We were told last week that there could be no delay on voting for the government debt bill that some call the "stimulus package." The American people need this, it was said, so therefore the time for debate was over and Congress had to vote for a bill none of them had read. Time is of the essence. The debt bill is important, but apparently not so important that the Obama's couldn't take a vacation and dine at ritzy restaurants and leave the signing of the bill until tomorrow. Can anyone think of a good reason why we couldn't give Congress and the people the long weekend to read this bill and then have a vote tomorrow, letting the President sign it tomorrow night or Wednesday? I can think of one reason: our leaders knew that the more we all knew about the bill the less popular it would become. So best to vote for it the Friday before a long weekend so no one would notice. I am open to alternative theories.
Already the Obama administration is lowering expectations on the actual stimulus the bill will provide, causing Glenn Reynolds to quip, "As was obvious to anyone who was paying attention, it was always about paying off special interests, not helping the economy."
How about that debt? I normally wouldn't consider World Net Daily a credible source, but this report jibes with what I have read elsewhere (see here): America's future debt, as taken as the difference between known future liabilities and future expected revenue, exceeds the total global GDP (as my second link suggests, you would need to sell everything in America to account for our current and expected debt). This WSJ piece suggests we are ripe for a global Weimar. Our massive indebtedness puts the entire foundation of our economy on dangerously shaky ground. A snippet:
Although the world's public debt should be cut, now it is only being increased. Everywhere, out of fear of a recession, the survival of the system is being financed by all those who still have resources: the banks, when they choose; the governments, when no one else can. Since there is no talk anywhere of increasing taxes, the governments themselves are getting into debt, borrowing from national or foreign investors and, as a last recourse, from the central banks.
The numbers show it. When the American debt ought to have been reduced, it increased in 2008. The Geithner bailout, just like the Paulson plan, will increase America's public debt even further. The European debt is also increasing sharply. Many more borrowers will default on their loans: Many more borrowers will default on their loans: derivatives, credit cards, mortgages. And no one is there anymore to buy them back. (snip)
This growth of public debt, on top of private debt, can only lead to catastrophe: the bankruptcy of households, banks, even countries. What has happened to Iceland can happen to larger countries as well, if panic seizes creditors. Anything is now possible, including the collapse of the global banking system, whose losses would have grown beyond reach of rescue.
This panic could be set off by the realization of the insolvency of the system. It could also be set off by political or terrorist movements: A number of determined groups, with even limited means, could organize speculative attacks on banks, leading to their collapse.
I suggested the other day that Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin would dress up her vote for another 1.2 trillion dollars in debt by telling us how much money she took from our children to give to us. It is already happening, in an ironic way. Here's a story about how the stimulus package will save the state's "Birth to Three" program. Let me go on record as supporting this program, but if it is so important shouldn't we pay for it ourselves? When she runs in 2010, Mrs. Herseth-Sandlin will tell us about how important it was to vote for all this debt because she helped save this important program. In short, she will bribe us with our own money. The irony that she left the children deeper in debt in order to give them early childhood education will be lost on everyone. We will vote for Stephanie because she is "for the children."
Recent Comments