While the media stopped to cover Michael Jackson's death,
several tremors rocked the foundation of something that actually affects us
all — Obamanomics.
First, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who supported the
President over his Republican rival, criticized Obama's spending, saying "we
can't pay for it all." Powell said: "I'm concerned at the number of programs
that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the
additional government that will be needed to execute them. … One of the
cautions that has to be given to the President — and I've talked to some of
his people about this — is that you can't have so many things on the table
that you can't absorb it all."
Second, a few days ago, respected British economist Tim Congdon
dusted off a 2003 paper — written pre-Obama spending — by the Federal
Reserve's senior economist. It warned of the nation's growing debt and
deficit, calculating their impact on long-term interest rates. The Fed's
conclusion? "A percentage point increase in the projected deficit-to-GDP
ratio raises the 10-year bond rate expected to prevail five years into the
future by 20 to 40 basis points. … Similarly, a percentage point increase
in the projected debt-to-GDP ratio raises future interest rates by about 4
to 5 basis points." In plain English, this means, as Congdon puts it, a
"debt explosion." Applying the 2003 paper's calculations and assumptions to
our debt and deficit numbers under Obama, Congdon sees the "horrifying"
consequences of bank bailouts and increased public spending.
| FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER |
| Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here. |
|
Third, billionaire/Obama supporter Warren Buffett warned of
impending inflation caused by increased government spending. "A country that
continuously expands its debt as a percentage of GDP," he said, "and raises
much of the money abroad to finance that, at some point, it's going to
inflate its way out of the burden of that debt. … Every country that's
denominated its debt in its own currency and has found itself with
uncomfortable amounts of debt relative to the rest of the world, in the end
they inflate. And that becomes a tax on everybody that has fixed dollar
investments."
Fourth, the Obama-supporting/George W. Bush-hating/billionaire
benefactor of hyper-liberal MoveOn.org, George Soros, predicted that the
administration's spending and borrowing will trigger inflation and higher
interests rates. "As markets revive," he said, "fear of inflation will drive
up interest rates, which will choke off recovery."
(Emphasis added.)
Our country rushes ever closer to a Canadian/European economic
model, where government spends a greater and greater percentage of the
nation's income — whether on education, "bailing out" private companies,
"assisting" states that have imprudently run their affairs, supplying "free"
health care and health insurance, or the creation of "green jobs" to battle
"global warming."
President Obama and the Democratic Party's congressional
supermajority represent nothing less than a grave and gathering threat to
that which made America great — free enterprise, competition, allowing
people to keep as much of their own money as possible, and the assumption
that people know better how and on what to spend their money than does
government.
The Republicans — who, remember, supported the first bailout,
under Bush — are only slightly better.
The first President Bush signed into law the Americans With
Disabilities Act, telling private employers under what circumstances they
should hire and "accommodate" those with "special challenges." Republican
Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency. The second
Bush signed the prescription benefits bill for seniors. And on and on it
goes.
I voted against G.W. Bush the first time because he promised
greater government involvement in education, health care and other aspects
of our lives. So I "threw away my vote" and voted libertarian.
I voted for Bush in '04 because of 9/11. I agree with Bush's
recognition that we are at war with Islamofascism and that it represents the
greatest threat to civilization. I supported and still support our
intervention in Iraq. But I consider it a matter of national security, not a
pretext to "spread democracy."
I opposed our intervention in Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti
(all under Clinton) and Lebanon (under Reagan). Military intervention is for
one thing only — national security. So while I am incredibly saddened by
the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, this is no reason for our nation to send
troops. If mercenaries choose to go and fight for one side or another, that
is their choice. And people and organizations can and do send supplies,
workers and money for humanitarian purposes.
I believe that U.S. intervention in World War I was a mistake
and that the European monarchies should have been allowed to obliterate
themselves. The punitive Treaty of Versailles angered the Germans and set
the stage for the rise of murderous demagogue Adolf Hitler. I once offered
this WWI analysis directly to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (who
wrote a blurb for my second book), and he said, "There is much in what you
say."
Now we have another threat to our security. It comes from
within. We must fight this one with a war of ideas. The new threat is called
Obamanomics.
