An article by Paul Willcocks in the Victoria Times Colonist today caught my attention. While we all know our President urged the major hitters in the game of global finance to continue to stimulate the global economy by more money printing and borrowing (from whom now becomes the question), here’s Willcocks’ view of the summits:

“The big G8/G20 summits in Ontario look like a ripoff. The three days of meetings cost Canada $1.1 billion. That's about $32 for every one of us; $128 for a family of four.

“In return we got mostly bad publicity, thuggery, mass arrests, a sneak violation of citizens' rights and statements of good intentions from the world leaders.

“It's useful for the presidents and prime ministers to gather and exchange ideas and concerns. Even better if they come up with agreements on a co-ordinated approach to problems. But it's bizarre that the leaders had to bring 8,000 other people along to talk about the importance of reducing deficits.

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the ugly scenes in Toronto -- windows smashed, three police cars set on fire -- justified security spending of almost $1 billion.

“Among the thousands of protesters, a few hundred were violent. Their actions and locations were predictable. Yet the security measures were inadequate.

“What about the results? Look at a couple of issues. The leaders were trying to figure out how to deal with government deficits and debt.

“Some wanted dramatic deficit reductions immediately; others feared that would slow -- and maybe halt -- the economic recovery. They agreed to cut their deficits in half from current levels by 2013 and stabilize their debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016.

“Or more accurately, they agreed that would be a good idea, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

“Deficits are a problem. Like families, governments that borrow have to pay interest. Choices today mean fewer options for coming generations.

“But government spending -- like Canada's infrastructure fund -- eased the impact of the recession by providing jobs. Cut spending too rapidly, and citizens are hurt and the economy suffers.

“It was striking that all the coverage viewed this as a commitment by the governments to cut spending.

“That's not what the agreement said. It talked about reducing deficits, which could also be accomplished by raising government revenues -- collecting more in taxes or royalties.”

Well, yes, I agree that taxes are necessary to fund government, Mr. Willcocks, but the deficits can also be reduced by less spending. Duh.

Yesterday’s DOW dive into the 9000 range proves, once again, that investors are concerned about the track this President and his Congress are on…obviously fueled by more rioting in Greece and instability in Asian markets as China’s earnings were down from prior estimates.

I don’t know if Obama is living on this planet or in a parallel backward universe, but his performance in Toronto leads me to conclude the latter as unemployment increased in June and he wants to jam a cap and trade measure through which will cost us hundreds of billions more in energy.

Ed Hahnenberg

• ejjhpiano's blog
• Login or register to post comments