Question:

While we hurl "neocon"! "Liberal"! at each other THIS clock ticks… By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: June 26, 2005 The biggest risk we Americans face to our way of life and our place in the world probably doesn’t come from Al Qaeda or the Iraq war. Rather, the biggest risk may come from this administration’s fiscal recklessness and the way this is putting us in hock to China. "I think the greatest threat to our future is our fiscal irresponsibility," warns David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States. Mr. Walker, an accountant by training, asserts that last year may have been the most fiscally reckless in the history of our Republic. Aside from the budget deficit, Congress enacted the prescription drug benefit – possibly an $8 trillion obligation – without figuring out how to pay for it. Mr. Walker, America’s watchdog in chief and head of the Government Accountability Office, is no Bush-basher. He started out his career as a conservative Democrat, then became a moderate Republican and has been an independent since 1997. Now he’s running around with his hair on fire, shrieking about America’s finances. Well, as much as any accountant ever shrieks. I asked Mr. Walker about Paul Volcker’s warning that within five years we face a 75 percent chance of a serious financial crisis. "If we don’t get serious soon," Mr. Walker replied, "it’s not a question of whether it’ll come, but when and how serious." Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, says he is also "very worried." "I find it very difficult to know how to put a number" on the probability of a crisis, he added, "but there’s a widespread sense in the market that there is a substantial chance." Another issue is that three-fourths of our new debt is now being purchased by foreigners, with China the biggest buyer of all. That gives China leverage over us, and it undermines our national security. On fiscal matters both parties have much to be ashamed of, but Republicans should be particularly embarrassed at their tumble. Traditionally, Republicans were prudent, while Democrats held great parties. But these days, the Bush administration is managing America’s finances like a team of drunken sailors, and most Republicans keep quiet in a way that betrays their conservative principles. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, wrote a couple of years ago: "Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. … We have lost our way." He’s right. Critics have pounded the Bush administration for its faulty intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq. But President Bush peddled tax cuts with data that ultimately proved equally faulty – yet the tax cuts remain cemented in place. Go to www.whitehouse.gov and read Mr. Bush’s speech when he presented his first budget in February 2001. He foresaw a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years and emphasized that much of that would go to paying down the debt. "I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years," Mr. Bush said then, between his calls for tax cuts. "That is more debt, repaid more quickly, than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history." His budget message that year promised that the U.S. would be "on a glide path toward zero debt." Oh? More than two centuries of American government produced a cumulative national debt of $5.7 trillion when Mr. Bush was elected in 2000. And now that is expected to almost double by 2010, to $10.8 trillion. Some readers may be surprised to see me fulminating about budget deficits, since often I’m bouncing over ruts abroad trying to call attention to some forgotten crisis, like Darfur. But there is a common thread: These are issues that aren’t sexy, that don’t get television time and that most Americans tune out – yet demand action on our part for both moral and practical reasons. America’s fiscal mess may be even harder to write about engagingly than Darfur, because the victims of our fiscal recklessness aren’t weeping widows whose children were heaved onto bonfires. But if you need to visualize the victims, think of your child’s face, or your grandchild’s. President Bush has excoriated the "death tax," as he calls the estate tax. But his profligacy will leave every American child facing a "birth tax" of about $150,000. That’s right: every American child arrives owing that much, partly to babies in China and Japan. No wonder babies cry.

Response:

Do ANY of you guys remember the 3-4 years of "warnings" that kept bubbling up from about 1997 on, about the threat of terrorism coming to the USA? After a while, we all got numb to it. Then it …turned out 9/11/01 was the *ultimate* telegraphed punch. Well, now we’re facing what I think could be the mother of all $$$ bummers in "our" ("baby boomers" b.’46-’64, Gen X, Millenials) generations…these people aren’t mere lame assed reporters; "…I asked Mr. Walker about Paul Volcker’s warning that within five years we face a 75 percent chance of a serious financial crisis. "If we don’t get serious soon," Mr. Walker replied, "it’s not a question of whether it’ll come, but when and how serious." Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, says he is also "very worried." "I find it very difficult to know how to put a number" on the probability of a crisis, he added, "but there’s a widespread sense in the market that there is a substantial chance." …." In a post the other day, I itemized the investment banking syndicate assisting CNOOC w/ the Unocal bid. I maintain that Congress ought to put the brakes on that shit asap. Those Gordon Gekkos ought to be pulled before a Senate Subcommittee and grilled with national exposure the way tobacco CEO’s were. We need to make that gig disappear. China is eating America’s lunch and it needs to be stopped cold.

Response:

an equivelant reply to me calling a lefty a "liberal" would be if he called me a "conservative". i will admit that "lefty" is a little closer to "neo-con" except that there is no "neo-nazi" comparison in using "liberal" as there is in "neo-con". what is it that i am supposed to reply with when i am called a "nazi"? (my father fought and sacrificed to defeat the nazi’s). i suppose that i could reply with "commie", but since Reagan kicked their ass, the name has really lost its bite. my OWN opinion is that the democrats are much closer to being aligned with "nazi’s" than are the republicans, so if you call me a nazi, i suppose i will probably call you a nazi back. in the end though, "NEO-CON" is a serious insult commonly thrown around by liberals. "LIBERAL" is just a seriously insulting thing to be. grow some dignity, aga’ers, become conservatives. Conservative doesn’t sound like an insult. apparently "liberal" does! paul az

Response:

History seems to teach so many so little. Thus, although "hope springs eternal" -so does horror. mvm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > "…my OWN opinion is that the democrats are much closer to being aligned with > "nazi’s" than are the republicans, so if you call me a nazi, i suppose i > will probably call you a nazi back…" > paul > az

Response:

as always, meaning of language is contextual. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > an equivelant reply to me calling a lefty a "liberal" would be if he called > me a "conservative". i will admit that "lefty" is a little closer to > "neo-con" except that there is no "neo-nazi" comparison in using "liberal" > as there is in "neo-con". what is it that i am supposed to reply with when i > am called a "nazi"? (my father fought and sacrificed to defeat the nazi’s). > i suppose that i could reply with "commie", but since Reagan kicked their > ass, the name has really lost its bite. > my OWN opinion is that the democrats are much closer to being aligned with > "nazi’s" than are the republicans, so if you call me a nazi, i suppose i > will probably call you a nazi back. > in the end though, "NEO-CON" is a serious insult commonly thrown around by > liberals. "LIBERAL" is just a seriously insulting thing to be. grow some > dignity, aga’ers, become conservatives. Conservative doesn’t sound like an > insult. apparently "liberal" does! > paul > az

Response:

I think neo-cons invented that term themselves and call themselves that. Usually people do not name themselves with insulting names. I mean your mom didn’t name you Paul to insult you. These guys didn’t call themselves neo-conservative to insult themselves. It was to different themselves from other political groups like paleo-republicans. Some Paleo’s migh be insulted at being called that but it depends on context, some of them call themselves Paleo-republicans. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/neo-conservative_families.html Neoconservatives are former liberals (which explains the "neo" prefix) who advocate an aggressive unilateralist vision of U.S. global supremacy, which includes a close strategic alliance with Israel. " Lobe doesn’t give us much background on the origin of neoconservatism, which, in my view, is important if we wish to understand today’s situation. President of the Arab American Institute, James Zogby gives us this account of the etymology of neoconservative: "Neoconservatism is the secular political philosophy that defined the reaction of a group of former liberals to what they felt was the Democratic party’s policy of appeasement toward the Soviet Union–most especially the USSR’s treatment of its Jewish population and its relations with the Arab world. They were a small but influential group of writers, commentators and government officials." (4) As a term, Neoconservative has earlier roots However, as an explanation of neoconservatism, this description is incomplete. In the JSTOR database, i.e., fulltext scholarly journals, the first use of neoconservative traces back to 1932, in a history of philosophy study, authored by a German. (In the context, ‘neoconservative’ emerges as a translation of a concept orginally in German, so the coinage may have occurred as part of the translation. By the 1950s, the term was frequently used, especially in the sense of a revival of conservative thought. Take the article, "Democracy, the New Conservatism, and the Liberal Tradition in America", by Stuart Gerry Brown, Ethics, Volume 66, Issue 1, Part 1 (Oct., 1955), 1-9. In 1955, according to Brown, if any sense can be made out of the intellectual confusion which has characterized America in the decade since the end of the Second World War, it would seem to be a gradually concerted movement backward — a revival of conservatism, even at times of reaction. Liberalism has been pronounced officially dead, though most politicians seem still to feel a need to profess it’ The fear of international Communist aggression has led to an obsession with security and a growing constriction of thought and action. There is a call for religious revival to provide aid and comfort in a world of anxiety and tension.’ Political thinkers who, twenty years ago, might have been speaking their pieces as bits in the liberal ferment of the New Deal, are turning nowadays to the prescriptions of Burke — and remaining largely aloof from the world of affairs. They urge upon us the ideas of eccentrics from the American tradition like Calhoun and John Randolph of Roanoke; they teach us to prefer Adams to Jefferson; they defend the Sedition Act; and they as sure us that the American Revolution was in fact no revolution at all. The talk is of conservatism and of distrust in equality and democracy. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001679.html Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, has emerged from his recent retirement to issue an apologia for his godchild: "The Neoconservative Persuasion." Written in Kristol’s usual lucid and genially authoritative style, the article is a revealing exposition of neoconservative beliefs and purposes as they stand at this remarkable historical moment, when the president has adopted the neoconservative agenda of imposing democracy and equal individual rights on other countries, even as the Supreme Court has overturned the principle of equal individual rights in this country. I am reproducing Kristol’s entire article here along with my running commentary, which is bolded and bracketed throughout.

Response:

> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/24/221855/605 > It shows that the ONLY TIME since 1970 that this country has not been > in the red ink, was during Clinton’s second term.

And what was different about Clinton’s first term vs his second? During his first term Dems also controlled the House, Senate, AND the White House, and all they wanted to do was spend money. During the second term, Repubs controlled the House, and they cut spending WAYYYYYYY back. Clinton VETOED the first 2 times that a balanced budget was brought to him. He did sign it the 3rd time it came his way when it passed Congress with SOOooo many votes that they would have been able to over ride his veto. That’s the good news. The bad news, with a Repub majority in both the Congress, and the White House, spending has grown like the Dems wanted to when they controlled it all..:0( See ya, John

Response:

>>And what was different about Clinton’s first term vs his second? > It took a few years to pay down the red ink.

Cute ! See ya, John

Response:

 I just saw a program about China and environmental pollution and it mentioned that China could eventually face an environmental crises that could necesitate as a means for solving it, withdrawel of almost all of their monies wordwide causing a disastrous financial impact on the worlds economies.

: While we hurl "neocon"! "Liberal"! at each other THIS clock ticks… : : : : By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF : : Published: June 26, 2005 : : The biggest risk we Americans face to our way of life and our place in : the world probably doesn’t come from Al Qaeda or the Iraq war. : : Rather, the biggest risk may come from this administration’s fiscal : recklessness and the way this is putting us in hock to China. : : "I think the greatest threat to our future is our fiscal : irresponsibility," warns David Walker, the comptroller general of the : United States. Mr. Walker, an accountant by training, asserts that last : year may have been the most fiscally reckless in the history of our : Republic. Aside from the budget deficit, Congress enacted the : prescription drug benefit – possibly an $8 trillion obligation – without : figuring out how to pay for it. : : Mr. Walker, America’s watchdog in chief and head of the Government : Accountability Office, is no Bush-basher. He started out his career as a : conservative Democrat, then became a moderate Republican and has been an : independent since 1997. : : Now he’s running around with his hair on fire, shrieking about America’s : finances. Well, as much as any accountant ever shrieks. : : I asked Mr. Walker about Paul Volcker’s warning that within five years : we face a 75 percent chance of a serious financial crisis. : : "If we don’t get serious soon," Mr. Walker replied, "it’s not a question : of whether it’ll come, but when and how serious." : : Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, says he is also "very : worried." : : "I find it very difficult to know how to put a number" on the : probability of a crisis, he added, "but there’s a widespread sense in : the market that there is a substantial chance." : : Another issue is that three-fourths of our new debt is now being : purchased by foreigners, with China the biggest buyer of all. That gives : China leverage over us, and it undermines our national security. : : On fiscal matters both parties have much to be ashamed of, but : Republicans should be particularly embarrassed at their tumble. : Traditionally, Republicans were prudent, while Democrats held great : parties. But these days, the Bush administration is managing America’s : finances like a team of drunken sailors, and most Republicans keep quiet : in a way that betrays their conservative principles. : : Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, wrote a couple of years ago: : "Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. … We have lost our : way." He’s right. : : Critics have pounded the Bush administration for its faulty intelligence : in the run-up to the war in Iraq. But President Bush peddled tax cuts : with data that ultimately proved equally faulty – yet the tax cuts : remain cemented in place. : : Go to www.whitehouse.gov and read Mr. Bush’s speech when he presented : his first budget in February 2001. He foresaw a $5.6 trillion surplus : over 10 years and emphasized that much of that would go to paying down : the debt. : : "I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next : 10 years," Mr. Bush said then, between his calls for tax cuts. "That is : more debt, repaid more quickly, than has ever been repaid by any nation : at any time in history." His budget message that year promised that the : U.S. would be "on a glide path toward zero debt." : : Oh? : : More than two centuries of American government produced a cumulative : national debt of $5.7 trillion when Mr. Bush was elected in 2000. And : now that is expected to almost double by 2010, to $10.8 trillion. : : Some readers may be surprised to see me fulminating about budget : deficits, since often I’m bouncing over ruts abroad trying to call : attention to some forgotten crisis, like Darfur. But there is a common : thread: These are issues that aren’t sexy, that don’t get television : time and that most Americans tune out – yet demand action on our part : for both moral and practical reasons. : : America’s fiscal mess may be even harder to write about engagingly than : Darfur, because the victims of our fiscal recklessness aren’t weeping : widows whose children were heaved onto bonfires. But if you need to : visualize the victims, think of your child’s face, or your grandchild’s. : : President Bush has excoriated the "death tax," as he calls the estate : tax. But his profligacy will leave every American child facing a "birth : tax" of about $150,000. : : That’s right: every American child arrives owing that much, partly to : babies in China and Japan. No wonder babies cry. :

Response:

What they call peaseant revolts over there are becoming more frequent. Many of them have to do with industrial polution so bad that entire towns have cancer. Just google chinese peasent revolts and see what you come up with.

Response:

> I think neo-cons invented that term themselves and call themselves > that. Usually people do not name themselves with insulting names. I > mean your mom didn’t name you Paul to insult

you. These guys didn’t > call themselves neo-conservative to insult

themselves. It was to > different themselves from other political groups like > paleo-republicans. Some Paleo’s migh be insulted

at being called that > but it depends on context, some of them call themselves > Paleo-republicans.

I like the RINOs. They piss off *both* the neos and paleos. heh heh heh heh http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/neo-conservative_families.html > Neoconservatives are former liberals (which

explains the "neo" prefix) > who advocate an aggressive unilateralist vision of U.S. global > supremacy, which includes a close strategic

alliance with Israel. " > Lobe doesn’t give us much background on the

origin of neoconservatism, > which, in my view, is important if we wish to understand today’s > situation. President of the Arab American

Institute, James Zogby gives > us this account of the etymology of neoconservative: > "Neoconservatism is the secular political

philosophy that defined the > reaction of a group of former liberals to what they felt was the > Democratic party’s policy of appeasement toward

the Soviet Union–most > especially the USSR’s treatment of its Jewish population and its > relations with the Arab world. They were a small

but influential group > of writers, commentators and government officials." > (4) As a term, Neoconservative has earlier roots > However, as an explanation of neoconservatism, this description is > incomplete. In the JSTOR database, i.e.,

fulltext scholarly journals, > the first use of neoconservative traces back to

1932, in a history of > philosophy study, authored by a German. (In the context, > ‘neoconservative’ emerges as a translation of a

concept orginally in > German, so the coinage may have occurred as part

of the translation. By > the 1950s, the term was frequently used,

especially in the sense of a > revival of conservative thought. Take the

article, "Democracy, the New > Conservatism, and the Liberal Tradition in

America", by Stuart Gerry > Brown, Ethics, Volume 66, Issue 1, Part 1 (Oct.,

1955), 1-9. In 1955, > according to Brown, > if any sense can be made out of the intellectual confusion which has > characterized America in the decade since the

end of the Second World > War, it would seem to be a gradually concerted

movement backward — a > revival of conservatism, even at times of

reaction. Liberalism has been > pronounced officially dead, though most

politicians seem still to feel > a need to profess it’ The fear of international

Communist aggression > has led to an obsession with security and a

growing constriction of > thought and action. There is a call for

religious revival to provide > aid and comfort in a world of anxiety and

tension.’ Political thinkers > who, twenty years ago, might have been speaking

their pieces as bits in > the liberal ferment of the New Deal, are turning nowadays to the > prescriptions of Burke — and remaining largely

aloof from the world of > affairs. They urge upon us the ideas of

eccentrics from the American > tradition like Calhoun and John Randolph of

Roanoke; they teach us to > prefer Adams to Jefferson; they defend the

Sedition Act; and they as > sure us that the American Revolution was in fact

no revolution at all. > The talk is of conservatism and of distrust in

equality and democracy. > http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001679.html > Irving Kristol, the godfather of

neoconservatism, has emerged from his > recent retirement to issue an apologia for his godchild: "The > Neoconservative Persuasion." Written in

Kristol’s usual lucid and > genially authoritative style, the article is a

revealing exposition of > neoconservative beliefs and purposes as they

stand at this remarkable > historical moment, when the president has

adopted the neoconservative > agenda of imposing democracy and equal

individual rights on other > countries, even as the Supreme Court has

overturned the principle of > equal individual rights in this country. I am

reproducing Kristol’s > entire article here along with my running

commentary, which is bolded – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> and bracketed throughout.

Response:

well there’s the world and then there’s EU and US and China seeing as we have 80% there’s not far to collapse for the rest. How’s that blues song go? Been down so long looks like up to me. It’s those rich guys with the fancy weapons that are the real danger to life, yeah – the culture of life guys. Cause I used to want to be a hippie when I grew up and admire the Amish and am interested in off grid life styles, I can tell you that living with out oil ain’t no big deal. In fact most people in the world do it. It’ll just be a different kind of economy. It’s too bad we’ll wait until we’re forced to do it instead of making it a great national adventure like space travel or going to the moon. Nooo instead we’ll have to have a big jealous national fit if China beats us at our oil game and then we’ll have to kill everyone so no one can have it like some guy who won’t let another man take his wife. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I just saw a program about China and environmental pollution >and it mentioned that China could eventually face an >environmental crises that could necesitate as a means for >solving it, withdrawel of almost all of their monies wordwide >causing a disastrous financial impact on the worlds economies. > The world economy will collapse long before that as a result of the end of > cheap oil. >: While we hurl "neocon"! "Liberal"! at each other THIS clock ticks… >: >: >: >: By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF >: >: Published: June 26, 2005 >: >: The biggest risk we Americans face to our way of life and our place in >: the world probably doesn’t come from Al Qaeda or the Iraq war. >: >: Rather, the biggest risk may come from this administration’s fiscal >: recklessness and the way this is putting us in hock to China. >: >: "I think the greatest threat to our future is our fiscal >: irresponsibility," warns David Walker, the comptroller general of the >: United States. Mr. Walker, an accountant by training, asserts that last >: year may have been the most fiscally reckless in the history of our >: Republic. Aside from the budget deficit, Congress enacted the >: prescription drug benefit – possibly an $8 trillion obligation – without >: figuring out how to pay for it. >: >: Mr. Walker, America’s watchdog in chief and head of the Government >: Accountability Office, is no Bush-basher. He started out his career as a >: conservative Democrat, then became a moderate Republican and has been an >: independent since 1997. >: >: Now he’s running around with his hair on fire, shrieking about America’s >: finances. Well, as much as any accountant ever shrieks. >: >: I asked Mr. Walker about Paul Volcker’s warning that within five years >: we face a 75 percent chance of a serious financial crisis. >: >: "If we don’t get serious soon," Mr. Walker replied, "it’s not a question >: of whether it’ll come, but when and how serious." >: >: Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, says he is also "very >: worried." >: >: "I find it very difficult to know how to put a number" on the >: probability of a crisis, he added, "but there’s a widespread sense in >: the market that there is a substantial chance." >: >: Another issue is that three-fourths of our new debt is now being >: purchased by foreigners, with China the biggest buyer of all. That gives >: China leverage over us, and it undermines our national security. >: >: On fiscal matters both parties have much to be ashamed of, but >: Republicans should be particularly embarrassed at their tumble. >: Traditionally, Republicans were prudent, while Democrats held great >: parties. But these days, the Bush administration is managing America’s >: finances like a team of drunken sailors, and most Republicans keep quiet >: in a way that betrays their conservative principles. >: >: Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, wrote a couple of years ago: >: "Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. … We have lost our >: way." He’s right. >: >: Critics have pounded the Bush administration for its faulty intelligence >: in the run-up to the war in Iraq. But President Bush peddled tax cuts >: with data that ultimately proved equally faulty – yet the tax cuts >: remain cemented in place. >: >: Go to www.whitehouse.gov and read Mr. Bush’s speech when he presented >: his first budget in February 2001. He foresaw a $5.6 trillion surplus >: over 10 years and emphasized that much of that would go to paying down >: the debt. >: >: "I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next >: 10 years," Mr. Bush said then, between his calls for tax cuts. "That is >: more debt, repaid more quickly, than has ever been repaid by any nation >: at any time in history." His budget message that year promised that the >: U.S. would be "on a glide path toward zero debt." >: >: Oh? >: >: More than two centuries of American government produced a cumulative >: national debt of $5.7 trillion when Mr. Bush was elected in 2000. And >: now that is expected to almost double by 2010, to $10.8 trillion. >: >: Some readers may be surprised to see me fulminating about budget >: deficits, since often I’m bouncing over ruts abroad trying to call >: attention to some forgotten crisis, like Darfur. But there is a common >: thread: These are issues that aren’t sexy, that don’t get television >: time and that most Americans tune out – yet demand action on our part >: for both moral and practical reasons. >: >: America’s fiscal mess may be even harder to write about engagingly than >: Darfur, because the victims of our fiscal recklessness aren’t weeping >: widows whose children were heaved onto bonfires. But if you need to >: visualize the victims, think of your child’s face, or your grandchild’s. >: >: President Bush has excoriated the "death tax," as he calls the estate >: tax. But his profligacy will leave every American child facing a "birth >: tax" of about $150,000. >: >: That’s right: every American child arrives owing that much, partly to >: babies in China and Japan. No wonder babies cry. >: > your name here!

Response:

Yeah, actually I was aware of that- Deficit spending has never hurt the U.S. – problem is, the sheer SIZE of this deficit relative to GDP and more importantly, relative to the *trade*  *deficit*. U.S. GDP doesn’t mean a damn thing if no one’s consuming what we’re producing…we’re now consuming what everyone *else* is producing. In the process, the U.S. itself is *getting* consumed. Bad news. Very. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Check out this little graph: > http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/24/221855/605 > It shows that the ONLY TIME since 1970 that this country has not been > in the red ink, was during Clinton’s second term.  I didn’t realize > this myself — it’s amazing. If you look at the graphic, it’s pretty > much a sea of red ink during Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. >While we hurl "neocon"! "Liberal"! at each other THIS clock ticks… >By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF >Published: June 26, 2005 >The biggest risk we Americans face to our way of life and our place in >the world probably doesn’t come from Al Qaeda or the Iraq war. >Rather, the biggest risk may come from this administration’s fiscal >recklessness and the way this is putting us in hock to China. >"I think the greatest threat to our future is our fiscal >irresponsibility," warns David Walker, the comptroller general of the >United States. Mr. Walker, an accountant by training, asserts that last >year may have been the most fiscally reckless in the history of our >Republic. Aside from the budget deficit, Congress enacted the >prescription drug benefit – possibly an $8 trillion obligation – without >figuring out how to pay for it. >Mr. Walker, America’s watchdog in chief and head of the Government >Accountability Office, is no Bush-basher. He started out his career as a >conservative Democrat, then became a moderate Republican and has been an >independent since 1997. >Now he’s running around with his hair on fire, shrieking about America’s >finances. Well, as much as any accountant ever shrieks. >I asked Mr. Walker about Paul Volcker’s warning that within five years >we face a 75 percent chance of a serious financial crisis. >"If we don’t get serious soon," Mr. Walker replied, "it’s not a question >of whether it’ll come, but when and how serious." >Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, says he is also "very >worried." >"I find it very difficult to know how to put a number" on the >probability of a crisis, he added, "but there’s a widespread sense in >the market that there is a substantial chance." >Another issue is that three-fourths of our new debt is now being >purchased by foreigners, with China the biggest buyer of all. That gives >China leverage over us, and it undermines our national security. >On fiscal matters both parties have much to be ashamed of, but >Republicans should be particularly embarrassed at their tumble. >Traditionally, Republicans were prudent, while Democrats held great >parties. But these days, the Bush administration is managing America’s >finances like a team of drunken sailors, and most Republicans keep quiet >in a way that betrays their conservative principles. >Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, wrote a couple of years ago: >"Republicans used to believe in balanced budgets. … We have lost our >way." He’s right. >Critics have pounded the Bush administration for its faulty intelligence >in the run-up to the war in Iraq. But President Bush peddled tax cuts >with data that ultimately proved equally faulty – yet the tax cuts >remain cemented in place. >Go to www.whitehouse.gov and read Mr. Bush’s speech when he presented >his first budget in February 2001. He foresaw a $5.6 trillion surplus >over 10 years and emphasized that much of that would go to paying down >the debt. >"I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next >10 years," Mr. Bush said then, between his calls for tax cuts. "That is >more debt, repaid more quickly, than has ever been repaid by any nation >at any time in history." His budget message that year promised that the >U.S. would be "on a glide path toward zero debt." >Oh? >More than two centuries of American government produced a cumulative >national debt of $5.7 trillion when Mr. Bush was elected in 2000. And >now that is expected to almost double by 2010, to $10.8 trillion. >Some readers may be surprised to see me fulminating about budget >deficits, since often I’m bouncing over ruts abroad trying to call >attention to some forgotten crisis, like Darfur. But there is a common >thread: These are issues that aren’t sexy, that don’t get television >time and that most Americans tune out – yet demand action on our part >for both moral and practical reasons. >America’s fiscal mess may be even harder to write about engagingly than >Darfur, because the victims of our fiscal recklessness aren’t weeping >widows whose children were heaved onto bonfires. But if you need to >visualize the victims, think of your child’s face, or your grandchild’s. >President Bush has excoriated the "death tax," as he calls the estate >tax. But his profligacy will leave every American child facing a "birth >tax" of about $150,000. >That’s right: every American child arrives owing that much, partly to >babies in China and Japan. No wonder babies cry. > your name here!

Response:

Good post- Not that the twisted will heed it, however. mvm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > con