This guy can’t be for real:
Earmark foes are preparing to force a vote that would oblige senators to disclose all campaign contributions connected to their pet projects.
As the battle over the budget heats up, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and other senators are readying an amendment in case Democrats propose an alternative to a Republican-led moratorium on earmarks, as Coburn suspects.
He is waiting for Democrats to show their hand. But no matter what happens, the legislative battle has already divided both parties and pitted Senate leaders against their presidential candidates.
Reid said last year’s ethics law provided “total transparency” of the process by requiring legislation for the first time to specify who the authors of each earmark were.“As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks,” Reid said, noting that the Founders dictated in the Constitution that all spending should originate in Congress, not the executive branch.
Wha-wha-what!
The Founding Fathers wanted a system in which politicians could sock away money for their own states in the dark? And here all along I thought the power of appropriations means fully disclosing the spending going on and floor votes on those monies. Guess I was a silly fool.
Sigh….
Pop quiz, who said that federal funding should go only “to great national works only, since if it were unlimited it would be liable to abuse and might be productive of evil.”
The answer can be found here with lots of other quotes from our Founding Fathers on what they REALLY believed. Reid needs to invest in a history book.
See author page
It is not surprising that Reid would defend the ability of the national legislature to take care of their favorite donors. No Harry, this is not what the founding fathers had in mind. He gives revisionist history a bad name. You and your kind are political Kristans.
One thing the founding fathers were concerned with was an educated citizenry.
——-
Individual responsibilities ans individual rights, inseparable, interchangeable. Without responsibility, your rights cease to exist.
From people that can read the Second Amendment and not see that “Rights of the People shall not be infringed” means that “Rights of the People shall not be infringed”, what else should we expect?
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/13/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Reduction in earmarks is almost always the cry of the minority party.
The historical highs for earmarks occurred in the fiscal year 2005 and FY 2006, just before the Republicans were swept out of Congress.
Citizens Against Government Waste has identified 2658 of fiscal year 2008 earmarks as “Pork Project” costing about 13.2 billion.
This is significantly lower than the numbers and dollar amounts of recent (Republican) years: 14,000 “Pork Projects” for a total of 27.3 billion in the FY 2005 and 29 billion in 2006 FY these were the last budgets passed by the Republican Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmarks
And yet, 29 billion or 27 billion or 13 billion annually simply isn’t that much in the grand scheme of things. Of course the earmarks suck and should (ideally) be done away with – but generally speaking, when someone (*cough* McCain *cough*) spends a lot of time polishing their fiscal conservative cred by fighting earmarks, while ignoring the much larger sums spent on entitlements and the military, it’s a sign that they’re more interested in PR than actual balanced budgets.
Luckily, it looks like expansion of the money supply combined with some very creative accounting in calculating price inflation will allow us to cut entitlements via a sneaky back door. I guess that’s a good thing, since the political will to cut them directly doesn’t exist.
>>Reduction in earmarks is almost always the cry of the minority party.>>
So? You may be right – it’s not even worth checking. How would this make this a bad thing?
“Gather ye rosebuds while ye may”…in other words, “strike while the iron’s hot” and I’m sure there are a bunch of other old cliches… ultimately it comes down to who cares who or why – earmarks are a bad thing. If money is needed for a project, let it be debated openly and passed or defeated. The only function of earmarks is to get taxpayer money without the awareness of the taxpayer.
Given that Congress controls the budget (passing it), Senator Ried is likely technically correct. However he is also displaying why he is completely over his head in his current job by making statements such as this.
This is just laughable. The Founding Fathers wanted CONgress to put in speding after a bill was already voted on. Give me a break. This goes against everything the Founding Fathers wanted the CONgress to do. If it is so important to get this spending thru, wht not debate about how a couple million dollars for a Woodstock Museum is good for the country as a whole. The Founding Father wanted the Federal Government to protect the states and that is all. Not all of this spendng us out of our tax dollars to the sum of$30 billioin or whatever it is at now. And the Founding Fathers did not want the Federal Goevernment involved with ecucation, social security and many of the other unfunded mandates that the Federal government has foistered on all the States. We have gone far away from waht the Founding Fathers wanted the country to be. They are probably rolling ing their graves right now
This guy is such a loser!! I can’t stand hearing his whining little voice. I certainly hope that when he comes up for election in ’10, that the people of Nevada can override the casinos of Vegas and kick his skinny ass so far out he can’t find his way home. I agree with you Stix, our gov. is so far away from what the founders envisioned they would never recognize it.
Re: “This is just laughable. The Founding Fathers wanted CONgress to put in speding after a bill was already voted on.”
Earmarks are down from when Conservatives controlled Congress in 2005 and 2006. But every single Conservative here still voted to re-elect those Republicans to Congress.
Now, those very same Conservatives are screaming that the Democratic Congress has mearly reduced the $’s in earmarks, not cut them to zero: As though Republicans had a better track record.
And every single Conservative here will pretend that, should Republicans take over Congress this fall, along with a Republican President, that the earmarks will go anywhere other than back to where they were the last time Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House.
So what if they are down from the Republican CONgress. Most Republicans in CONgress are not conservative, they just use the Republican name only. Why is it that alomst every Defeatocrat is trying to stop the moratorium on Earmarks. It was started by Conservative Republicans, not the squishy middle ofthe Road and let’s just get along Republicans. Yes there are some Defeatocrats that voted for it, but the majrity voted against it.
The Republicansthat voted against the bill should be voted out along with the Defeatocarats that voted for against it also.
This is the reason the Republicans lost the 2006 election, and some have not learned their lesson. They want to perpetually spend our money on frivolous “I am doing this for my constituents so they elect me again” projects that have no business being funded by the Federal Government
So do you think a couple million dollars for a Woodstock Musem is in the countries best interest???? This is what you think our Founding Fathers would want our government to be doing???
Ifit is a REpublican that is usingthe pork, he should be votedout also alongwith all the rest ofthe fat porkersin the Democratic Party. It needs to stop.
Re: “So what if they are down from the Republican CONgress. ”
Your statement is my point exactly. A Conservative is not allowed to acknowledge an improvement of any level produced by a Democrat. Ever. Were the situation reversed and a Republican Congress to reduce earmarks from a previous Democratic Congress (say, for example Republicans take over in November and in 2009 the earmarks go from $18 billion to $17.9 billion), Conservatives here would be launching entire threads extolling what a “great start” Republican had made and “they are finally Conservative”.
I wish the Democrats in Congress had done more. But at least they stoped the descent that we were on when Republicans had controll of Congress and had a Conservative President to help them. Not one single Conservative is allowed to even acknowledge that has happened, let along give Democrats any credit for it. Conservatives sole goal is to get Republicans back in power so the pork can return its flow back to GOP states, where Conservative rightly beleive the money belongs.
Re: “So do you think a couple million dollars for a Woodstock Musem is in the countries best interest????”
No. But, since that was in Senator Hillary Clinton’s New York state, I can see why Conservatives would point it out. How about you point out a wasteful project in one of your favorite Republican states? FoxNews always uses West Virginia as their favorite, since Senator Byrd is a Democrat. When it comes to Republican boondoggles, Conservatives are less worried.
Let me point out an example. The infameous “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska. Do any of you “Conservatives” recall that when Republicans made great fanfare of “taking out” the earmark for those bridges, they actually only took out the requirement that those particular bridges be built with the money. All of the federal $’s were LEFT IN the bill, with no earmark at all. So the Alaskan government can spend the same amount of money on any other boondoggle: even build the bridges after all becasue every penny of (borrowed) money was left in, only the name of what was to be built was left in.
Did any of those “Conservative” stories decrying the “Woodstock Museam” also include that fact? Of course not.
Re: “Ifit is a REpublican that is usingthe pork, he should be votedout also alongwith all the rest ofthe fat porkersin the Democratic Party. It needs to stop.”
However, while Liberals will vote against a Democratic candidate if he does not meet their standards (Which is why Al Gore lost in 2000), a Conservative will never vote against a Republican, ever. And Republicans know that all they have to do is give at least one speech declaring how much they “hate pork barrel spending”, and they can still count on Conservative votes.
Trent Lott was as big a porker as Senator Byrd ever was. Did Conservatives abandon him when he ran for re-election? Of course not.
And Conservatives will be no more likely to hold any other Republican accontable when it comes time to vote, other than meaningless complaining “they are not conservative” in sites such as this.
I was glad to see Trent Lott go after he said that pork was not a problem. And we have all railed on the irdge To Nowhere Scam. See, we on the ritght will actually say bad things about the so-called REpublicans, if you look at the DUmmies and Koskids, they almost never have railed against a Democrat until now where they have a fight over Obama and Hillary.
We want the government out of our business, out of our pocket books and to nit intrude on our lives. That is for the Socialists to do in the Defeatocaratic party.
Why is it so hard for to understand we want less government and more personal freedom. it is what this country was founded on.
And why is it that the Defeatorats stopped the bill to put a moratorium on earmarks. The least they could do is have an open vote on where all this money is going, but no the Defeatocrats and some Drunken Sailors in the Republican Party said no, and wanted to do business as usual.
We do not drink the cool aid that the LEft does and just vote for Republicans, we vote for the best ideas and best person that will hold our principles, and a majority of the time that is Republicans. And we stayed at home in 2006 and let the Defeatocrats take over to stick it to the Republicans for not being conservative enough. So how in the world do you get this idea we are lock stock and barrel for the Republicans at all times.
Many of us are pissed off at Bush for his not vetoing all the drunken sailors bills, and pandering to illegal aliens and Ted Kennedy on the No Child Left Behind Bill. And don’t get us started on the drug give away bill. But what should we have done in 2004, vote for the Defeatocrat that is ensconced in the Communist Vietnam War Memorial. Bush was the best of 2 evils
Re: “I was glad to see Trent Lott go after he said that pork was not a problem. ”
But not one single Conservative opposed him when he ran for re-eleciotion. Trent Lott resigned voluntarily, just before more stringent lobbyist restriction rules would have prevented him from becomming a lobbyist himself went into effect. Not one single Conservative anywhere has an influence on Senator Lott’s leaving the senate. But you were “glad he left”, as though that mattered on bit.
Re: “And we have all railed on the irdge To Nowhere Scam.”
But Conservatives helped put the money in. and Conservatives made sure that the money stayed in Alaska’s pork barrel, even when the bridges were dropped. And not one single Conservativ did one single thing to take that money back. But Conservatives are taking credit because they “railled” against it? How about saving the money? Or, like everything else, do just the words matter?
Re: “Why is it so hard for to understand we want less government and more personal freedom. ”
It is not hard to understand at all. Just that Conservatives never actually DO anything about it, other than vote loyally Republicans in return for words (and nothing else) every election year.
Re: “And why is it that the Defeatorats stopped the bill to put a moratorium on earmarks. ”
They are called Democrats. Unless you believe that childish name-calling actually substitues for real thought or action. Then again: Conservatives do vote loyally for Republicans in return for nothing more than campaign words, so maybe you actually believe that misspelling the name of the party will somehow guarantee more Republicans are elected this year.
However: Shame on the Democratic leadership for not doing more. However does even one Single Conservative here actually believe that the Republican leadership in Congress is really serious about ending all earmarks? Or that, should Republicans retain the White House and take back Congress that earmarks will be stopped? Now that I think about it, of course you do. Some Republicans said they opposed them, so you will believe it, 100%. It almost makes me wish that you succeeded and Republicans do keep the White Hosue and take back Congress. Then I can read next year for all the Conservative alibis when it does not happen, which we ALL know is exactly what would happen.
Re: So how in the world do you get this idea we are lock stock and barrel for the Republicans at all times. ”
Because 1/3 of the electorate is now politically middle of the road, not Liberal or Conservative. Republicans lost that vote, which is why they lost in 2006. Conservatives worked as hard as ever to keep their party in control of the pork barrel. And the leadership of the Republican Party knows this, without a doubt.
No one running against him is my fault. He lives in Texas I live in the Democratic Republic of Chicago. So am I supposed to run against him. And tell the popel in Texas who to run.
I am sorry, but What should I call someone that wants us top loose in Iraq. If you want me to cal them Democrats I will, but they are praying for our defeat in Iraq. So Defeatocrat sounds good to me.
Conservatives actually do. Many Concservative Republicans brought up a bill to end Earmarks, but the Democrat and the Drunken Sailors who call themselves Republicans voted it down.
I really think the Republican leadership of the Republicans is a joke. They are more center than anything and will use earmarks as much as the Demorcrats. If I had my chioce I would vote them all out and elect real conservatives.
Most of those 1/3 do not vote or are too involved in American Iol or Survivor to care about wht happens to our country. They do not have as much influence as you think. Every once in a while they will get off their couch and vote, but mos do not care or are willing to look into waht is happening to vote. they look at NBc<CBS, ABC and their local rags and get their politcal views from the MSM. So I really do not care what they think. When true conservatives run, they will get more votes most of the time because the majority oare mor conservative, but as you said the Republican leadership has failed them.
And it doesn’t really matter this election since the Democratic Party is ripping itself apart over Identity Politics, the black man vs the Women, and will tear each other to shreds before the General elections.
And we have the Democratic pick for the Republican nominee. The MSM and so called moderate (independent) voters picked McCain for us, so we are screwed either way. At least McCain will not throw Iraq and the Middle eat to the wolves though. He might tax us to hell over the Global Warming scare, but hopefully enough Republicans can hold the fire to him not to tax us and regulate us into oblivion over the Global Warming scare.
Re: “I am sorry, but What should I call someone that wants us top loose in Iraq.”
No one wants America to lose in Iraq, no matter what Rush Limbaugh tells you to think. However pointing out that the Surge, while reducing the number of deaths has not caused the Iraqi civil war factions to take concrete action to end the civil war. So, unless you want to spend $12 billion a month for the next 100 years (John McCain’s term), then how much longer are you going t spend your children’s money and lives to maintain the status quo in Iraq, with no real change?
Re: “but they are praying for our defeat in Iraq. ”
Can you cite one member of theDemocratic leadership of Congress who has uttered that prayer? Or is that what NewsMax told you?
Re: “Every once in a while they will get off their couch and vote, but mos do not care or are willing to look into waht is happening to vote. they look at NBc<CBS, ABC and their local rags and get their politcal views from the MSM.”
I actually agree with you on that one. However I include FoxNews in that list. The fact that Foxnews preaches according to the Republican Gospel does not make them any more reliable than whomever the anchor is on CBS reading wire copy these days.
Re: “nd it doesn’t really matter this election since the Democratic Party is ripping itself apart over Identity Politics, the black man vs the Women, and will tear each other to shreds before the General elections.”
Isn’t this a case of accusations form the pot against the kettle? Especially from from the party that less than a month ago was demandig a statement form its candidates about who was “really a Christian”? Or have you forgotten? It’s just that the Conservative media will not give the free pass to the Democrats it gave to the Republicans.
Re: ‘At least McCain will not throw Iraq and the Middle eat to the wolves though. ”
If he starts yet another war with Iran he will.
How much longer do you really believe taht the US could afford to spend $12 billion a month of (borrowed) money in Iraq, plus at least that much more in (three times larger) Iran with $7 or $8 dollar a gallon gasoline? Or do you believe, like VP Dick Cheney that “deficits don’t matter”.
When the money runs our, or the Central Bank of China stops buying US Treasury bills, then hyper inflation will start to hit the US (read up on Weimar Germany of the 1920’s) and we’ll have to “get out” of Iraq because there won’t be any money to pay the bills, or even keep our HumVee’s fueled.
If John McCain gets his war with Iran, he could end up getting the US out of Iraq even faster than Hillary Clinton. It will jsut be in a manner that is completely runious for the United States.
Global Warming will then be the least of America’s troubles.
I agree with you on Fox News. They are not a news organization any more. It is all about Hollywierd. IF you think Fox news is conservative you have drank a lot of cool aid. They have been progressively going to the left side since Roger Ailes gave it to his son who is good friends with Al Gore.
I could care less who is more Christian. That was the MSM and the Evangelicals talking about that, not most conservatives.
How much would it be worth if we went 10 years form now or after Iran and Al Queda take over all of Iraq and Afghanistan.
What about getting rid of all the entitlements that are bankrupting us faster than any war does. The Iraq war is only a fraction of what we spend on Social Security, Medicade and all the other ridiculous money spent on keeping people poor.
And do you really think that China is going to try and ruin our economy. They may be crazy but they are not stupid. Without us they would have no money at all for their army or any of their power plants. It would be devastating to their economy to take all of their money out of our economy.
And Global Warming is not a problem except in the eyes of Al Gore, because he is getting millions of dollars for his “Carbon Credits” and talking series. Why won’t he have a debate with a real Climatologist, not his acolytes that get millions on making us all scared about Global Warming.
Whoever is the next President is going to have to deal with Iran on way or another. If they get Nuclear Weapons are we just going to let them obliterate Israel and a few European countries???
Re: “I could care less who is more Christian. That was the MSM and the Evangelicals talking about that, not most conservatives.”
That’s not what was coming from the campaigns.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1480
It’s not what James Dobson was preaching
http://www.republican-leadership.com/node/256
Or are you not allowd to know this?
Re: “How much would it be worth if we went 10 years form now or after Iran and Al Queda take over all of Iraq and Afghanistan. ”
Iran is not allied withal-Qaeda. One is Shia and the other is Sunni. However I understand you would think this because John McCain has bee saying this the last few days (until he was corrected by Joe Lieberman). But then, what are facts to Conservatives? You beleive in the White House “we make our own reality” philosophy.
Besides, with Iraq onw in a civil war that, if John McCain gets his way, will last 100 years, Iran already is the big winner and the strongest country in the Middle East. Afghanistan is essentially a failed state and, the world’s leading supplier of heroin as well as the safe home of al-Qaeda.
Your “future” scenario is in existance today. Except that Conservatives are not allowed to admit it.
Re: “If they get Nuclear Weapons are we just going to let them obliterate Israel and a few European countries???”
There already is a Muslim country with atomic weapons that is allied with al-Qaeda (at least large sections of its intelligence and military are). it is called Pakistan.
Re: “And Global Warming ….”
What does this have to do with this thread? Other than the standard Conservative free pass on tangental subjects that are not permitted for posters such as myself (who has received numerous warning on such actions).
re: “And do you really think that China is going to try and ruin our economy. They may be crazy but they are not stupid. ”
Then why is the US military talking about countering the Chinese military? If they are willing to go to war, then they wil certainly take an economic hit if it meant surpressing the United States.
Besides, only about 8% of the Chinese GDP goes toward exports to the US, and it is shrinking. If the US military beleive that they have to prepare for a military confrontation with the Chinese government, then we better be prepared for another confrontation that would cost China considerably less.
Or, as a Conservative, are you supposed to follow Dich Cheney’s dictate of “deficits don’t matter” and pretend that there is nothing wrong with America being dependent on continued loans from China?
Re: “What about getting rid of all the entitlements that are bankrupting us faster than any war does. The Iraq war is only a fraction of what we spend on Social Security, Medicade and all the other ridiculous money spent on keeping people poor.”
Conservatives controlled Congress and the White House for four years. Why did they not doo something about it? George w. Bush proposed and bragged about the largest expansion of entitlements since Lyndon johnson. But Conservatives pretend that it is all Democrats’ fault, as per Republican Party rules.
That was Huckabe and he is not a conservative, he is the same ilk as Edwards, just he was a preacherand not a ambulance chaser.
Dobson does not have abnythingto do with the conservative movement. He is an outcast that is a joke. I could care less wahthe thinks. the Christian Conservatives,or wahteever you want to call themare anly a small percentage ofthe consesrvative mopvement, and nottheythinkthey own the Republican Party, kind of like Moveon.org, Daliy Kos, and Democratic UNderground is with the Democratic Party, but the Nutrootshavemore sayi the Demcratic PArty, just look at who they have running. All ofthem are anti-war candidates. Theywantto leave Iraq to Al Queda in Northern Iraq and Iran to Southern Iraq. See, I never said they are wrking together now did I?
If you haven’t noticed, the Pakistani Government is our Ally, but Obama wantsto bomb them. Iran and Syria are ont our allies andwould not hesitste to use it on Israel and Eutope. Armenjad (spelling?) says al thetime they are going to destroy Israel, Pakistan has said no such thing.
And we also have plans on attacking Canda and England. WE have plans t invade a lotof countries. China is not going to be a problem as much as North Korea and ran will be in 5 to 10 years if they are allowed to have Nukes.
Conservatives are pissed at Bush for growing the government by leaos and bounds. But wahtwere the alternativesin 2004,John Kerry, Ralph Nader. COme on that was a votefor the lesser ofthe evils running.
Bush tried to stabalize Social Security with a measly %2 of the money that could go into stocks, but the Democats philibustered it and evetually defeated it all together. Iwoudlhave glady putmymoneyinto itinsted of the paultry money you get back from the current system. Bythetime I retire, I will have no Socia Security,but have been paying into it for years. If I could have put someof that moneyinto tyhe stock market I would havea lot of money when I retire, but it will all got to the bloated government for no return.
i havenever said Republicans are always right and will alwys defend ther actions. At least when a Republican doeswomnething wrong, our sideof the aisle will castigate them and make them retire. Unlike the Democratic Party where they will vote for them fo decades after they have done wrong. Justlook at TeddyKennedy, Bill Clinton, Jefferson, and a whole bunch more that I do not know the names off the top of my head. Well, you can put Pelosi and Reid into that with their sweetheart deals to family members, but the MSM convenietly looks over them. Or even the king of Pork himself, Murtha.
I thinkwe are just going to have to agree to disagree on about everything. I will not change your mind wahtever I say or facts I put out, and you have not shown me anyhting that will change my mind
Re: “I thinkwe are just going to have to agree to disagree on about everything. I will not change your mind wahtever I say or facts I put out, and you have not shown me anyhting that will change my mind”
Probably not.
But I do appreciate the fact that you disagreed with me, quite strongly, but never once descended into the usual school yard name calling that accompanies most of the posts that I see here that rebut what I say.
And you did make valid points that I can absolutely not claim any sort of holiness among those I have voted for. I spend more than half my time cringing at the comments of those for who I have voted and contributed political money. Were it not for the fact that I honestly believe John McCain has sacrificed what had once been a streak of independence in return for the endorsements of Pat Robertson and John Hagee, I would support him. Had he made it past the George W. Bush smear campaign in the presidential primaries of 2000, I would have voted for him over Al Gore then.
But not any more. I honestly believe that a President McCain would retain 85-90% of the Bush Administration incompetents, and I want a clean sweep of all the “Loyal Bushies” that are the political appointees of Karl Rove now.
Sorry about that. But Thank you and I respect you for telling me I am dead wrong on almost everyting in an adult manner..
No Problem. And you I appreciate that you fdid the same. Hell, if we met eachother we would probably be friends. Most of the people I am friends with are liberals. hell, I live in a Democratic Machine that is close to what Chicago is. My friend has a step mom that is a Judge here and and Fther that is is in the National Guard and is a Top General in my state, but he is a liberal and we get along. Politics is not everything
I may be passionate, but I am not mean, or at least not usually. I do get carried away some times. But we really do want to make the United States better, we just look at it in different ways.
I can not say that I am atotal authority on all things also. I have a History degree that makes me think of why and how things happen. Not just when and where. And after taking many history classes, you see that every one looks at the world differently. I jst think the liberal or progressive point of view is wrong.
And I do think there are some good Democrats, they are mostly conservative Democrats though. And whoever gets elected, the United States will not fall and tunr into Venezuela or something like that if Obama gets elected. I do think that we would be more vulnerable with him in the White House though.
Re: “And I do think there are some good Democrats, they are mostly conservative Democrats though. And whoever gets elected, the United States will not fall and tunr into Venezuela or something like that if Obama gets elected. I do think that we would be more vulnerable with him in the White House though.”
Interesting point.
My opinion on that is most presidents, no matter what they campaign on, are boxed into a narrow range of options once they are in office, meaning the reality of the results is not the extremes that either side predicts.
In John McCain’s situation, while I make the comments that he would start another (disasterous) war with Iran, I hope that he will be boxed in (by lack of money if nothing else) from actually starting a war that could, IMO, turn the US into a third world country, or something close to it.
You see, my ture opinion is that the Untied States most dangerous enemy is actually China. In the late 90’s I read predictions from most economists that the Chinese economy would becomethe world’s largest economy, displacing the United States, some time around 2030. And that was when the US was growing rapidly and we were not in the severe deficit spending that we see now (I know that some of the “surplus” to the 90’s was illusionary, but by any measure they are worse now).
One of the reasons that Dick Cheney can claim “deficits don’t matter” is that the US Treasury can borrow almost as much money as it wants by selling Treasury Bills to foreigners. Woth the US being the world’s leading economy most foreign governments hold reserves in US dollars, so there is a ready market. Oil is also priced in US $’s, mostly, meaning most countries that buy and sell oil (meaning everyone) has to hold US dollar reserves to make those trnasactions.
Now, what happens when an alternative comes along? Such as the Euro or the Chinease Yuan? Then countries can hold theri reserves in those currencies and no longer have to go to the US Treasury Bill auctions and pick up those IOU’s.
When that happens, where will the money come from? If we are following Dick Cheney’s advice, as well as the mantra of “cut taxes”, we will have to print money. This leads to hyper inflation (Weimar Germany of the 1920’s, since you are a history major you know that effect. Or Zimbabwe today).
The other option is the one that Grover Norquist wants, which is that the US, in return for a World Bank bailout, will impose the kind of draconian measures that ARgentina and others haved had forced on them externally. Cancelling medicare and Social Security, even for those currently receiving it. If you are already well off, like Mr. Norquist, there is no problem, but a lot of people will die in the process who do ont have family money.
America will certainly not be able to affort to be spending more on its military than the rest of the world combined any more either.
That is the real threat, IMO. And we are seeing it start now with the decline ofthe dollar and countries shifting to the Euro as their reserve. And all I hear is that “let’s cut taxes some more” and “let’s stay in Iraq” (at $12 billionn a month) for another decade or so.
When the World Bank, China and Europe have to comein and bail America out, they will not ASK when we will withdraw from iraq. They will TELL us, or we won’t have the money to fuel our government.
All that China has to do to make this happen is to NOT show up for a teasury bill auction. With only about 8% of their current GDP (last week’s Economist magazine), that is a hit that China may not want to take now, but how soon will they be willing to? Consider that, in termsof their own currency, the Chinese are losing money on their US T-Bills, despite the intrest rate because of the US dollar’s plumet in value. Would you buy a bond that, in your own currency, promised to pay you 90 cents on every dollar invested? Or less?
And no one wants to talk about this, other than in hollow terms of “let’s cut the spending”, knowing that no one, in either party, is going to do that. No matter what they promise, until the World Bank makes them.
Paul Krugman wrote of this in “The Unraveling”. I know that he is a political Liberal, but his numbers, unlike others, do add up. If you do read it, and recall that he wrote thise prior to the current mountain of borrowing, you will be as frightened for America’s future as I already am.