Monday, November 23, 2009

Fork-Tongued in Washington

This is in the way of a correction to my “Fork-Tongued in Shanghai” (November 21), and of a footnote about our fork-tongued Senators as they sanction the groundwork of totalitarianism in this country.

This statement is corrected:

What Obama said about Sino-American relations in Shanghai is irrelevant here. China is the largest creditor of the U.S., holding about $800 billion in U.S. government securities, perhaps only three times what a health-care bill is estimated to cost over a decade.

I subsequently added a comment to the Shanghai post:

Last night (November 21) the Washington Post headlined: "Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) this evening secured the 60 votes needed to move an $848 billion health-care reform bill to the Senate floor for debate, clearing the way for amendment deliberations to begin after the Thanksgiving recess."

So, this criminally irresponsible and morally evil legislation actually tops the $800 billion in U.S. government securities held by the Chinese government. Of course, there's no way the $800 billion debt can be paid. Now it's going to be $1.6 trillion -- and counting.

And counting, indeed. My projection of the debt doubling to $1.6 trillion was literal and quite innocent. Americans for Limited Government's Bill Wilson issued the following statement today:

"On Saturday, the Senate voted 60-39 to proceed to the so-called ’public option’ legislation that will cost more than $2 trillion over ten years when fully implemented, ration health care away from seniors, raise the cost of premiums, drive the American people off of private health options, and bankrupt the Treasury.”

And counting, again. But, accepting my modest projection of only $1.6 trillion -- and this is exclusive of the billions in expenditure and cost to the economy incurred by whatever other socialist/fascist legislation is incubating in Congress’s collective mind, such as cap-and-trade, and exclusive of the costs of the looting, redistributionist “climate change” treaty President Obama is expected to sign next month in Copenhagen -- the logical question to ask is: How can the U.S. honor its debt to China, and also pay for socialist health care? Where is all this money supposed to come from? Is it the diminishing private, productive sector of the U.S. economy, which would become a mere servant to government debt service? For how long?

Captive, command economies and a fettered citizenry produce according to the law of diminishing returns, unless it can siphon off wealth from another economy and benefit from the blood transfusions made possible by semi-free nations. Is this, or is it not, a formula for catastrophic economic collapse? Yes. Will it be an open invitation for dictatorship to “take charge” of a crisis of the government’s making? Yes.

The question assumes a frozen, static debt figure, astronomical as it may be. Total U.S. government debt to foreign holders is nearly $3.5 trillion, with China followed by Japan, the United Kingdom and OPEC, in that order.

As for the scale of federal indebtedness in all categories, that figure also boggles the imagination. See these Federal Reserve calculations for 2005. These are Alan Greenspan figures and legacy.

Economies and human actions are not static. Economies either atrophy or grow. Men flee from atrophying economies -- when they can, when they and their wealth can remove to friendlier economic climes without being arrested and shaken down -- or they create new wealth that allows economies to grow, provided they are not barred from action by fiat law. The Emerson Electric Co. of Chicago is a case in point, cited by The Wire: Washington Insider’s Report. The ALG title for the report is “Atlas Shrugs.”

Finally, here is a breakdown of the 60-39 Senate vote on whether or not to “debate” the Senate’s version of the health care bill, also now known as the ReidCare bill, which incorporates all the expropriatory and extortionate provisions and language as the House Pelosi/ObamaCare bill. And then some. The names of the guilty are there for all to see.

The “debate” will not proceed on anything as honest as a principle, not even a statist, collectivist one. As happened in the House, it will be in the nature of horse-trading, arm-twisting and sugar-coated corruption instigated by malice-driven humanitarians.


pomponazzi said...

Ed, as I once broached the issue, someone, with the requisite training, should do a study showing where the environmentalist's finance are coming from. Since the United States is the biggest buyer of middle eastern oil, it is but common sense that the arabs would take advantage of the US' dependence on OPEC.

They stand to gain if the US is stopped by environmentalists to produce oil that is available here in the USA. The arabs would thus definitely see the enviro-hippies as a fifth column within the Us doing their bidding.

I won't be surprised at all if the arabs are proved to be the environmentalist's biggest financiers.

pomponazzi said...

Economist George Reisman also alluded to this phenomenon in a slightly different context.

Since the US doesn't use its own oil reserves, it inadvertently helps the sheikhs to fund their Wahaabism inspired terrorist nests known as Madrassahs. Pakistan alone has more than 15000 such terrorist manufacturing schools, where little children of poor ignorant people are indoctrinated and given boarding and bread.

Thus the enviro-hippies ARE indirectly helping in funding the taliban and its myriad carbon copies.

Ed said...

Pomponazzi: Everything you say here is absolutely true. The Arabs (and other non-Arab OPEC members) have a vested interest in the success of the environmentalist policies that stop U.S. oil companies from exploiting untapped reserves.

It is the same phenomenon sired by the 18th Amendment, Prohibition; criminal gangs "profited" from the regulation of liquor, had a vested interest in the law's perpetuation, and bribed Congressmen to oppose repeal. It was only the dire straits of the country early in the Depression that moved Roosevelt and Congress to repeal the 18th with the 21st Amendment. Denied a monopoly on the production and distribution of liquor, the gangs then turned to the distribution of drugs (complemented by revenue from illegal prostitution and gamblling). That's another story but one governed by the same laws of cause and effect.

Prohibition also marked a radical redirection of purpose and energy of especially federal law enforcement, which was to recruit and direct federal agencies to enforce fiat law that had nothing to do with "fighting crime."

The same cause and effect applies, of course, to the monopoly on the production and distrubition of oil by OPEC. There's no fundamental difference, except in the commodity. There is no basic difference in motivation between the temperance activists who got the 18th Amendment and Volstead Act passed and the environmentalists. And, while the gangs fought among themselves for liquor turf, their liquor revenue did not fund and enable hostile foreign powers to make war on the U.S. As you point out, that is exactl what is happening now, together with the Taliban and other Islamic outfits raking in money from selling cocaine and other hard drugs in "competition" with the South American drug cartels -- also banned and regulated by the U.S.


Mo said...

it seems the US, through all these pragmatic regulations, is harming itself more than anything and giving other hostile and anti-Semite regimes( like Saudia Arabia) a monopoly. You would think that some rational people would see through this but sadly the same old nonsense about banning keeps ringing true.

Neil Parille said...


I know this if off-topic, but if you are reviewing the new Rand bios you might want to check out Jennifer Burns' discussion of the Branden books --

-Neil Parille