The deficit no one wants to deal with
The difference between the United States and a Banana Republic is, or should I say, was, the rule of law. No one invests in Venezuela because they can’t be sure the government won’t disregard the law and confiscate the business.
The Obama administration disregarded the law that gives bondholders first claim to a company’s assets, by dismissing secured creditors. . . the bondholders of Chrysler, who include retired teachers, policemen and widows, giving them 29 cents on the dollar. At the same time, he repays the unions (an unsecured, last in line, creditor) for their political support, awarding them 50 cents on the dollar.
We recently learned President Obama just appointed his 16th czar. He’s the pay czar. The mainstream media will not tell you this, but none of these czars are accountable to our elected officials in Washington. They report only to the president. His plan is obviously to have Congress pass vague laws and then appoint unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to impose his socialist agenda. He has no intention of being transparent, or giving your representatives a voice.
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger referred to candidate Obama as a con man and a charlatan. President Obama is running a shell game and proving him right. On the one hand, he claims he doesn’t want to run companies, yet like a magician, with the other hand, he is installing his personal czars to control them. Don’t be conned. Wake up America, before it’s too late. Conrad Quagliaroli Woodstock , Georgia Re: Tony Blankley’s Commentary piece in the June 8 edition (page 32), how can one ask the question “What if the world stops buying our bonds?” and not even refer to U.S. trade policy as part of the problem/answer? Though our fiscal profligacy is indeed an important factor, the dollars made available over the last 20 years for foreigners to buy our bonds come from our trade deficits. The cumulative trade deficit over that period far exceeds our fiscal deficit.
No one seems to be willing to connect the dots and acknowledge that the Clinton-Bushand-now-Obama trade policy is reverse mercantilism, whereby imports are systematically favored and exports relatively discouraged by a deliberate (mis)management of governmentally imposed conditions of trade.
Our average tariff is 1.3 per cent versus a world average facing our exports of about 40 percent; we have very few non-tariff barriers, whereas other countries impose a withering array; we permit border taxes on our exports in addition to tariffs, even in the case of our “free trade” partners, yet have none ourselves, and so on. This is just the beginning of the list of reverse mercantilism distortions we pursue.
When England imposed such policies against us when we were their colony, we revolted. We cannot have a thriving economy again until we eliminate, or at the very least substantially reduce, the anchor of our trade deficit. Every dollar of trade deficit is a onefor-one subtraction from our GDP. George W. Shuster Cranston, Rhode Island