The deficit no one wants to deal with

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

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

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.