Since the beginning of the G W Bush administration?s mandate the United States goes from misfortunes in misfortunes. The
recession began in the first quarter 2001. It worsened with the disasters of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Then came a
new economic decline in 2002, which will certainly persit throughout 2003. Now we have a national debt of $6,400 billion as of
February 2003, a budget deficit brought up to $200 billion (vs. budget surpluses at year-end of 2000), and Union expenditures
projected to be raised even more, in particular armament expenditures.
Everyone wonders why the Bush administration shows such an inefficiency to solve these economic and social problems that may
through us into chaos? Why are Bush and his circle of irreducible ones restricted to pursue their expensive and ruinous logic of war
in these moments of very worrying economic recession? Even the republican Allan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve?s president, did
not hesitate to warn that we may indeed head towards chaos if the deficits were not contained within a maximum limit of 2% of the
GDP. The deficit is currently established at 1.9% of the GDP, but Bush does not disarm as for digging it more.
Disastrous recognition of Bush vis-a-vis his godfather givers
In his last speech on the state of the Union the only happy note was the promise for an "emergency plan of assistance for AIDS
relief, a work of mercy beyond all current international effort to help the people of Africa". If this plan were really applied - with an
American administration expending approximately $15 billion over a five-year period for the prevention of the VIH propagation and
helping for the speed of antiviral drugs and other treatments - that will have been a very good deed for the health, not only in Africa,
but also throughout the world.
However, there are serious doubts in connection with the personal philanthropic will posted by George W Bush. We may recall that
such a plan would be funded by the Americans' taxes and, failing that, by budget deficits through an increase in the national debt.
And related to the 284 million American inhabitants, this debt amounts well to $22.500 per capita. Most disconcerting is the choice
made precisely for the fight against the AIDS, and not for anything else. Why not, for example, a plan for the construction of
highways and viable communications capable to disenclose Africa while launching solid bases of the economic development, the
prevention and the treatment of the other more disastrous diseases such as malaria, etc. We unfortunately find out that the choice of
the AIDS is Bush's answer to fulfilling the mission entrusted to him by large financial givers.
Indeed, among the Republican Party?s large sponsors are Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, in third place after AT&T and Philip Moris,
and Pfizer Inc in fifth place. Bristol-Myers ($1.5 million of contributions) is a pharmaceutical firm, which manufactures, within
others, drugs against the HIV/AIDS, in particular Sustiva (efavirenz), Zerit (stavudine) and Videx (didanosine). Pfizer is a
pharmaceutical firm manufacturing, within others, drugs against the AIDS, with Viracept used in combination with other antiviral
drugs for the treatment of the HIV infections. George W Bush should thus prove to us that his famous "emergency plan" rather is
not primarily an emergency help to Bristol-Myers ($32.4 billion sales in 2002) and Pfizer ($12.3 billion declining revenues in 2002).
Bush and his inner circle are also stubborn to carrying out a war against Iraq (a defeated and weak nation) after their defeat in a first
war in Afghanistan where they could not catch Ossama bin Laden, and not necessarily to guarantee the security of the American
people as they are proud to say. They are rather determined to fill a contract of recognition towards the oil and energy firms that
financed the Bush?s presidential campaign. The largest contributors were Enron $1.8 million, Exxon-Mobil $1.2 million and others
(read the US Democratic and Republican Soft Money Donors).
Therefore it is clear that, because G.W. Bush cannot pull back as to his commitment to offer the profits of Iraqi oil to the oil firms
that helped carrying him to the capacity, he sacrifices the young Americans who naively respond an erroneous presidential call to
patriotism. Among these young Americans thus pushed at the Iraqi slaughterhouse, for the unique benefit of the American oil,
enerygy and armament firms, African Americans represent 30% of the military numbers in Iraq, after being drawn out from our
shantytowns of utter destitution. 30% of African Americans - Donald Rumfeld sometimes reduces this percentage to 20%, at will -
against a representation of 13% in the general population. A response to a patriotic call of more than 200% on behalf of the
American Africans, whereas African Americans do not even weigh 1% of the ownership of the oil, energy and armament firms that
would amass all the profits of the war in Iraq.
The urgency to cleanse Washington of the businesses
Because of the oil interests and of the military troops they impose on the Middle-East, the American society underwent the
September 11 attacks and the other ones that preceded them. Because of the soft money givers' interests that support the White
House, wars are declared against weak nations with 50% of infantile population. This is quite simply to try out and quickly
consume offensive weapons and then bring the government to make other armament orders with the firms that financed its election
campaigns. At the head of these lobbies is the National Rifle Association with $1.456 million contributed to the Republican Party in
1999-2000. We demonstrated that a war in Iraq would bring only more insecurity to the American people, not more.
It is clear that G W Bush benefits the divine right to throw the American Union in chaos. We deal here with the one whose
enthronement at the White House showed to the world that the American system is not democratic. As a recall, here are the results
of the 2000 presidential elections: Bush/Cheney 50.456.062 voices; Gore/Liberman 50.996.582 voices. The citizens that did not vote
totaled 103,716,507 or 49.60% of all citizens. Nevertheless, Bush was declared president. Related to the total of the population in
age to vote - the Citizens in clearer words, who may be different from the Electors referred to in the Constitution -, thus G W Bush
will have been established "democratically" with a score of 24.13% of citizens favorable. Therefore, why should we be astonished
that he is more to the service of electoral campaign givers that made him than of the Citizens who, in a majority of 75.87%, did not
choose him? The Constitution plays with the words Citizens and Electors, which is advantageous to the businesses in Washington.
We live these kinds of disastrous aberrations today simply because the lobbies that benefit from them decided to prevent, nozzles
and nails, every tentative to chane an old and obsolete Constitution for the modern American society. They require us to adore the
Founding Fathers who, for their majority, were slavers and wrote the Constitution based upon the ambient culture of their times.
The republicanism is paradoxical to democracy and, each time we will privilege it compared to democracy, we would establish
monsters at the capacity in the American Union. The main guiding principle of the democracy is the election at the majority of the
total citizens' voices of 50%, plus one. Ignoring the abstentions and the reasons that justify them, rather to privilege the
antidemocratic business interests only, is an insult to the democracy.
It is essential to remove businesses out of the political management of the Union if we want the American system to be democratic.
Nevertheless, the experiences from the practice of business could usefully help us reinforce the American democracy. Some
examples: 1) Our system requires any 18 year old individual (the Citizen) to gain the means of her/his own existence. The system
should also oblige any citizen to fulfill his political expression obligation, which is the vote. 2) We developed rigorous criteria for the
choice of mutual funds for our investment decisions. We must also establish rigorous criteria for the choice of the person who must
hold capacity at the White House, the Senate, the Congress, federal or local. It is necessary to adjust the Constitution with the
contemporary democratic expectations and realities.
