The hottest game show on the international scene, “Where’s
My Nuke?”, featured a feisty contestant named Kim Jong il this
week. He is known for his fondness of scotch, American
movies, and fast, luxurious automobiles. On Tuesday, he chose
to strike a deal with the game’s team of hosts- the United States
and its partners (China, Russia, South Korea and Japan)- that
will halt North Korea’s production of nuclear weapons, and
eventually shut down the Hermit Kingdom’s nuclear facilities.
In return, Mr. Kim chose the prize concealed behind curtain
number one: a generous aid package that will help keep his
beleaguered populace alive for another year or two.

The new pact will require that the North Koreans disable its
nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants and, more importantly,
lead international inspectors to its weapons stockpile and any
hidden illicit programs that may lurk in the North’s desolate
mountains.

It was just this past fall when Kim Jong il, North Korea’s despotic
leader, decided to display his nation’s atomic prowess with a
less than impressive nuclear detonation. Although the test blast
barley registered on the most sensitive of seismic instruments, it
did confer membership to the prestigious nuclear weapons club.

But, this membership came at a great cost to Kim. Although the
nuclear explosion filled him with pride, his relationship with China
suffered greatly. China is North Korea’s largest supplier of aid,
and its biggest trading partner. The leadership in Beijing has also
played the role of protector to Kim and his government, acting as
a buffer against the outside world.

China has an interest in keeping the North Korean government
from imploding and creating chaos among its malnourished popul-
ation; the last thing China wants is a massive refugee crisis to deal
with. But, it does not want a nuclear arms race to develop in Asia,
and that is a very real possibility given the unpredictable nature of
the nuclear club’s newest member.

The U.S. was also quite unnerved by the North’s nuclear explosion,
and responded by shutting down some of Kim’s counterfeiting and
and money laundering operations. This apparently jeopardized the
flow of single malt scotch and luxury automobiles to Kim and his
inner circle, and may have been an important factor in bringing the
North back to the negotiating table.

North Korea, as a reward for agreeing to shut down its nuclear
weapons program, will receive a year’s supply of heavy fuel oil
as part of a larger aid package. But, Kim will reap the rewards
only after the nuclear facilities are disabled AND all weapon stock-
piles, fuel and factories are disclosed. The US will also initiate a
procedure that will lead to the removal of North Korea from the list
of states that sponsor terrorism- and this will bring many onerous
trade sanctions to an end.

This new deal has been harshly criticized by neoconservatives for
being too soft on a prominent member of the Axis of Evil, and by
Democrats for its timing- they say this deal could have been struck
several years and a half dozen nuclear warheads ago. Both sides
have a point; Kim has lied before and he may do so again, and this
deal should have been attempted long before the nuclear test
explosion in October.

What is not being given proper significance is the way this agree-
ment was crafted. The United States worked closely with all of the
region’s major players in order to compel the North Koreans to accept
a new deal that will halt its nuclear weapons program.

Even if Kim Jong il goes back on his word after the oil and aid is
delivered, the mechanisms are in place to keep him in check. His
belligerence is matched only by his dependence on foreign aid,
and cooperation among those who allow him survival exposes this
weakness for all to see.

The two major goals in this round of negotiations were to prevent Kim
from creating a nuclear “Wal Mart” that would sell weapons to the
highest bidder, and to reduce the potential for a nuclear arms race in
Asia. As a result of this agreement, both goals are closer to fulfillment,
and the international community has shown what cooperation can
achieve.

Greg Strid

“Our priority is to protect the American people,” said President Bush to reporters as he unveiled his administration’s $2.9 trillion 2008 budget proposal. “And our priority is to make sure our troops have what it takes to do their jobs.”

Yes, in the new Hot War (on terrorism), the nation’s resources must make a dramatic shift toward securing the homeland. Of course, this comes at the expense of providing health care, education, and environmental protection to the people who live in it.

The global war on terror is proving to be very pricey indeed — close to $427 billion has been channeled through the Defense Department since the first bombs fell on the Taliban in December 2001. Mr. Bush’s new budgetary requests would tack on an additional $93.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to fund them through the end of this year, on top of $70 billion already approved.

Fiscal 2008 will require an additional $141.7 billion to keep the twin fires raging — the good news is that 2009 is projected to siphon only $50 billion from the Treasury’s overstretched credit lines. No  estimates were given for 2010 and beyond, and thus it seems as if the President is sending a mixed budgetary message to the terrorists. If the amount of money allocated to fight these conflicts cannot be projected with certainty, doesn’t that then suggest a lack of commitment to win this war on the part of the United States?

There certainly is no lack of loyalty to the Pentagon. The White House has proposed a “basic” defense budget of $481 billion. This number surpasses what Congress allocated for 2007 by $49 billion. The new budget request on behalf of the military represents a 62 percent increase over 2001 spending levels — and this does not include money spent fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The President, in addition to promising Americans continued security at home, promised that the federal budget would fall into balance, with the possibility of a small surplus by 2012.

This will somehow be achieved while extending the 2001 tax cut package beyond its expiration date of 2010. The administration argues that the strong economic growth that has been delivered by the tax cuts will continue, with only a slight decline, of .1  percent, in taxes and fees collected in relation to overall GDP.

Mr. Bush’s budgetary magic, therefore, relies heavily on spending cuts. According to his projections, overall government spending would decline by almost 2 percent of GDP by 2012. The spending cuts would be centered on reducing Medicare and Medicaid outlays by $96 billion over five years, and would include trimming the budgets of eight federal agencies — education, environment, and interior department spending would fall below 2006 levels.

And none of this would happen without the Iraq and Afghanistan wars falling off the budget request list after 2009. If current war spending levels were tacked on to the projected 2012 budget projection, the magical surplus would transform into a very real $150-$200 billion deficit.

According to the President, America must stay the spending course in order to live in a secure homeland. Unfortunately, the land he wants so desperately to protect will be increasingly scarred by environmental degradation, and will be inhabited by a growing number of people lacking in education and basic health care - if his budgetary desires are granted. And if the tax cuts that were devised with the owners of this nation’s assets in mind are extended beyond 2010, the gap between rich and poor will widen beyond today’s already unacceptable levels.

The hope is that the new Congress will not roll over like the old one did so many times before. It is time for elected officials to address the real fears that consume so many Americans today — such as ever-rising health insurance premiums and overburdened public school systems. Providing security goes far beyond what little can be procured from the barrel of a gun.