“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”
Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006
Senator Obama ended his speech with a profound yet often neglected fact, “Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.” He went on to vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006.
What a shame Barack Obama has such a short memory. If only he would have paid heed to his own words once he became president in 2008 we wouldn’t be about $3 trillion more in debt and in the worst fiscal crisis the world has ever seen. But, of course, the President and his supporters claim that he had no choice but to spend us even farther into oblivion. After all, he inherited an awful economy from his predecessor. The story goes that his spendthrift policies are what saved us from an economic meltdown. How they know that exactly is not clear?
What is known is that Obama’s policies have not solved our economic woes. In fact things have become far worse under his leadership. The two statistics that the ordinary American cares most about are unemployment and price inflation. Both have headed in the wrong direction since Obama assumed the reins of power. The government’s unemployment figure stood at 7.8 percent the month Obama became president. Today, 9.2 percent of our workforce is without work. In spite of his “stimulus” spending the unemployment rate has increased 18 percent!
Naturally, with all the new spending and monetized debt over the last two and one-half years, it is reasonable to expect that goods priced in dollars would see an increase. As I have predicted many times on this post, they have. If we just use the government’s CPI numbers it is easy to see that prices under Obama’s program have taken off. When Obama took office the government’s CPI number stood at 0.0 percent. The number released for June 2011 stood at 3.6 percent. Additionally, gas prices have doubled under Obama and food prices are soaring.
If one were to calculate unemployment and price inflation like they were prior to 1980, we are clearly in a depression. Bread lines have simply been replaced by food stamps.
The point is that Obama’s polices have been a dismal failure. The current issue before Congress is whether to raise the current debt ceiling. It is interesting to note that Obama and his ilk will only talk about what alleged calamities will befall us if the debt ceiling is not raised. Seniors, soldiers, and the disabled will be relegated to the streets begging for change to support their families they tell us. No mention is ever made of what calamities will befall us if the debt ceiling is raised and the reckless spending is allowed to continue. Right now, 43 cents of every dollar Washington spends is borrowed. Over the next decade, interest payments on that debt assuming interest rates rise gradually will total $5.5 trillion. That is revenue that cannot be used to invest in America – roads, schools, jobs… If the current debt ceiling is raised for further deficit spending a greater percentage of each future dollar will not be available for American investment or as Senator Obama put it so aptly in 2006, “Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.”
The President and Congress have tried to spend our way out of economic crisis. Predictably, it has failed and even made things worse. Raising the debt ceiling further will only exacerbate the crisis. To avoid a “leadership failure” Obama should do whatever it takes to cut trillions in spending. It is the only way to get “our Government’s reckless fiscal policies” under control and ensure a viable economic future for all Americans.
Article first published as We Can’t Afford to Raise the Debt Ceiling on Blogcritics.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Michael Andrews
Frank Apisa
Johnny Fever
GerryGreene
TriviaCompanion
Larry3000
Salon.com
Comments
Shouldn’t be that much of a problem. The right hates him; the left hates him; the middle should be easy to sway toward replacing him. Now all we have to do is to find someone with W’s abilities. Plenty to choose from: Palin, Bachmann, Santorum…maybe even the other Bush.
Problem solved!
"with the abilities of George W. Bush"
How's about barak (sic - frank's spelling of his lord and savior's name). He's, even one upped bush the lesser.
OS's class clown, still finding places to spread his mendacity.
"On a political continuum with Extreme Liberal at 1 and Extreme Conservative at 10, I can be found at position “P.”
P? Hmmm. pre-pubescent, pissant, pernicious, penile, puerile.
Yes, I think all apply.
-R-
Blame financial deregulation and the "free trade" policies that stripped America of the ability to generate income and avoid huge trade imbalances. Blame the tax cuts at the top end that sent hot money seeking increase the only way it could-speculation bubbles. Try to remember the big deficits are also a product of reduced revenues because of the crash.
I haven't seen anything that looks like Keynesian stimulus, at least in the amount it would take to replace more than a trillion in reduced consumer spending. But then, how stimulating would it have to be to overcome the fact the money spent would too soon be expatriated? Seems "free trade" gave us the "freedom" to destroy our own economy.
We can't blame Obama for those stupid policies. He can be blamed for continuing them, though. Or at least, for not making the case that they ARE stupid policies. As long as we stay with those destructive policies we can't expect anything but a continued slide into 3rd world status.
The debt isn't as much THE problem as a symptom of THE problem.
The debt is a problem, but the overarching problem is the draining of US wealth--the ability to produce. We've become a pincushion for any wealth interest...or perhaps a turnip with many IV lines draining our wealth, and therefore liberty.
That last word is supposed to interest you, so consider allowing reason to help define liberty, on a per case basis, and in a real, not theorist, meaning. There's a difference in optimal liberty and the liberty of the impoverished, released of the burden of having something to gain or lose.
And Frank, who says the right hates Bush? That is totally wrong.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, what I would give for you to expand the details of this!
You've hinted at what must be done in your comment.
Further, you have made liberals acknowledge there is debt problem. However, they just won't recognize what caused it.
Just last week when he addressed the nation about the debt crisis, Obama remarked that he wished he could come before the American people with some good news like a new program or a settlement in the NFL negotiations. This joker already has plans to spend more once the ceiling is lifted!
Take comfort, because the New Democrats, like Obama, have bought into (been paid) this suicidal template.
Now, like good lil' ideologues, you must assign your destruction to some other cause. The ideologues that ate America, now standing amidst the crumbling of American wealth and power, want to be considered brave, rational and intelligent because they want to liquidate what's left.
Restoring America, as much as possible, to the system that worked the best for all and the country doesn't align with the ideology. Instead of valuing what worked, the lil' ideologues line up to blame what worked for the utter failure of their ideas.
Conservatism used to, but no longer has a true concern with American interests. Libertarianism never has had an American interest. Yet you think those now conjoined concepts have the "idea" to "save" America.
Please, for the sake of America, move to China --where your ideas have created, not destroyed jobs -- and help them "fix" their economy. It's the best you could do for America, and considering the damage done, is the only honorable act available.
And Frank, who says the right hates Bush? That is totally wrong.
I thought that it was obvious that when I wrote, “The right hates him; the left hates him; the middle should be easy to sway toward replacing him.”…it would be evident that the “him” refers to Obama.
Sorry if my wording confused you. For certain the right does not hate Bush. I think they want more people like Bush leading us. That was part of my point.
Yep, minimum-wage laws, the Fed, the drug war, global empire, No Child Left Behind, bank bailouts, and farm bills—just to name seven government programs out of, oh, say, a zillion—are all aspects of evil libertarian, laissez faire ideology, which, incidentally, "New Democrats," like Obama, fully embrace.
Paul, stop being silly.
BTW one reason I live overseas is because things are so screwed up in America. Thankfully, I get paid in a currency that is supported by a commodity not the word of a corrupt, theieving, warmongering government.
If supporting private property rights is ideological, then yes I am an ideologue.
Of course it wasn't entirely libertarianism, as those parts that nobody wants and never will are discarded. They are necessary to the "we've never tried the faith in total" endless argument, though.
The part that enables legal theft and financial destructive power is the part the plutocrats pay for...and they get the ideology they pay for.
Have you ever considered there's a reason why the masses reject libertarianism? Same basic reason the wealthy right-wing supports it.
And yes, in a pure libertarian theory, there is no consideration of American interest. The True Believers in any aberrant ideology consider the ideology the interest. That's one reason guys like Larry sign on. You don't need the ability to reason, as the ideology represents "reason." All you have to do is bark the dogma and when asked to qualify it, just lift a paw and whine.
Larry is now my favorite lil' grayhead. He doesn't have the chops to participate, but he's always good for a paw lift and a whine.
The wealthy right-wing loathes libertarianism. The Koch brothers and Rupert Murdock types go out of their way to finance and support through the media such fascist Republicans as Bachman, Romney, Palin, and Perry.
They hate Ron Paul ever since he rejected their intimidation and supported the free market. George Wallace said a long time ago, " there's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats". They both favor huge government.
The only libertarian in government is Ron Paul. I would bet that he votes in Congress with the losing side over 98 percent of the time. Thus, only about 2 percent of what Washington does is libertarian.
I'm speaking of the great neoliberal revival. Reagan said: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" Of course, libertarians and conservatives have long been locked in copulation. They can't reproduce because of that separate species thing, so they call it fusionism.
Point is neoliberalism -- the redux of Classical liberalism, which is at the root of what devolved into libertarianism -- has shredded America. A trade so free it's allowed to destroy the country --and, while we're talking deficits and debt --why ignore that massive trade imbalance? Is that somehow "good debt?" We know it's working against America, and that it doesn't work. Yet libertarians cling to the concept because to not would be to deny the validity of the ideology.
Same is true of the Fed debt. Medicare and Soc Sec haven't caused a bit of the debt, yet suddenly become targets. Chris can give you a good dishonest rundown on this subject, but those programs are funded by a dedicated tax. The debt has been caused by an out of control military, whose work should be funded by those multinationals who profit from it, not the taxpayer. The debt is a result of slashing top end taxes. It's a result of trashing unions, outsourcing manufacturing and lowering wages. Those workers are sometimes known as "the tax base."
There are many bad policies that screwed America, but Medicare and Soc Sec aren't among them. While we see, more-or-less eye-to-eye on the wasteful military spending, blaming Med and SocSec--paid for by Americans through a dedicated tax--is far more ideological than truthful.
So, with all the piss-poor ideas that killed America's economic ability, we somehow get these clucking ideologues going after the most solvent item on the list.
What if we considered trying to restore, to the greatest degree possible, what worked? Have you paused to consider the insanity of depleting American workers while also attacking any safeguards and then...to add inanity to insanity...be absurd enough to talk about economic recovery?
Only in la-la land...and, of course, in theory.
In terms of jobs moving offshore, we have regulated ourselves out of work. And yes, things cost too much and Americans make too much money because we do not have an honest, stable moneary system. When did we begin to experience long-term price inflation? Right after Nixon closed the Gold window. Inflation has been so bad that Washington has changed the calculation to produce a lower CPI. I just don't understand how anyone can trust this government to do the right thing. Sorry for the rant.
Jobs were not regulated away, or lost to unionism. Jobs were shipped away because cheap fuel oil isn't good for much, but it will fuel container ships. Overseas labor is cheaper--much cheaper. Those are the only reasons we lost jobs, as even if we had autoworkers, for example, making 5 an hour--unlivable wages--we'd still lose jobs to one dollar a day labor.
It's those blind spots, such as asserting jobs were regulated away instead of realizing the obvious, that give me my low opinion of ideologies. Everything has to have a "libertarian" reason for happening, and a "libertarian" solution. Reason isn't welcome when everything has to be crammed through a tiny ring of ideological prescription. Once one decides to be a libertarian, it's pretty much all over save learning the dogma. Professional libertarians are even worse, just as is a professional idealist of any stripe. The job is to prove the ideology right, and all other ideas "wrong."
That aside, there's an interview on Salon with Nick Gillespie and some other Reason guy. Couple of weeks ago. It has the usual blind spot repetition of the Fannie-Freddie caused the subprime meltdown, (not deregulation and private market players who did) so my expectations were met. However, Gillespie says he now expects there will always be some degree of social programs, and cites Hayek, who approved of social spending and programs.
I was almost sorry to see that, because without libertarianism's dedication to privatized Libertopia...it's really just nothing more than a sub-grouping within Liberalism.
Of course Gillespie is a professional libertarian, and they do want to grow as a political movement, so abandoning right-libertarian purity would help.
Confused conservatives thinking they can be that and libertarian, and now libertarians who are liberals. What will they think of next?
To those people who say that Keynesianism doesn't work, remember: If the US had taken all of its $800B in TARP money and spent it on redecorating the whore houses of Nevada, there would still be an economic stimulus. Doesn't anyone stop to think that government spending (that gets us in debt) from the military is equal to a dollar NOT spent on public works, education, or other investments?
And don't forget: Where were all of the deficit hawks during the Bush II regime when #43 gave us more indebtedness than any other POTUS in history? And Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 account for over half of all deficit spending (and government indebtedness) in all of American history.
Or even less than a dollar, and then countries will even fight over that.
In the 1990s Mexico had around half a million people employed in the maquiladoras, or border factories. Many of those employees lived in what we call "shantytowns." I visited one of those places, an area called Anapra, outside of Juarez. In Anapra there were around 40 thousand people living in shacks made out of cardboard and scrap wood. There was no running water or sewer system, "roads" were dirt, and electrical wires running along the ground delivered pirated electricity from the power lines to the shacks. Most of these people were employed in border factories, and enjoyed the "lifestyle" provided by 80 cents an hour with no social programs to help. I talked to one family who had just buried a child who got sick and they couldn't pay for a doctor or medicine. But that was their problem, not their employer's problem, and not the government's problem.
Over the years the number of maquiladora employees grew to over a million. The interesting question is where all of those people came from. Many were from southern Mexico. Formerly farmers, their incomes had been destroyed by the NAFTA importation of cheap American factory farm produce. In some towns in southern Mexico, there literally was no longer a way to make a living, and so living in a cardboard shack and working for 80 cents an hour was the alternative to the economic devastation where they came from.
The maquiladoras work like this: components are sent to Mexico where they are assembled into finished goods. The tax paid on the finished goods is based on the "value added," in this case, the value of the labor. So companies benefit twice from cheap labor: they pay less for the labor, and then they pay less in taxes on the product.
There's something beautifully tragic about how all of this works. First, our cheap factory farm produce drives farmers off of their land; even a simple guy with a donkey can't compete with farming on an industrial scale. Then, people driven off the land become available to staff the border factories, thus enabling American manufacturers to move the assembly of products to Mexico while paying next to nothing for labor.
It's a win-win for the corporations. The Mexican farmers lose. American consumers think that they win, because they are able to buy an HDTV assembled in Mexico for $299. But what we American consumers don't figure into the equation is that our cheap HDTV comes at the price of a destroyed manufacturing base.
And now in recent years Mexico has lost several hundred thousand manufacturing jobs to China. Welcome to the race to the bottom.
Your words are always confusing, and if they want someone like bush, they already have him in your lord and savior.
This is an excellent analysis, Kenn, but with all due respect, both the CPI and unemployment rates are jerry-rigged, and are at least twice what the government tells us.