IF USA ECONOMY IS THE MAIN FOCUS IN THE ELECTIONS:
A BET ON HILARY IS A SURE BET! IT'S GETTING TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE! BILL & HILL CLINTON!
The United States' upcoming presidential elections later in the year will offer American voters the opportunity to chart a new course, particularly, a new economic cum political economic policies.
What I am suggesting by this phrase: economic cum politcal economic policies, is that economic matters mostly dominates American political interests and policies, both internal and external. It is for this main reason voters elects candidates to fill many public offices.
It is interesting to note that within the last 2 decades, America has engaged on quite a number of conflicts outside its shores. But the most notable ones were undertaken during the period of prolong economic downturns. As an anecdote, the government in power, which are both incidentally, Republicans and led by men in the name of Bush led the country to a well orchestrated wars and reprisals, first in 1990--1st Gulf War-- when Saddam Husain was deceived into believing that America does not "truly interfere in Regional Conflicts."
And second, the ongoing deceptive--from the onset--destructive, mind boggling financial recklessness which the so called Liberation of Iraq is fast becoming.
Imagine! Over $800 billion would have been spent on the war on Irag and Afghanistan by 2010 according to a news source. No matter how you do the Math; dice it and slice it, is it worth this much billions of dollars to cause this much security chaos in the world?
Imagine! How many precious lives would have been saved if this much money is spent on live enhancing projects around the world? Projects on Food, Education, Health, Jobs, Shelter and the Environment?
And now, the reason for this essay is, to shed some light on the weak economy of the USA; its over exposure to foreign debt, the consistent fall of the dollar, rise of unemployment rate, rise of gas price and others, and the best candidate for president between Sens. Obama & Clinton.
I remembered in 1989/1990, how both the economies of the UK and US were slowing-down and, how the Invation of Kuwait by Saddam Husain became the avenue by which both nations injected cash into their local economies, most especially the United States. Only if experience is to be believed, the USA economy only enjoyed momentary recovery before it went worse, which of course led to the defeat in re-election for the first Bush's presidency (1988-1992).
Over 10 years later, the USA have found another "plausible reason" to pump massive cash into the economy: the 2nd Gulf War, where Saddam Husain was alleged to be possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction, all complete with make-belief "incontrovertible evidences." As it turned out, Saddam did not only not possessing any of the alleged WMDs', he was also many years behind in doing so. You should ask now: did the massive amount of injected cash into the USA economy helped as such? The answer is a resounding, NO! It only helped momentarily when the defense, oil and military supports services experienced upsurge in their patronage and financial activities. Despite the acclaimed over $10 billion monthly expenditure on the war, most of which, I presume, would be awarded to local companies as against foreign contractors, the USA economy continue on a dangerous downward trend. The dollar has been consistently loosing value against major foreign currencies.
American citizens are under tremendous financial burden due to over-borrowing, the USA itself continues to issue financial instruments to offset extra-budgetary spending most of which if not all are war-related expenses. As it is, the Chinese and other Asia and Middle East financial powers are the holders of huge percentage of the debt obligations of the United States of America.
It would reasonable to expect that the "good ole USA" will forever continue to pay its due fees and interest on the financial instruments; will never be able to pay-up the debt--running into several trillion of dollars--but will readily redeem any claim against it if not "in-cash, but in-kind."
To the issue of the presidential primary contest between Senators Obama and Clinton, both of whom are involved in a keenly contested race, thus far, for the Democratic presidential nomination towards the end of summer, 2008.
"Phenomenon," was the word used to describe major contender, Sen. Barack Obama from an in-experience--at least in a public executive position, as an only a-two year federal legislator to the forefront of the Democratic presidential primary contest, sweeping along his way, old and well-oiled political machines of the other contenders. Sen. Obama was able to use the power of the youth and grass-root canvassing in addition to wide and reasonable financial contributions from his supporters to surge ahead of his competitors in the race. Only Sen. Hilary Clinton remain a formidable opponent who refused to be swept aside.
I am of the strong opinion that because of the present economic situation of the USA as observed above, and the reality that once before when America economy was in a downturn path, it was former President Bill Clinton who dug America out of it and into economic prosperity that lasted about a decade. Incidentally, another Republican son of the former Republican President Bush has come to wreck avoc on the American economy by his foreign policies of war and sustainable war in the guise of keeping the world safe. And it may very well be that the team of Bill and Hilary Clinton will be the ones who will dig America out of its economic woes again without retorting to foreign wars in order to get it done. It is on record that former President Clinton's era witnessed unprecedented gains in the economy and projected surpluses in its accounts and budgets.
As one who is concern about Nigeria's wealth, it is worth noting, that about $60 billion Nigeria foreign reserve is denominated in the USA currency, not to mention the fact that Nigeria's major revenue source, oil, is traded mostly in dollars and as such, its continue decline will affects Nigeria's income potential.
There is not a single proof on the other side, that is, the Sen. Barack Obama's side, who other than being a great source of encouragement, man of destiny and near-smooth sailing with the press--until lately--which strongly convinces a reasonable mind that the economy would be handled with the greatest attention it deserves and successfully, too.
Until lately, when the press and the public began to ask serious questions of Sen. Barack Obama's economic proposal that, the devil in the details of his purported economic rejuvenation begin to show its face. I heard him said that he would rather spend the over $10 billions per month currently being expended on Iraq war on the US public sector such as roads, bridges and tunnels across the nation. What Senator Barack Obama failed to acknowledge is the fact that majority of the monthly expenditure on Iraq comes from government borrowings which has to be backed by an Act of Congress. And American History Books taught us that the only legitimate reason for federal government to issues debts is ONLY because of war financing. For this reason alone, the question one should be asking Sen. Obama is "how will you pay for your propose public infrastucture refurbishment?" He has also talked of cutting taxes for the middle class and taxing the rich class more at the same time. How one balance the budget in these circumstances should beat one's imaginations!
It must be said, that America's "Voodoo Economics" will not continue to dazzle the world if practical steps are not taking immediately to arrest the lavish spending on wars and defence, rather embark on huge spending on research and development of cost saving, life saving and peaceful endeavors around the world. If necessary, the US law should be revised to include the ability of federal government to borrow cash for matter of "national importance" such as economic/financial bailout like the recently passed "Stimulus Package," which by the way is not only a little too late, but definitely inadequate. An average refund of between $1500 and $2000 would have been better than the approved $500 which may not move a mountain at all.
In Sen. Hilary Clinton's presidency is a possiblity of in-direct engagement of former President Clinton's wisdom in managing economic downturn of the past. Both America and the rest of the world have a lot to gain from a prosperous America, one whose economy remains competitive and whose currency remains moderately strong and dependable again.
In Sen. Obama, one is not sure of what to expect as there are no known executive or economic management experience which can attest to his suitability for the office of the presidency of the USA at this critical economic junction.
Aside from the economic issues which I dealt upon, I also belief that, Sen. Obama lacks equally behind in many other areas including foreign affairs for which I will readily support Sen. Clinton for same stated reasons.
However, If Sen. Obama in the end wins the nomination of the Democratic Party, I will implore him to engage the wisdom of the former President Bill Clinton in managing the economy knowing fully well that history will not forget his presidency in a whisker.
As for Sen. Mccain's economic policy, it is full of holes and can be compared to an empty basket whose owner thought was a bucket full of water. Either way one looks at his economic policies, one sees but red all around, the economy can never be balanced, and this is why Sen. Mccain is proposing a 100 year stay in Iraq because that is the only way the federal government will continue to borrow cash to finance phantom fight against manufactured enemies.
Imagine! Sen. Mccain proposes to "cut taxes and fund the military aggresively, how does a nation ever balance its budget in this manner without borrowing? When will this nation decides to ask, "wait a minute, where are we heading to or better yet, where is our economy heading to?"
A vote for Sen. Clinton is a vote for both former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Clinton to help steer the ship of state in the right direction, economically. This for me is the main reason I prefer Sen. Clinton to Sen. Obama and truthfully, the wars which lies ahead of America are more economic in nature than they are military, the wars deserve a commander in-chief who is more ready on day-one as the
combined Clintons would readily be.
The writer, Adebayo Animashaun is an observer of both Nigeria and America political and economic issues.
He can be reached to defend his essays via email: aniade@yahoo.com
|
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.