causes of these two
seemingly similar events are radically distinct. Roosevelt enacted
far-reaching legislation that improved the lives of millions; Bush
passed far-reaching tax cuts benefiting only the wealthy and then rode a
wave of patriotism in response to September 11th that, coupled with
ineffective opposition, helped him achieve his victory.

History also tells us that Bush should be a one-term president. All
previous presidents who won the office while losing the popular vote
have lost the next election. But as this election should teach the
Democrats, the point is to make history, not rely on it.

Frank Llewellyn
National Director
Democratic Socialists of America

Visit our Web Site: WWW.DSAUSA.ORG

Posted by: Frank Llewellyn at November 6, 2002 07:24 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)