Forget North Korea – Stimulus Spending Creating New National Security Issue
Missing in the shrill debate between massive spending programs versus mortgaging our grandchildren’s future is what all of that new debt means to our national sovereignty, according to a retired Naval Intelligence expert and commercial banker.
“The North Korean threat, while of great concern, is not as problematic as the media suggests, said retired Navy intelligence expert Mike Green, author of espionage novel Path of Thunder, a September 2009 release from Peacemaker Productions. “Yes, Kim Jong Il has demonstrated nuclear capabilities, but he knows the outcome of a nuclear exchange with the United States. So, North Korea will surely continue to rattle sabers and make threats, hoping for more tribute, but will fall short of ‘pushing the button’. And we are already addressing the containment of his sales of weapons and technology.”
Green believes that US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner’s new direction with China represents a portentous change in our relationship.”We are leveraging of our national sovereignty.”
“A few weeks ago, Mr. Geitner visited China on a mission to obtain Chinese funding of unbridled deficit spending,” Green said. “As our primary creditor already, China has been asked to significantly increase its nearly one trillion dollar investment, taking a long term role in the capitalization of our deficit – at a time when China has publicly expressed reservations about where we are headed with our spending. China’s assumption of strategic investment risks on that scale ultimately makes them our de-facto partner, not just our primary creditor. ”
“No decision maker in China believes in the ‘American Dream,’” Green said. “So the $64,000 question is: ‘What’s in it for China?’ “The risk to us is that China inevitably gets either real or implied oversight over our national budgeting process, and I believe that is exactly what China wants.”
China already has considerable leverage over the United States because of its primary creditor role, Green added.
“We are China’s largest client for manufactured goods, and the Obama administration will most likely insist that we need each other,” he said.
“We simply have an expanding symbiotic relationship.”
“It’s not that simple. Down the road a few years when another emerging market, India perhaps, becomes the darling investment for China, the dump of Treasuries into the global markets would be catastrophic for our economy – we would need to raise interest rates to unsustainable levels in order to attract investors, and without them our government would collapse. Then who would be in control?”
Green also fears China would be able to influence US budgetary spending decisions.
“What’s preventing from China whispering in our ear, ‘You really don’t need that new generation of aircraft carriers? We think you can’t afford it.
Besides, our new aircraft carriers will take up the slack.’”
A huge percentage of our industrial capacity has already moved to China, so another of Green’s concerns is that as the US systematically
dismantles much of what’s left, we risk losing our ability of produce much of anything anymore, including strategic defense systems.
“There is an epic irony here.” Green says in conclusion.”The federal government was established for two primary purposes – national defense and a common currency to facilitate commerce between the states. It is stunning to consider that those two fundamentals are being marginalized for the sake of all else that the federal government is doing now. Simply put: We’ve lost our way- we need to get back to basics.”
Tags: Debate, National Defense, Nuclear Exchange