If the economy were great we would be paying our bills.
Posted on 02/25/2006 5:45:53 AM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," said South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham on Fox News Sunday February 19. He was speaking about the Bush Administration's willingness to see management of several major American ports turned over to a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) . But the Senator's complaint could be applied to a much wider variety of economic issues in the international sector that help explain why the American people have such a negative view of President George W. Bush's economic policies.
In the specific case of the state-owned company Dubai Ports World (DP World), this foreign enterprise would control the ports of New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans, and would also supervise, on a separate U.S. Army contract, the movement of armor, helicopters, and other military materiel through the Texas ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi.
DP World gains this business by purchasing the British firm Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. Concern for whether an Arab firm could be trusted with the security of major ports and military cargo has ignited a bipartisan firestorm of protest. Yet, the issue is even larger. With the United States having racked up an enormous $726 billion trade deficit last year, why would the Bush administration grant contracts to any foreign firms, since doing so only makes the trade deficit larger. And this is in the service sector, which we have been told for years is the source of America's strength and which will offset to the decline in the industrial sector.
When England went into industrial decline, it was able to offset its trade deficit with "invisible"earnings from shipping and port operations. The U.S. has lost its commercial shipping business and turned over as many as 90 port terminals to foreign companies. Japan and China are the world's largest shipbuilders, as well as major trading nations, earning money from both exports and their transport. The United States, whose leaders disavow any interest in international economic strategy, loses out on all fronts.
The new Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, gave a perfect example of the Bush Administration's lack of thought regarding the greatest threat to the U.S. economy when he testified before the Senate Banking Committee February 16. Bernanke had been chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, a gaggle of academics chosen for their adherence to laissez faire free trade theory. He stated that since it has taken 10 years for the current account deficit to reach 6% of gross domestic product, "it might take that long to reverse." He said, "It's desirable for us to bring down that ratio over time." Yet, he offered no advice as to how to even start that process.
To change course would require a change in policy, and the taking of direct action to reduce imports and boost domestic production. Bernanke, articulating the administration's point of view, said, "It's not a good idea to break down some of the gains we've made in terms of freeing trade in the world economy." The shift in focus from questions about the American economy, to answers about the world economy indicates the root of the problem. The constant attempt to change the frame of reference leads people to wonder where do Bush administration economic officials place their loyalty?
On the same day Bernanke was testifying, Treasury Secretary John Snow was telling the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations, "The current positive outlook for the world economy has made this an opportune time to push for progress on trade liberalization." He warned "the potential rise of protectionism represents the most significant risk to the global economy today." Protectionism has become a prejudicial term in the globalist vernacular, to be used without reference to its content or meaning. It is one of the terms (along with mercantilism and economic nationalism) used historically to describe an economic policy meant to maximize the position of a nation within the competitive international arena. "Protectionists" seek to dominate the largest market shares in key industries both at home and abroad to boost income flows. How the principle of protecting a nation's economic base from foreign rivals has fallen out of favor can only be attributed to the rise of a new elite with stronger personal ties to global banking and transnational corporations than to the American nation and its people.
The new cosmopolitan elite sees the world economy as a blank slate, where the actions of private enterprise have no larger consequences for society. It is an academic sophistry used as cover by those in the business community who do not want any interference in their private affairs. The cosmopolitan view has been pushed forward many times in the last three centuries, always to fail in the end. As the well-known British reference, The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, states, "The mercantilists' fundamental ideological commitment to the view that foreign economic policy is about the accretion of wealth, capability and putative power is still valid today. Their belief that economic capabilities provided the 'war potential' for the state was widely accepted within the strategic tradition as a fundamental tenet. Their contention that international economics were, at bottom, inseparable from political considerations continues to receive much endorsement today."
The average citizen knows this by instinct. Seeing factories close or move overseas, and watching domestic assets transferred into foreign hands, are clearly not the signs of a country positioning itself for a better future. That is why the revolt against the White House on the ports comes from the grassroots, amplified by talk radio.
Yet, the Bush administration, despite claims that it is a "war time presidency" has repeatedly given cosmopolitan "free trade" priority over national security. For example, Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security, told CNN Feb. 19, "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system." But since this balance always seems to favor transnational or foreign business interests, which consideration is truly paramount?
The system set up to monitor economic security threats is structured to downplay such concerns. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is chaired by the Treasury, a department whose function is to make effortless for foreigners the recycling of all those dollars that have gone abroad courtesy of ill-advised trade policies and the trade deficits. A 2005 report by the General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded, "Treasury – as Chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States – has narrowly defined what constitutes a threat to national security," and "The Committee's reluctance to initiate an investigation [is] due in part to concerns about potential negative effects on the U.S. open investment policy."
President Bush has threatened to veto any legislation blocking the deal with DP World. He has never vetoed a bill on any subject during his five years in office, so his first veto would attract special attention. To cast it to protect a foreign firm's right to take over major American ports would drive public trust of his priorities even further into negative numbers. But this is not the only case where has threatened to veto legislation to protect business deals at the expense of security concerns.
In 2003 and 2005, President Bush threatened to veto legislation from the House Armed Services Committee that would have restricted the outsourcing of military contracts – in order to maintain a stronger domestic defense industrial base. His threat was not tested because Republican leaders in the Senate, lobbied heavily by corporations that favor the overseas outsourcing of defense work, blocked the House initiative. So today we buy components for our precision-guided bombs from China.
The Bush administration is happy to play on the patriotic impulses of the American people when it comes to rhetoric, but in its day-to-day operations it rejects the idea of giving Americans a "home field advantage" in economic decisions. Indeed, it seems to go out of its way to embrace transnational and foreign interests at the expense of U.S.-based firms and workers. That President Bush defended the outsourcing of jobs to India on Wednesday, while the port issue was still boiling, again indicated his insensitivity on these topics.
No wonder the American people give the administration low marks on its economic policies. The White House has thrown away the public's trust by demonstrating its own lack of loyalty to those who live and work here. The proper role of government is to protect the interests of its own citizens first – a role that the Bush Administration consistently declines to play.
Karl Marx summarized it for you:
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
~Karl Marx, "On the Question of Free Trade" - January 9, 1848
I mean what better, more trustworthy source to use in an argument about our security and economy than good old Karl? You're right. We should just wall off the coasts and the borders, bulldoze those BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai and Toyota plants that employ so many here, prohibit all trips into and out of the country, and get back to basics.
Make old Karl proud.
This is a vicious circle. In order to cover the trade and budget deficit the assets have to be put on sale. Foreign interests have to use their dollars somehow. This is the real price for Walmart discounts.
Another one of your "I HATE BUSH!" threads.......
At least you're predictable, that's a positive attribute. (you think?)
So is blind loyality to the wrong idea.
You can't put lipstick on a pig, dude.
IOW, badmouthing Karl doesn't conceal the fact that you're embracing his policy.
Yep.
Sort of like how the "public" rejected "American Idol."
Nah. Protectionism is patriotism. Goverment to Government negotiated 'free trade' has wrecked our economy more than terrorism.
Well on behalf of transnational corporate interests, he's conducting an economic war against the peaceful prosperity of the American Middle Class. So what's not to hate about the backstabbing weasel?
At least you're predictable, that's a positive attribute. (you think?)
Yes, it's an attribute that's associated with straightforward honesty, integrity, consistency, principles, etc. etc. etc.
IMHO those are more positive traits then the "flexible" spin practiced by disingenuous double-talking con-artists like James Carville and Karl Rove.
That was the whole gist of the Hugh Hewitt (good on End Times) radio show that anyone remotely skeptical of the sale of American assets in the great yard sale is stupid.
Let's see, "dude". By being for free trade I am "embracing" the policies of Karl Marx, thus demonstrating how misguided (if not commie-loving) I am. Shazam! That puts me in league with the notorious free-trade-loving, Marx-policy-embracing Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan!
So by cleverly concealing Marxist views, Nixon fooled us all into thinking that he was anti-communist and Reagan tricked us into believing that he thought the Soviet Union was an evil empire. Who would have thought it?
OK, I'll take a stab at it. 4.7% unemployment rate despite 9/11, Katrina and a global WOT??
Which wrecked economy? Where? Look outside. Are you sure you're in the USA? If not, get here quickly.
Unemployment is 4.7%, average hourly earnings have been going up forever, inflation is in check and productivity continues to soar. You might want to turn off NPR or CNN and start looking elsewhere for economic news.
If the economy were great we would be paying our bills.
Paraphrased from the Washington Times: "households with income below $25,000 in 2003 (the "poor") fell from 33.1 percent of the population in 1980 to 29 percent in 2002. The percentage of those making more than $75,000 has risen from 14.9 percent of the population in 1980 to 26.1 percent in 2003.
In other words, the ranks of the poor and middle class have shrunk for one reason only — more of them are rich." How can it not be a good thing for society that fewer people now make low incomes and more make high incomes?
So which "American Middle Class" is the President conducting an economic war on? Or can you not remember that much of John Kerry's failed campaign talking points?
So what is the proper role of government in your mind?
What evidence do you have that "our bills" are not being paid?
Flip that chart over and you have a pretty fair approximation of interest rate trends. In other words, we tend to borrow more when interest rates are lower. (Note that borrowing was at a low in the Carter years when he saddled us with a 21.5% prime rate).
Seems like borrowing when rates are low is a good thing. If I were not doing so well in this good economy, I might be tempted to borrow a few bucks myself.
By Jove, you just screwed your whole argument. If the government was doing as well as you, they would not borrow either.
Reagan didn't defeat the Evil Empire by exporting our industries to the Soviet Union, stooge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.