Robert M. Liu, click here
to update your web pages on AuthorsDen.
Blogs by Robert M. Liu
Snippets 7/21/2003 8:45:33 PM
This note touches on the projected fiscal 2003 budget deficit, Saddam Hussein's fate, and the Democrats' claim that Saddam Hussein's regime didn't pose an imminent danger to the U.S.
Snippets:
(1) Deficits:
The federal government's projected fiscal 2003 budget deficit is US$455 billion, accounting for 4.2% of GDP. Though a histoical high in dollar terms, it is not excessive in percentage terms. The 1983 budget deficit accounted for 6% of GDP. The 1943 budget deficit accounted for more than 30% of GDP.
Sixty years ago, America was in the middle of World War II, thereby fully justifying a high budget deficit. Now, America is again in the middle of a global war -- the war on international terrorism. Isn't this enough to justify a much higher budget deficit in 2003 and 2004?
Accounting for only 4.2% of GDP, the projected fiscal 2003 deficit actually points to a strong sense of fiscal responsibility on the part of the Bush administration.
There is room for further tax cuts if necessary to give the nascent economic recovery another boost. Both Wall Street and mainstream economists are betting that GDP will grow at a faster pace in the second half of this year and beyond.
On the other hand, if it turns out to be not the case, then, continued economic sluggishness would ensure continued disinflation or deflation, which would justify further tax cuts, interest rate cuts, and higher deficit financing.
As long as disinflation continues, there is no need to worry about deficits, because disinflation in itself is an indication that federal budget deficits are not excessive.
As mentioned previously, much of the paper currency created by the Federal Reserve flows out of the U.S. and disappears from circulation through wear and tear, thereby causing zero inflationary pressure if the amount of money created for deficit financing does not exceed the amount of paper currency that disappears from circulation by a huge gap.
In other words, the federal government is having a free meal, as long as its deficit financing does not reach an excessively high level to trigger rampant inflation and then interest rate hikes by the Fed.
(2) Saddam Hussein:
If Saddam Hussein fails to produce a clear video-tape with distinct speech indicating knowledge of current events, there is no certainty that he is alive.
The Saddam Hussein audio-tapes that surfaced recently are full of statics. They might be electronic mimicries manufactured in some European laboratory. If modern technology can identify the characteristics of a man's voice, it may be able to electronically mimic his voice as well.
If enough Iraqi civil defense units are trained and put into service, they should be able to search every house in Fallujah (a town in the Sunni triangle) for insurgent ammunition and Hussein loyalists. Thorough mopping-up operations will have to continue for a while before the Sunni triangle can be secured.
As to extraneous material support to Iraqi insurgents, both Syria and Iran may become bases from which such extraneous material support could flow into Iraq if the authorities in Syria and Iran turned a blind eye. The governments of these two countries have yet to see a reason to cooperate with the U.S. That's why they are harboring terrorists now.
(3) "No imminent danger"?
Quite a few Democrats are saying that the Saddam Hussein regime posed "no imminent danger" to the U.S. But did they ever see imminent danger? Did they see imminent danger when the World Trade Center in New York was bombed in 1993? They didn't.
Did they see imminent danger when Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist organization declared war on America in 1998? They didn't. Did they see imminent danger when U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (East Africa) were bombed also in 1998? They didn't. Nor did they see imminent danger when USS Cole was bombed in 2000.
Because they didn't regard those terrorist attacks against U.S. interests abroad as imminent danger to America's homeland, they failed to take effective measures to eliminate al-Qaeda's bases and global network, allowing it to attack America again on September 11, 2001.
They were wrong. So, why should the public trust these incompetent Democrats' judgement now when they say the Saddam Hussein regime posed "no imminent danger" to the U.S.?
Terrorist attacks (or even mere threats) against U.S. interests abroad should be regarded as imminent danger to the U.S.A. and its homeland, because they represent the enemies' intention of destroying the United States of America, its economy and its homeland.
Through its anti-U.S. media propaganda which applauded and encouraged al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks on the U.S., the Saddam Hussein regime made clear its intention toward the U.S.A., that is, to destroy the United States of America. If that was not imminent danger to the U.S. and its allies and interests in the Gulf region, what was?
Chances are the Democrats are wearing rose-tainted spectacles. Instead of seeing imminent danger posed by America's enemies, they see imminent danger posed by their political opponents at home.
By telling the public that the Saddam Hussein regime posed "no imminent danger", they have demonstrated who they are and what they are. They are experts at playing politics with national security.
If they really care about national security, they should be able to see sufficient evidence that America was in imminent danger because of the Saddam Hussein regime's intention of harming U.S. interests. Its intention could have been carried out through its anti-U.S. media propaganda or covert support for terrorist groups.
The Bush administration's responsibility is to keep America safe. The president has the bully pulpit and the power to take pre-emptive action against America's enemies based on the intelligence in his possession (including the Saddam Hussein regime's intention of harming U.S. interests and developing WMD programs).
While the Democrats may continue to second-guess President Bush's judgement, an ancient Chinese maxim goes counter to their usual wimpy approach. It says: "He who takes pre-emptive action puts himself in a position of strength."
The Democrats may want to second-guess the wisdom of ancient strategists too, because they see themselves as the most brilliant strategists that have ever walked on this planet. But whatever they say, the fact is they were the ones who cut defense spending in the 1990s when America was actually in imminent danger which they didn't see.
