The 2012 election campaign starts now

By John Parisella - Tuesday, September 6, 2011 at 1:19 PM - 4 Comments

Conventional wisdom holds that a presidential campaign begins in earnest right after Labour Day weekend in a presidential election year—a full year away from now. This is notably when public campaign finance provisions kick in. However, this year, with Republican candidate Mitt Romney announcing his jobs program today and Barack Obama presenting his own version two days from now, it feels more like we’ve already entered the final sprint of the 2012 presidential cycle. Continue…

Happy 100th birthday, Mr. Reagan!

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 8:16 AM - 8 Comments

Celebrations: The Reagan centennial is being marked by symposiums and conferences

As his 100th birthday approaches on Feb. 6, the ghost of Ronald Reagan continues to loom large over America. He is one of the most admired and most popular presidents. The centennial is being marked by a variety of conferences, university symposiums and ceremonies. But it is in the political trenches where the legacy of a president who left office 22 years ago continues to be hotly debated and redefined. Republicans are taking their veneration of the 40th president to new heights. Democrats, meanwhile, are finding that the more time passes, the more there is to like about the man they once caricatured as a doddering B-list actor who built a military colossus on the backs of the poor.

Sarah Palin herself discovered just how jealously her party guards Reagan’s legacy when she had the temerity to compare herself to the former actor and California governor. Smarting from criticism that her decision to star in a television show about Alaska appeared un-presidential, Palin quipped on Fox News in November, “Like, um, wasn’t Ronald Reagan an actor, wasn’t he in Bedtime for Bonzo—bozo, something… ” The backlash was immediate. “Excuse me, but this was ignorant even for Mrs. Palin,” wrote Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan in her Wall Street Journal column. She went on to lovingly catalogue Reagan’s lengthy career from actor to union leader to two-term governor of the most populous state, and to standard-bearer for conservative political philosophy. “The point is not, ‘He was a great man and you are a nincompoop,’ ” Noonan concluded. “Though that is true.”

Rush Limbaugh calls him “Ronaldus Magnus.” During the debate among candidates for the post of Republican National Committee chairman in January, the six people running were asked to name their favourite Republican president. Not one mentioned Abraham Lincoln. “Okay,” declared the satisfied moderator, Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, after all cited Reagan. “Everybody got that one right.”

For many Democrats, Reagan is no longer a president to scorn, but to study. President Barack Obama let it be known over the holidays that he was reading a biography of Reagan. Their first-term situations are similar: both took office amid a recession, in a moment of national demoralization. Both saw their approval ratings plummet in their first year ahead of mid-term elections, in which their respective parties lost seats. And now as Obama faces an Egypt in turmoil, commentators are recalling Reagan’s dealings with the Soviets and asking, “What would Reagan do?”

Continue…

The new fight over Obamacare

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 11:00 AM - 0 Comments

Luke Sharrett/The New York Times/ Charlie Riedel/AP/ Carrie Devorah/WENN.com/NEWSCOM

The Obama administration’s health care reform survived hostile town halls, Tea Party protests, and a year of bitter political combat in the U.S. Congress before it was signed into law in March. But now it faces yet another hurdle: a constitutional challenge to what the administration calls its “linchpin” provision. Rather than providing a single government-administered insurance plan the way Canada does, the Obama reform attempts to achieve near-universal coverage by requiring all Americans to buy private health insurance for themselves and their families. Individuals who cannot afford to pay premiums will be subsidized by the government; those who fail to do so will be fined up to US$750. This so-called “individual mandate” begins to phase in in 2014.

The Obama administration says the individual mandate is necessary to control health care costs for everyone. As long as health insurance remains optional, the young and the healthy will avoid paying in, and insurance companies will charge more to cover the relatively older and sicker population. And, without the mandatory coverage provision, other parts of the law—such as a ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions—wouldn’t work either, because they would encourage individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, which in turn would shift even greater costs onto everyone else.

Continue…

The Storm Cloud Democrats

By John Parisella - Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 3:28 PM - 4 Comments

Satirist Will Rogers once said he was “not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” Barack Obama must have understood exactly what Rogers meant after Senate Democrats voted 90 to 6 against his funding request for closing Gitmo.

In recent weeks, there have been grumblings from so-called Blue Dog—i.e., conservative—Democrats about government spending and deficits under the Obama plan. Some have also complained about Obama’s agricultural policies, environmental initiatives, and potential health care proposals. Is Obama about to encounter what Bill Clinton suffered when he, too, took office with control of both Houses of Congress? Recall that Clinton lost control of Congress at the following mid term elections. As a result, much of the Clinton Administration was saddled with compromise legislation for the rest of his presidency, one that failed to achieve its original promise. Is the same fate awaiting Obama?

Continue…

Cheney’s Impact

By John Parisella - Friday, May 22, 2009 at 4:59 PM - 20 Comments

As expected, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama squared off on Gitmo and national security on Thursday. Obama focused on fleshing out his plan for the coming weeks, standing resolutely behind his decision to close Gitmo while acknowledging there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to the inmate problem. ‘Obama the teacher’ was on display, as the president made the case for his decisions by appealing to reason and depending on facts. It is likely that his address reinforced in his voters the belief that closing Gitmo and ending torture is the right policy. Yet, Cheney’s continued crusade in favour of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and keeping Guantanamo has led to a substantial increase in the former vice-president’s popularity (up eight per cent to 37 per cent, according to CNN). Never mind that Bush and a significant number of Republicans—including John McCain—were leaning in the same direction as Obama on those issues.

Rising support among stalwart Republicans is likely behind Cheney’s increase in the polls. He is not certainly not prompting any widespread nostalgia for the Bush-Cheney years. However, the question now is whether Cheney might be motivating Obama’s policy on national security. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd seems to think so, and an increasing number of left-leaning Democrats are becoming concerned about some of Obama’s Gitmo-related policies. If Dowd is right, it would seem to have exposed a serious flaw in the White House’s planning process. There is an air of improvisation being detected by some observers. At first, it was Limbaugh, and it now seems to be Cheney that is driving the Obama agenda on national security. Continue…

The Next 100 Days

By John Parisella - Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 1:11 PM - 10 Comments

The reviews have been generally favourable to the Obama administration regarding the first 100 days. But despite the promising start, there is a downside to it—from now on, the administration will be primarily judged on the merits of its policies. Much of what Obama inherited was Bush-created and Bush-driven, but the stimulus package, the proposed budget and the new initiatives in foreign policy all bear his fingerprints. It is safe to say that the next 100 days will be more critical to the success or failure of the new administration .

Regarding the economy, the “glimmers of hope” remain just that. Expect unemployment to keep rising in the next quarter, followed by calls for a new stimulus package. It is clear that a second stimulus package will be considered in light of the proposed budget, which will already include substantial new spending and increase the deficit. Given this, the Republicans may finally get their act together and succeed in building opposition to additional stimulus. And Blue Dog (conservative) Democrats may suddenly resist in open revolt. It is also possible that more controversies such as the AIG bonuses (which were drastically underestimated in an earlier report) may actually polarize the population and turn it against the administration.

Continue…

Arlen Specter’s Bush bashing

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, May 5, 2009 at 10:26 AM - 0 Comments

Senator Arlen Specter’s sudden switch to President Barack Obama’s Democratic Party, after decades as a prominent Republican, has made him one of the most-watched politicians in Washington. Some saw Specter’s move as a pure bid for power and influence. But what does the guy stand for?  In this essay, submitted early enough that the New York Review of Books  still identifies him as “the Senior Republican United States Senator from Pennsylvania,” Specter  weighs in against George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping and the former president’s frequent use of so-called signing statements in order to disobey more than 750 statutes. Overall, it’s an impressive defence of the U.S. system of checks and balances.

The New York Review of Books

If I Were a Republican…

By John Parisella - Friday, May 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM - 8 Comments

I have been active in politics for over 30 years. I’ve been on the winning side of some elections and lost some others; I’ve seen the landscape from the mountaintop while exercising power, and gone through the desert while in opposition; I’ve organized leadership campaigns, managed referenda and election campaigns, and have myself run for office. You name it and I have done it. Through it all, I have always felt that what I was engaged in was noble and contributed in a modest way to improving our democratic institutions, so I am concerned when a democracy lacks the proper alternatives to make a wise decision. The US has steadfastly held to a stable two party system. But right now, if I were a Republican in the U.S., I would be worried. Moreover, if I were an American, I would be fearful about the quality of democratic debate in my country.

I would be worried that my party has prominent members like Rush Limbaugh, who polarize and marginalize my party by wishing that the Democratic president fail with little regard to the chaos that would result. I would also be concerned about Sarah Palin, who draws large crowds but has yet to put two coherent ideas together. I would be disappointed as well to see the GOP congressional leadership condemn and ridicule in a mean-spirited way the defection of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter to the Democrats. Never mind that the man has recently had two important bouts with cancer, is pushing 80 years old and has been a respectable Republican for 29 years. Limbaugh simply says, ‘Good riddance and bring McCain with you!’ (And lest we forget Newt Gingrich, who likes to gives lessons of morality to Bill Clinton hoping we will forget his own indiscretions.)

Continue…

Is the GOP softening its hard line on gay marriage?

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, April 29, 2009 at 6:18 PM - 0 Comments

As the Republican Party struggles to rebuild itself, party insiders are intimating its long-time opposition to gay marriage may be “more of a hindrance than a help,” the New York Times reports. The fact the recent legalization of gay unions in several states, among them Iowa, has met with little public backlash suggests a shift in national sentiment, says Steve Schmidt, a former strategist for John McCain. Indeed, where once the party’s position energized conservatives, it might now even alienate younger voters, says Schmidt. Other prominent Republicans are downplaying the issue, among them Rudy Giuliani who said recently that the “party does best organizing itself around economic issues and issues of national security.” Not that anyone expects a complete volte-face: social conservatives in Iowa are currently organizing to try to amend the state Constitution to restore the ban. But it’s clear the GOP’s focus on the issue is shifting along with the national mood: “I think it’s likely that all our candidates will be against gay marriage,” Schmidt said. “But the point is this: There should be a de-emphasis on this issue. This is not the most important issue facing the country.”

New York Times

Arlen Specter's defection and the big picture

By Jaime Weinman - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 at 5:11 PM - 11 Comments

The big news out of U.S. politics today is the announcement that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, elected to the U.S. Senate as a Republican in 1980, will leave the Republicans and run as a Democrat. Specter is doing this because it’s the only way for him to survive politically: he was almost certain to lose a primary challenge by a more conservative Republican. But his defection is further proof that the U.S. political system has changed. It used to be a wild, unpredictable system based more on regional interests than party affiliation. Now it’s something closer to, well, a system like ours.

For many years, the party a U.S. politician belonged to didn’t necessarily define how conservative or liberal his views were. Though the Democratic party was overall the more liberal party, it also included many conservative Democrats, plus what amounted to a sort of party-within-a-party in the form of the Southern “Dixiecrats.” The Republicans incorporated everything from hard-core right-wingers like Joe McCarthy to liberal Republicans from New England. Congressmen and Senators’ voting patterns couldn’t be predicted by checking party registration. And cross-party alliances were common; in the ‘60s, when Lyndon Johnson tried to pass Civil Rights legislation, he depended on a coalition of liberal Democrats and Republicans to pass it over the objections of the segregationist Southern Democrats.

As time went on, the parties started to become more ideologically consistent; Southern conservatives started to move from the Democrats to the Republicans, and New England started voting in more liberal Democrats to replace the old liberal Republicans. There were a few stragglers left, but they were wiped out in two big Congressional landslides: the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 by defeating nearly all the Democrats from conservative districts, and 12 years later the Democrats took back the House and Senate by beating Republicans from liberal areas (including all the remaining Republican Congressmen from New England). Today, even the most conservative Democrats are to the left of the average Republican, and while Specter was considered the most liberal Republican Senator, he was actually to the right of most Democrats: blogger Glenn Greenwald points out that “time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.” The U.S. now has a conservative party and a liberal party, with strict rules for membership.

That explains the fact, which TV pundits frequently bemoan, that there’s no more “bipartisanship” in the U.S. government. “Bipartisanship” was a relic from a time when politicians didn’t always vote along party lines, so they pushed bills through by making deals with other politicians who agreed with them. But now, politicians must vote with their party on just about everything; if they break on even one issue, as Specter did with the Republicans on the stimulus bill, then they’ll get taken down in the primaries. But more importantly, most politicians agree with their party on most issues; that’s why they got the nomination in the first place. The reason Obama’s stimulus package got almost unanimous support from Democrats and opposition from Republicans is that the Democrats agree with Obama and the Republicans don’t. In other words, the U.S. now has what amounts to a Parliamentary democracy, where each party votes along party lines. There’s nothing wrong with that, as Canada, Britain and many other countries can attest. Maybe the U.S. will get used to being more like Canada.

Barack Obama's 100 days of ‘change’

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Monday, April 27, 2009 at 10:00 PM - 2 Comments

In the span of 100 days in 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte escaped his exile on the island of Elba, regained the crown of emperor, and then went down to eventual defeat at the Battle of Waterloo. In 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt used his first 103 days in office to launch an array of emergency legislation that remade the American economy and created the New Deal—in the process drawing comparisons to the fast-moving Corsican. Since then, it has been a ritual to judge presidents on their first 100 days—the period when maximum energy pulsates through the White House, with a new president enjoying public support and still far enough away from congressional mid-term elections that he can get the tough things done.

George W. Bush’s first 100 days appeared competent, if modest: he launched an initiative to allow faith-based groups to access government money for social programs, abandoned the Kyoto Protocol, initiated an energy task force, and began the push for education reform and tax cuts. Bill Clinton’s first 100 days were rockier: he succeeded in pushing through Congress a massive budget in record time but became mired in controversies over cabinet appointments, gays in the military, and the ill-fated health care reform led by his wife. Continue…

What Obama’s hesitation means for Harper

By Paul Wells - Friday, April 24, 2009 at 1:30 PM - 36 Comments

One hundred days into his presidency—a landmark that will pass while this issue of Maclean’s is on newsstands—it’s easier to measure what Barack Obama won’t do, or what he hesitates to do, than to list all he has done. He’s been busy. But his hesitations may wind up mattering more than his bold actions.

Obama’s is already a consequential presidency. By moving to close the Guantánamo Bay prison and abandoning torture he’s shown he’s no George W. Bush. By embracing Europe, tolerating Hugo Chávez and trying to thaw relations with Cuba and Iran, he has shown the world a more conciliatory face. And by hammering open the spending taps, responding to a crisis of easy private money by inaugurating an era of easy public money, he has launched a thousand megaprojects.

Continue…

Civil Rights, 21st Century Style

By John Parisella - Tuesday, April 14, 2009 at 1:32 PM - 5 Comments

When JFK described the battle for civil rights for African Americans  as a moral issue back in the 1960s, he set in motion a movement that proved irreversible. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation may have ended slavery, but it did not grant equality between the races. Over the next century, judicial decisions, executive orders and, finally, legislative initiatives gradually provided the framework for true equality. Kennedy’s statement did much to push reform forward. More importantly, it made it the right thing to do.

With the debate over same sex marriage entering a new phase in light of  the Iowa State Supreme Court’s ruling favouring gay civil marriage and the Vermont legislature’s move to make same sex marriage legal, we would do well to remember JFK ‘s call for moral leadership. Promoting gay rights, marriage-related or otherwise, is as essential to civil rights in the 21st century as ending segregation was to the epic struggle of the previous two centuries—not so much in its ramifications, but in its inherent appeal to justice and equality. Continue…

The Obamas are looking for a new church in Washington…

By macleans.ca - Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM - 13 Comments

As Easter approaches, and nearly a year after a divisive break from their Chicago church and the politically toxic sermons of its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, the Obamas are in need of a church near in their new home base. Aides and close friends of the family have been quietly checking Washington churches on a shortlist, including Foundry United Methodist (choice of the Clintons), attending services, speaking with pastors, reverends and rectors and reporting back to the Obamas, said one White House source familiar with the search. For the first black President, the selection carries racial ramifications: should he choose a majority white church, blacks may be upset; should he choose a predominantly black church, whites may fear a repeat of the Wright debacle. Whatever the choice, the church itself may not welcome it: the honour brings gigantic logistical problems. The president’s massive motorcade would have to be accommodated; dozens of Secret Service agents would be needed to secure the site; and parishioners would be forced to pass through metal detectors or be hand-checked before entering.

Washington Times

Obama promises education overhaul

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM - 2 Comments

In the first major education address of his presidency, Barack Obama called for a complete overhaul of the country’s public education system. “The relative decline of American education in untenable for our economy, unsustainable for our democracy, and unacceptable for our children,” he told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday. Though teachers unions have long opposed the idea of merit-pay, Obama continued his support for the measure, which he said “can make a difference in the classroom.” His proposals include extended school days and years for students, boosting the proportion of college graduates to the highest in the world by 2020. Improving education won’t come cheap. His economic stimulus plan sets aside $5 billion to expand the Head Start program and a $5-billion incentive fund to reward states for raising the bar.

Associated Press

Say no to Rush

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 11:00 AM - 0 Comments

“Our party seems to be running to govern a country that no longer exists,” David Frum writes of the Republicans in a scathing essay for Newsweek. And Rush Limbaugh is leading the Republicans’ charge into political oblivion, according to Frum. By embodying the very stereotypes that have left the party grasping at a dwindling base of voters, Limbaugh’s only success is in further marginalizing the party, ensuring that its appeal is limited to white, socially-conservative males with a deep-rooted mistrust in government. If the GOP hopes to one day regain control of the White House,
Frum argues it will first need to develop a platform that better reflects contemporary realities. That is, Republicans will need to update their messaging on climate change, revisit their views on gay marriage, and abandon their monolithic opposition to pro-choice candidates. Most of all, though, Republicans will need to learn to embrace new ideas rather than instinctively retreat from them. “Instead,” Frum glumly concludes, “we are accepting the leadership of a man with an ego-driven agenda of his own, who looms largest when his causes fare worst.”

Newsweek

The Love Affair With Obama

By John Parisella - Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 1:11 PM - 11 Comments

I am not surprised that Canadians are getting caught up in the hype surrounding Barack Obama. Personally, I have already been invited to present six conferences since his election to discuss the ‘Obama Effect.’ Why is this? Have we suddenly fallen for the rock star glamour surrounding his success? It is all a bit odd, considering polls taken in Canada at this time a year ago seemed to favour Hillary Clinton.

To some, his popularity in Canada should be seen as an indictment of our current political class. After all, no party leader in Canada is polling above 35 per cent; no provincial leader is considered an emerging PM—in fact, I know few Canadians who can name all ten premiers; and the federal cabinet is virtually anonymous. To others, this seemingly invisible and unexciting political class is consistent with the nature of our country: boring, overly polite, and reluctant to boast about its achievements. Fareed Zakaria’s column in Newsweek addresses this perception of Canada as the “boring neighbor to the north.” In it, Zakaria describes our country as a model of good governance, lauds our still-imperfect health care system as superior to the US model, and acknowledges that our more reliable and secure banking system is a source of greater financial stability. An American journalist praising Canada on the eve of a visit by the most popular American president in recent memory? Wow! Not bad for a political class that no one really cares for or gets enthused about.

Continue…

Follow the money

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM - 0 Comments

Michael Ignatieff was on to something when he demanded those progress reports from Stephen Harper. A new American website—www.shovelwatch.org—promises to dutifully track Obama’s US$838-billion stimulus package. Says the homepage: “With investigative reporting, interactive features, and (not least) help from you, we’ll be tracking the stimulus bill dollars as they travel from Congress to your neighborhood. With your help, we’ll make sure that one of the biggest, fastest appropriations ever has a big, fast army to track whether it is well spent.” ShovelWatch is a joint project of the non-profit investigative outfit ProPublica, the morning news program The Takeaway, and WNYC, New York’s flagship public radio station.
 
ShovelWatch

Everybody still hates the arts

By macleans.ca - Monday, February 9, 2009 at 9:20 AM - 1 Comment

The U.S. Senate is still looking for stuff they can cut from the economic stimulus package without getting into trouble. So they’ve found at least one thing that nobody cares about or likes: the arts. By a vote of 72 to 24, the Senate voted to exclude any funding for museums, theatres, art galleries or other places where Senators don’t enjoy spending their time. This vote ensures that money will not be spent on “wasteful and non-stimulative projects.” Because everyone knows that funding the arts doesn’t create jobs; all that work is done by magic pixies.

Los Angeles Times

The case for protectionism (Yes, there is one)

By macleans.ca - Friday, February 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM - 8 Comments

Outrage over the latest “Buy America” push is so widespread you might think there’s no argument worth hearing from the other side. But here it is. Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, argues that without true global coordination of stimulus, the country spending the most (i.e., America) has a good short-term case for protectionism. Meanwhile, the Guardian’s economics editor draws a hard-edged lesson from history: “The real lesson of the 1930s is that if you think protectionism is in the offing, it makes sense to raise your barriers first.”

nytimes.com

The Guardian

Sarah Palin's life lessons

By macleans.ca - Friday, February 6, 2009 at 9:25 AM - 10 Comments

In an interview with Esquire, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin waxes authentic about campaign trail regrets, her secret chili ingredient (mooseburger) and those pesky journalists. The Alaska governor says she wishes she had told the campaign that she’d be “callin’ some of the shots” when she accepted the candidacy. Pleading with media to “let it go,” she says her ability to see Russian from Alaska is “a factual statement that was taken out of context and mocked.”

Esquire

Ending the “war on terror” (the catchphrase, that is)

By macleans.ca - Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM - 0 Comments

In yet another attempt to distance itself from the ways of George W. Bush, the Obama White House is quietly searching for alternatives to the term “war on terror.” In recent days, the President’s national security team has reportedly conducted brainstorming sessions to come up with different ways to describe the U.S. government’s efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Obama apparently wants a “more precise phase” that better describes the government’s ideological and military objectives. “Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we’re going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds,” he said recently. A few years ago, the State and Defense departments suggested an alternative—“Struggle Against Violent Extremism” (SAVE)—but Bush didn’t like it. Now that Obama is in charge, SAVE could be saved.

Newsweek

Macleans.ca: Fair enough: If it’s not a “War on Terror,” what is it?

We used to be friends?

By macleans.ca - Monday, February 2, 2009 at 9:42 AM - 0 Comments

In his inaugural address, Barack Obama promised “the Muslim world” he would “seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” Then, in his interview with al-Arabiya, Obama insisted on the need to “restore” the “same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.” Do the U.S. president’s remarks represent the first few steps on a bold and innovative path? Hardly, argues Charles Krauthammer in a column for the Washington Post. To start, the U.S. relationship with the Muslim world over the past few decades has been decidedly one-sided, according to Krauthammer. All five military interventions the U.S. has participated in over that time have involved the “liberation of a Muslim people” and the very fact of Obama’s election—”our first president of Muslim parentage”—shows just how benevolent Americans have been, even in the wake of 9/11. Meanwhile, these past 30 years have seen the Muslim world repeatedly rebuke the U.S—from the attack on the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, to the Arab oil embargo earlier that same decade, to the anti-American riots of recent years, there are simply no “halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations” to speak of, writes Krauthammer. “It is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.”

The Washington Post

How much more U.S. debt can the world swallow?

By macleans.ca - Friday, January 30, 2009 at 10:40 AM - 10 Comments

As Americans ask whether President Obama’s US$819 billion stimulus package is enough, the rest of the world wants an answer to another niggling question: Where will all the money come from? The Congressional Budget Office recently forecast Washington will run up a US$1.2 trillion deficit next year, while independent forecasters peg the figure much higher. By some estimates America will need to borrow US$10 trillion over the next decade. Watching all of this warily are foreign central banks and investors who already own more than half of America’s debt, and will be asked to buy more. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, many are beginning to wonder how much more U.S. debt the world can swallow, according to the New York Times. One worry is that America’s hunger for cash will squeeze out other countries as they try to borrow to fund their own stimulus plans. Another is that the U.S. will be forced to print more money, thus driving up inflation and interest rates. One U.S. official tried to be reassuring. As soon as the economy bounces back, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett said, the country would “restore fiscal responsibility and return to a sustainable economic path.”

New York Times