The newest employment numbers were just announced and they’re good: Employers created close to 200,000 jobs in February, and the unemployment rate dipped below the psychologically-important 9% mark, to 8.9%.

Supporters of President Obama’s heavy Government spending/interventionist economic approach and stimulus policies will be quick to point out that we’re finally seeing the net-positive payoffs of that strategy. First those policies pulled us back from the brink and prevented another Great Depression. Now those policies are creating economic growth, creating new jobs and lowering unemployment.

Detractors of President Obama’s economic approach will be just as quick to opine that his heavy-handed economic tack has slowed the recovery, not accelerated it. By embarking on Government spending of historic proportions, Obama has burdened America with an unserviceable, unsustainable debt that reduces (if not eliminates!) our country’s continuing ability to be a credit-worthy player in the Global economy. Our Fed’s Quantitative Easing (“loose money”) policies have lowered interest rates in hopes of spurring lending/borrowing activity, but in the backlash of Fannie-Freddie, such increased activity—and therefore the subsequent manufacturing, transportation, retailing, advertising, servicing, etc. enterprises that usually follow—has utterly failed to materialize. Worse, the Fed’s actions have lowered interest rates to near zero, leaving the Government with no economic ‘bullets in the chamber’ for future situations, and devastating those who rely on fixed interest-rate incomes—the people who can least afford it.

But the most alarming repercussion of Obama’s reckless deficit-spending strategy has been the almost total destruction of the dollar on the world’s currency market. As I said in an article last November:

When a Government piles up big debt that it has no realistic chance of paying back in a sane timeframe, then that Government’s “customers” (its international trading partners) lose confidence in them. The debt-ridden country’s currency (in this case the dollar) loses value relative to other currencies, because the world thinks—correctly—that the dollar is now representative of a weaker economy.

This is a very simple, direct, and accurate summation of what has happened to the dollar.

But now it gets worse: The IMF (the International Monetary Fund, an organization that keeps track of international financial relations, trading, loans between countries, currency valuations, etc.), is recommending that the world move away from having the dollar as its standard reserve currency and move instead to a new ‘global’ currency, similar to the Euro, only on a global basis.

The IMF says, “….having a true global currency would facilitate world trade, it would make currency wars less likely, it would stabilize the global economy and it would make the rest of the globe less reliant on what is going on in the United States.”

The problem with this is that this ‘global currency’ would be based on fractions of existing currencies, and those currencies would vie for influence on the global currency. Presently, it’s proposed that such a currency be comprised of the U.S. Dollar: 41.9%, the Euro: 37.4%, the Japanese Yen: 9.4%, and the British Pound: 11.3%. But Russia, Brazil, China, and India want representation also. As the exchange rates between these currencies fluctuate, and as the very composition of the global currency shifts, its value relative to any nation’s currency would rise and fall, with commensurately unpredictable effects and ramifications on a given country’s economy.

All of this is a real possibility because Obama’s deficit spending has wrecked the dollar on the world currency market and has opened the possibility of the IMF moving away from the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Those effects are being felt right now at the gas pump, and it will ripple through our economy as transportation, heating, and farming/food production costs explode.

Uninformed observers will likely say, “What rotten luck—oil prices are rising and Libya is imploding just as the US economy is rebounding. It’s not fair.”

Luck has nothing to do with it. We have no national energy policy. For purely arbitrary reasons of political pandering, we currently restrict our own ability to explore and produce oil here in America, leaving us even more vulnerable to the uncertainty of foreign-produced oil. Political unrest in foreign oil-producing countries is a constant, not a variable. It is one of the four pillars of world oil pricing:

1. Supply and demand
2. Exploration and extraction
3. Refining capacity and distribution efficiency
4. Geo-political unrest

Libya is in the no. 4 category. Next week will be another Nigerian pipeline sabotage. The week after that will be another Hugo Chavez outburst. The week after that will be another meeting of the OPEC ministers where they restrict their output. No. 4 is a constant, and to not plan for it is sheer idiocy on our part.

To recklessly spend our way into national insolvency to the point where the dollar is crippled on the world’s currency market only makes matters worse.

Yet, instead, this administration wastes its time pontificating on their decision not to defend the DOMA law, or injecting itself into local issues like the Ground Zero mosque or the Wisconsin teachers’ union matter or declaring that crazed Muslim gunmen who kill Americans in Germany and Texas while shouting “Allah Akbar!” are not terrorists, lest we ‘jump to conclusions.’ They run up our debt to unimaginable proportions by producing things like “Obamacare,” which will add unnecessary and unpredictable expense and bureaucratic inefficiency to our medical system to the point where it’s no longer recognizable.

This is Administration incompetence and mismanagement on an almost incomprehensible level. It’s getting to the point where long-term 7-9% unemployment, $4.00/gal gasoline, an unwillingness to protect our borders and restrict illegal immigration, and political correctness run amuck for no tangible benefit are the norm.

Is there a different politician—Republican or Democrat—who can reverse this runaway national train wreck? We should be so lucky.

Comments