Recently in China Category

Something very important has been missing from the debate about fiscal stimulus. There are two really good reasons to oppose the Obama stimulus bill.

First, it's got be to just about the most hasty and poorly thought-out piece of legislation ever to come out of the US Congress. (Isn't it ironic that it also happens to be the biggest expansion of government spending ever?) This bill is so full of waste, earmarks and pork-barrel spending that Obama will have to use all his charm and deception to blow it past the American people.

Second, and this is what you hear from a lot of Congressional Republicans, the bill expands the Federal deficit tremendously.

It's being suggested by many sharp observers that global investors (like the Chinese) will be unwilling to fund this stimulus package, and will demand much higher interest rates on US debt.

Not quite. This deficit will be a lot easier to fund than many people think. It's what comes later on that we have to worry about.

Obama has been walking back his rhetoric on trade protectionism. Specifically, the "Buy American" clause in the fiscal stimulus bill now under debate in the Senate.

Think about it. We're getting ready to borrow trillions of dollars that our children will need to repay some day. We're going to give it to the governors of the fifty states, to spend on teacher salaries, Medicare and Medicaid, condoms, candy and bubble gum, new paint and computers for government buildings, a vast array of left-wing spending priorities, and a small number of roads and bridges.

Doesn't it make sense to keep as much of that money here, and keep it from leaking out to other countries?

Well, the $650 million that Nancy Pelosi wanted to spend on condoms would just have to leak away. Condoms are made in China. But what about the steel and other building materials for the roads and bridges? Doesn't it make sense to reserve as much as that spending as possible for American companies?

Ask your average person on the street, or certain Democratic Senators, and the answer would be some hyper-vigorous form of YES.