Obama’s War on Prosperity

This week, thanks to a majority of votes from the right, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R.2560) to drastically reduce the national debt (which today stands above $14 billion), to seriously limit the monstrous level of government spending and to constitutionally oblige the federal government to balance the national budget. This bill, known as the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, was passed despite the fact that almost all congressmen who are social democrats voted against it. When the bill goes to the Senate, it is likely that a majority of the Democratic senators will vote against it, thereby preventing it from being passed.

Whether the bill comes to pass or not, Obama has announced that, as president, he will veto it — in part, among other reasons, because he is opposed to any constitutional amendment regarding the balancing of the budget, which he considers “unnecessary.” Perhaps Obama is unaware of the fact that in 1997, even his vice president, Joe Biden, voted in favor of such an amendment. Indeed, since the foundational epoch of Thomas Jefferson, the United States has repeatedly come back to this idea. This bill is a golden opportunity to put an end to the abuse and economic excesses practiced by the political class in Washington. Yet, once again Obama and the slaves of Washington are playing politics rather than working on a viable solution to the problems of American citizens.

In all fairness, the GOP is clearly not willing to take pains for its labor either, and the initiative behind this bill is in fact mainly attributable to the efforts made by the increasingly necessary tea party movement, as well as politicians of real worth in favor of limited government, such as Jim DeMint, Pat Toomey and Rand Paul. The monumental row that is going on in Washington is becoming increasingly confusing to the public — above all because the GOP has a serious problem with communication, something which seems endemic among the political right. As if the problem in itself were not complicated enough, a “bipartisan plan” has been drafted by six senators — the so-called “Gang of Six” — in which certain guidelines are outlined to fix the economy — but these are all in fact too vague when it comes to producing concrete answers and immediate solutions. At the time of writing, the negotiations are still ongoing.

All of this is taking place in the middle of a debate that continues to drag on regarding the grave economic problems of the United States, specifically the debt ceiling. It has come into the limelight after more than two and half years during which the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, has not passed a budget, and Obama has failed to produce a real and detailed plan to surmount the economic chaos. As senator, Obama himself attacked George Bush in March 2006, requesting that he raise the debt ceiling and voted against him, like all the other Democratic senators; now, those same senators demand that Obama act to the contrary. Meanwhile, Obama refuses to support the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, but he does not waste a minute supporting another bill in process to repeal the current Defense of Marriage Act.

No matter how much Obama, his public relations department, his party, and those economic agencies and agents that are close to him wish to mark Aug. 2 as an apocalyptic date, it will prove a grave mistake to raise the debt ceiling without first implementing serious, real and austere reforms to return the United States to the path of fiscal responsibility. That is why the Cut, Cap and Balance Act is the most adequate course. It is no coincidence that Steve Wynn, one of the big North American hoteliers, spoke this week, clearly accusing Obama and his economic policies of endangering the nation. Wynn sees Obama as a wet blanket incapable of generating progress, creating employment or activating the economy. His comments are based on a wealth of experience: While Wynn has been a key actor in the growth and economic expansion of cities such as Las Vegas, Obama is now a general in a war fighting against the prosperity of his own country.