Beijing has us over a barrel — until and unless our budget is brought under control. Are GOP hopefuls listening?
Borrowing Chinese money leaves American politicians unsatisfied. Every time they’ve spent all the Chinese have lent us, thirty minutes later the Democrats wants to borrow more. For Republicans, Chinese lending is a double-edged sword: on one hand, it’s a huge weapon in Chinese hands that can be used to force changes to U.S. foreign and domestic policy. On the other, given Chinese leaders’ increasingly hostile statements about American fiscal irresponsibility, it’s a political tool Republicans can use.
On April 16, the House passed the Paul Ryan budget plan. The Senate Democrats (with the help of their usual RINO accomplices) voted it down. Our national debt limit of $14.3 trillion has been reached and the money will run out on about August 2 unless Congress raises the limit.
We are fast approaching the 800th day since the Senate Dems passed a budget. Negotiations, if the byplay between congressional Republicans and the White House can be called that, have made precisely no progress because Republican demands to make trillions in cuts to the budget as part of a debt limit hike are being stonewalled by the White House and Senate Dems who have proposed budgetary legerdemain rather than real cuts.
In what may be a historic level of irony, it’s apparent that President Obama and his congressional mafia family are less fiscally responsible than the Communist Chinese.
In March 2009, when Obama was counting on Chinese lending to finance his $800 billion stimulus package, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao warned against excessive US federal spending. He said, “Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I’m a little bit worried.” Jiabao added, “I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets.”
Substitute “American” for “Chinese” in the last sentence and Wen could have been mistaken for Art Laffer. But Laffer never threatened to stop lending to America if we made arms sales to Taiwan, as China did as recently as 2009.
Last week an adviser to the People’s Bank of China warned against a default on U.S. debt, and said that Republicans were “playing with fire” by contemplating even a brief default. And only a few days ago, a top Chinese debt-rating expert warned that U.S. default had already commenced. Meanwhile, Obama wants to borrow more, presumably from China, to help Greece prolong its financial disaster.
China isn’t just our lender. It’s not a free-market trading partner hoping that a rising economic tide will raise both economies out of the recession. China is an adversary, a 21st century mercantilist nation whose policy is to gain economic strength by manipulating markets. And its role as our reliable lender is aimed at manipulating U.S. economic strength as a means of diminishing our ability to interfere in Beijing’s ambitions.
The European mercantilist nations of the 15th-18th centuries sought to increase government holdings of gold and silver as a means of growing economic power. Their main tool was market manipulation — by tariffs and trade cartels, which were restrictive enough to cause a few wars. But military power was, to them, a secondary means of protecting or obtaining economic power by conquest and colonization.
China has adapted European mercantilism to its own ambitions for hegemony around the Pacific Rim. Under China’s strategic policy, economic power and military power are inseparable. For decades, the Chinese trade surplus has funded their hell-for-leather military buildup including their cyberwar campaigns against American and European defense and intelligence networks. When the dollar was strong, they did everything possible to maintain a trade export to bring U.S. dollars into their reserves. The weakening dollar caused them to reduce their trade surplus in May.
By their modern mercantilism, China has achieved enormous economic power. Were they to significantly reduce or stop buying U.S. debt, the interest rates our government pays would rise in proportion to their cutbacks. Their vehement objections to the Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” policy — buying up federal debt to pump money into the credit market, thereby flooding the market with less valuable dollars — brought China to the brink of that action.
China’s opposition to reckless U.S. spending is based only on preserving the value of our $1 trillion debt to them. They don’t want to be repaid with less valuable dollars than they lent us. And we’re not a national version of Goldman Sachs — “too big to fail” — in China’s eyes. We are an adversary whose policy can be leveraged with that debt.
China’s economy — as strong as it is — isn’t strong enough to make its leaders think they should cause a U.S. default. But it can do to us what we did to the Soviet Union in the 1980s: make it too costly for us to pursue our national interests.
Unless we reduce federal spending by trillions of dollars over the next few years, China’s financial leverage over us will reach a critical stage at the same time that our need to oppose China on several fronts becomes acute.
China is Iran’s closest ally and trading partner. It has built a major presence in oil-rich African nations and in Venezuela. North Korea is effectively a Chinese satellite state. China’s ambitions — turned to India, Japan, Taiwan and Malaysia — will bring it into confrontation with us economically and, possibly, militarily. What would happen if some future US president went head-to-head with the ayatollahs or Chavez or Kim Jong-il?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?