House Appropriations Subcommittee meeting with Timothy Geithner
Today the committee met to discuss the budget request for international financial institutions from the Treasury Department, headed by Secretary Geithner. The funds would be used, according to both the Secretary and the members of the committee, for debt relief, funding emerging countries, immunizations, fighting global warming, creating American jobs and to further our influence among emerging economies around the world. These institutions include the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund among others. The result of not providing funding to the WB, IMF and others will be a lessening of our international influence and the replacement of our influence by that of China. This is according to those on the panel and the Secretary alike. Why is this important and why should we question it?
I also don’t trust Secretary Geithner’s reliance upon massive institutions. Here is a man who was President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, a Republican (until Clinton appointed him when he changed his party affiliation to independent, how convenient) and the author of the bank bailouts, starting with AIG. What a great job he did, especially if you are one of the recipients of the 165 million dollars subsequently handed out in bonuses within AIG. Appointed by President Bush he was kept by our current Administration. His program of the bailout was so unpopular among the American people; the original vote in Congress didn’t pass the first time due to pressure from voters. The authors of the bailout had to add pork spending and political weight to get it to pass against the will of the people. Does this sound like an expert’s opinion we should rely upon? Does he sound like he is respecting the people’s will as a public servant? He would say, and has said as much in various testimonies in front of Congress, that the financial elite know better than we do but how many recessions, how much inflation will it take to realize they are only managing their mistakes, not the economy.
First of all, this is theft. Our government has no right to forcibly take our money and choose how to spend it abroad. They don’t even have the right to take our money to spend arbitrarily within our borders. For an example of this, please read the following story. http://davycrockettstory.org/ The justifications used to take our money don’t hold water anyway. For one, Secretary Geithner claims the value of every dollar that they ASK the tax payers to put up is most effectively used in these international financial institutions. I don’t remember anyone asking me if it was okay! He should have said every dollar we TAKE from the American taxpayer, which would have at least been honest. The claim that our international influence is reliant upon gifts to international financial institutions seems idiotic to me. This is true if the only way to spread our power of financial business deals such as loans remains within the structure of international organizations such as the IMF or World Bank. I find this difficult to believe. During the American Revolution we had to convince countries that we were a worthy risk in order to get loans. We didn’t need anyone mediating the request. I fail to see why we do now. When we pass control of our influence to a foreign or international power, we weaken our ability to procure financial gains from such dealings. Notwithstanding the current attacks on private industry, profit motivates companies to provide the best goods and services beyond the capability of any government. As Secretary Geithner voiced several times, the restrictions and requirements we place upon our support of these international organizations are not written by Congress in fact. They are drafted within Congress and then “negotiated” with the international organizations. So now the power of control attached to the expenditure of our tax dollars by our own government is bypassed. Does this sound like the policy of a liberty loving nation? Theft of the people’s money, relinquishing authority over the use of those funds, and illegal collaboration with international institutions not beholden to the will of the voters who are forced to make financial contributions; these are the factors we should remember and not the touting of humanitarianism they would rather you listen to.
One of the “threats” made against a failure to re-fund the institutions in question is that America will find China jumping in to make these loans. The problem with this situation is that China will act according to their own goals and gains. What a concept! So let me get this straight, China could act without some international coalition but we can’t? Furthermore, is it evil to engage in a foreign policy, trade or international business with the goal of self-preservation and advancement? Is it impossible to imagine American companies going abroad on their own and competing in the world market for the opportunity to help young nations by providing financial services? It seems likely that Americans would directly support such institutions which provided a market for profit by assisting emerging countries in developing trade opportunities and strong economies. By the Secretary’s own admission, the IMF is out of funds after giving all the money away during the recent recession and now needs more money. Let’s think about that for a second. WE gave them money we really didn’t have (since we run deficits) and they spent it to bail out countries where economies collapsed due to the financial ties to our system. Now they need us to spend more money we don’t have in order to be able to loan more money to nations that will be financially tied to our future success or failure. Seems to me this is a no-win deal for both parties. We go broke propping up foreign and local economies with fake money, we go broke by spending money we don’t have, and then end up borrowing more money (from China mostly!) to bail out those countries as well as ourselves. We are risking the future of our country while paying interest on money to loan, at no profit, to emerging economies. Is there some new form of logic of which I am unaware? Of course this idiocy is still supported by our government; to withdraw support would be to admit the failure of the system of theft they built against us!
Another threat used to garner support for further support of the IMF and World Bank is the ability they have to break trade barriers. Who is implementing these trade barriers that only an international organization can break? Who is telling the U.S. where we can and can’t trade? What overseas body places limits on American companies with regards to doing business overseas? Besides the over-reaching and negative influence of our own government, is there anyone outside our borders who can tell us what to do legally? I can certainly understand that national security would prevent American companies from selling military hardware or other products to countries who are openly hostile against our nation. However, I doubt such limitations are what the IMF and World Bank are overcoming. What happened to the idea of free trade? Could it be that the trade restrictions are only in place to make the free market ineffective, or to put it another way, to create the very reliance they are seeking to further? I would think it is either that or just another example of our government getting in the way of industry for some other idiotic reason. When did America become so dependent that we handed over the economy to our government? How is this transfer of financial control American? How well has our economy done since allowing political motivations to cloud the clarity needed in financial decisions? I would argue we have seen nothing but debt, inflation, inefficiency, theft, waste, abuse and a weakened country as well.
Our country should not seek to influence the world through governmental theft and arbitrary dealings. Our country should promote the ideals of liberty through allowing a free market to best serve the interests of its participants. These emerging countries could provide a financial boost to our economy if we would allow it. The alliances made should benefit our country and its citizens, not some international debacle which teaches these new governments that money is practically free. The very restrictions which profit brings into any business deal would provide a foundation for these new countries that would be based in reality instead of the current system of hand outs. When questioned about the fraud, abuse, and benefits to the elite ruling classes of new nations, Secretary Geithner could only say that they were getting better. He could not deny the amount of fraud taking place in the IMF and World Bank and instead chose to just say it was improving. Once again, we are allowing politicians to build a system reliant on tax payers but ultimately serving the aspirations of the elite class of the world. I have no problem with a CEO making millions off of investments abroad. At least they are held accountable by their shareholders and other officers within the company, not to mention the law. I should mention our government is not beholden to the law, they just change it when they want new powers or fewer restrictions. We are told they need the additional power in order to take care of us or protect us. This is the basis for the ridiculous argument that our constitution is a living document that allows politicians to both take away the liberties acknowledged therein and grant themselves powers far beyond the scope of the federal government founded in this country. I have a serious issue with someone taking my money, spending as they choose, forcing out private competition and then justifying the existence of their programs with self-proclaimed importance. When America remembers the government isn’t the best or only way to accomplish goals such as foreign aid we will be far better off. We could save not only money but perhaps our reputation as a free nation. Our involvement in the IMF and World Bank does not reflect the values of our history based on freedom. They only reflect our dependence on the government and the restrictions placed on private business in order to foster such dependence.
No comments:
Post a Comment