President Obama simultaneously speaks about the need for more federal spending and warns of the dangers of increased debt. What is his position?
The country appears to be going through a period of buyer’s remorse over the election of Barack Obama. The majority cobbled together by the President one year ago included the Democratic base, independents hoping for “change,” and many disaffected Republicans betrayed by the Bush Administration’s big-government neo-conservatism. It is unlikely that most of these voters favored an overt push toward socialism; however, this is what they have received. As the ‘tea parties’ illustrate, voters are not only confused – they are seriously concerned.
These concerns are justified. The Administration’s hard-left turn was evident from the outset. Ignoring expert advice to spend on job-creating infrastructure, Obama spent wildly on entitlements. Now, with rising grassroots discontent, a falling currency, and threats to America’s AAA credit rating, there is some evidence that the Administration is trying to hedge its bets through tough talk. Yet, they still have not taken any tough action. It is important in these times to have leaders we can trust to make the right decisions, even if they are unpopular. Obama, Bernanke, Reid, Dodd, Pelosi, Frank… These are not names that are trusted to make wise choices over expedient ones. The markets know it; the voters know it; and, judging by the price of gold, the rest of the world knows it too.
If the government continues to run the printing presses, as seems far more likely, hyperinflation will become a catastrophic event when the federal government faces outright default. The whole world awaits the decision of the direction of U.S. economic policy – toward default and probable world war, or isolationism and its complete social and economic control like Iran and North Korea. We all know what life would be like in either scenario – far worse than we ever thought.
comments