Sequestration: A rift in capital

[Starry Messenger]

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/sequestration-a-rift-in-capital/

Sequestration is the most glaring example of the raw political power of finance capital in recent American history. Every other sector of the American capitalist class has arrayed its political power against sequestration - including lobbying giants like the U.S. Chamber of Commernce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Northrop Grumman, the Areospace Industries Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Essentially, what amounts to most of the leading organizations of the manufacturing, defense, commercial and retail real estate, construction, wholesale and retail trade, health care, and accommodation and food service sectors. Only the finance and insurance sectors have strongly pressed for the measure - especially expressing such support in the traditional voices of finance capital, such as the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. More impressive still is the way finance capital has monopolized politicians of both parties on this issue, including politicians who have at times previously been more answerable to other sectors of American capital.

Sequestration is sometimes called the "poison pill" of American politics. It is often said that the members of Congress and the Obama administration who agreed to it never expected the measure to come into effect. However, it is difficult to imagine a national elected official who did not expect the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate to fail to reach compromise on fundamental budget issues. Indeed, a more plausible case can be made that both the administration and Congress were seeking cover of exactly such a "poison pill" on which to blame austerity measures - which Congressional Democrats could never otherwise support, given their constituencies, who vehemently oppose austerity measures. This is itself a measure of the power of finance capital in the current configuration of capitalist forces. By following the capitalists' lead, the Congressional Democrats risk alienating their bases. If the base stops believing in accidental austerity, the jig is up. To their credit, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has stated that we should just end the sequester.

Frequently we misattribute the interests of major funders of ALEC and the Tea Party - the Koch brothers, for example - as leading figures in the extractive (oil, natural gas, and coal) sector. However, while their extractive holdings are considerable, they derive more of their revenue from the finance sector. Therefore, they have been at the center of the movement to deliver political outcomes which overwhelmingly favor finance capital, even if to the detriment of other sectors in which they hold interests.

<snip>

[socialist_n_TN]

1. Not much time this morning, but a couple of things......

The financial sector is wielding the power here BECAUSE they are the most profitable sector of the capitalist economy. And since rate of profit, not overall profits are what drives capitalist expansion, it should not come as a surprise when the sector that achieves the best rate of profit also achieves the most power.

As to the sequester and as I said in my article on he budget, the sequester actually PROVIDES austerity for the American economy, it's just not called that. It's a matter of framing or marketing, if you will. What the sequester did was provide an austerity baseline for the most powerful sector in the capitalist economy- remembering that the financial sector has actually BEEN the most powerful sector since the late 90s anyway.

What it guaranteed for capitalism is either the austerity provided by the sequester OR a more targeted version of austerity provided by a Grand Bargain. A GB would have been better because they could have totally took government spending out of the equation and targeted the austerity TOTALLY towards the people and not business, but lacking the Congressional votes for a GB, at least they've got something.

[Laelth]

2. Agreed. The finance sector is the major problem.

And it makes sense to argue that Democrats wanted cover from the sequester to ram through austerity measures (cut to SNAP benefits, for example) that we, liberals, consider wrong-headed and unduly punitive. Austerity punishes people who are absolutely innocent while rewarding the guilty.

This is an insightful essay. k&r

-Laelth

[TBF]

3. Politics=Economics

Good essay.

[HiPointDem]

4. kr. really important. one set of capitalists being taken over by another set (or transformed into)

productive capital being taken over by rentier capital.

[Starry Messenger]

5. It's a really tremendous piece.

The other point that struck me was teh observation was that sequestration was the perfect way to slip austerity into the US. No one wanted to pull the trigger and be the bad guy, so making it look like it was unavoidable due to some "uncorrectable" benchmark slid it on over.

[BOG PERSON]

6. i wish there was a better word for our situation than "austerity"

because "austerity" suggests we had a welfare state in the first place

i guess there isnt' so we have to pretend the social-democracy we never had is being dismantled