creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
25 May 2012
The Unraveling Myth of Watergate

It was, they said, the crime of the century. An attempted coup d'etat by Richard Nixon, stopped by two … Read More.

22 May 2012
What If Zimmerman Walks Free?

Three months ago, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Handcuffed,… Read More.

18 May 2012
Has the Bell Begun to Toll for the GOP?

Among the more controversial chapters in "Suicide of a Superpower," my book published last fall, … Read More.

The Day of the Hobbits

Share Comment

Mocked by The Wall Street Journal and Sen. John McCain as the little people of the "Lord of the Rings" books, the Tea Party "Hobbits" are indeed returning to Middle Earth — to nail the coonskin to the wall.

As even the Journal concedes, the final deal to raise the debt ceiling, worked out by Sen. Mitch McConnell and Barack Obama, backed by Speaker John Boehner, is "The Triumph of the Tea Party."

The Hobbits demanded that the GOP do battle over the debt ceiling, that it not raise the ceiling without equal spending cuts, that the party accept no taxes.

They got it all. The deal cuts spending by $900 billion and raises the debt ceiling an equal amount. It mandates further cuts of $1.5 trillion, to be agreed on by Thanksgiving by a congressional commission of 12, and for those cuts to be voted up or down.

If the commission fails to agree — seven votes are needed — cuts of $1.2 trillion must be made, half from defense. Any Medicare cuts are restricted to providers, not beneficiaries.

What did liberals get? Nothing.

What did Obama get?

He demanded a "clean" debt-ceiling hike. When the GOP said no, he demanded a "balanced approach" — tax hikes commensurate with spending cuts. Again, the GOP said no. Again, he capitulated.

Obama was tossed one crumb in his appeal that he not be forced to fight the Tea Party again in his re-election year. Democrats surrendered on substance and yielded on policy for "peace in our time."

Ronald Reagan demanded 18 increases in the debt ceiling in eight years, one every six months. He got them all. Obama asked for a two-year truce and, in return, accepted what the head of the Black Caucus calls a "Satan sandwich."

The mainstream media claim that Tea Party intransigence lost the GOP the propaganda war. But if the left believes that, why would they be afraid of a re-enactment of their victory in 2012?

Some in the Tea Party were willing to go over the cliff and take the federal government with them. But liberals have lost the stomach for such a fight. Listening to the cable blow-by-blow, have you noticed?

There are no liberals anymore. They have changed their name. They are all "progressives" now.

When the right was in ill repute in post-Goldwater days, never did it abandon its birth name, "conservatives."

Yet, in celebrating, Republicans and the Tea Party true believers need to know: This country is not out of the woods.

Far from it.

Standard & Poor's has looked at the deal, less than $3 trillion in cuts over 10 years of budgets already bumping up against $4 trillion a year, and concluded: The U.S. government has failed.

An S&P downgrade of our triple-A bond rating may be at hand.

And last week came news that, instead of the anticipated 1.8 percent growth in the second quarter of 2011, growth came in at 1.4 percent. More shocking, the first quarter's 1.9 percent growth was revised downward to 0.4 percent.

Thus, in the first half of 2011, America grew at an annual rate of less than 1 percent — not enough to create the jobs needed for those entering the workforce, let alone for the 16 percent of workers now unemployed or underemployed.

This anemic January-to-July figure means that growth in fiscal year 2012, which begins in October, will be lower than projected, as will the tax revenues flowing into the Treasury.

Bottom line: Despite the debt-ceiling battle that convulsed this city, the final deal will achieve neither the deficit nor debt reduction we thought. Notwithstanding the Tea Party victory, we continue drifting toward the falls.

And as that happy warrior of the political battlefield, Ron Paul, reminds us, we are inevitably going over — into default.

Only that default will not take the dramatic form of a U.S. refusal to redeem T-bills or halt interest payments on Treasury bonds.

We Americans are not going the Argentine route.

Rather, we will, as we are doing today, slowly destroy the value of our dollar as an international medium of exchange. Unlike Greece, which cannot print euros to pay debts, we can print dollars to service ours.

Beijing will made to accept dollars of a purchasing power far less than that of the dollars they lent to us. We are going to cheat them.

Already this year, the dollar has lost 30 percent of its value against the Swiss franc and plunged against the yen and Canadian dollar. And in The Wall Street Journal, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein celebrates the news that the dollar is slowly dying, for it means that U.S. exports are that much cheaper for foreigners to buy.

One wonders what men like Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower would think of a 21st century America whose elites rejoice in the news that the U.S. dollar is less valued and less respected in the world than in the America they fought to defend.

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
-----Rockefeller front CNP member, Knights of Malta (Freemasonry) member,
former Nixon/Kissinger sideman durign the very height of the RED China sellout
and TREASON op ---'REAL conservative' Buchanan continues to BALK the issue.

------------------------------4 decades of systematic TREASON-----------------------------------
Comment: #1
Posted by: free bee
Mon Aug 1, 2011 9:47 PM
This is a good perspective on current events. President Obama actually looked strong on Tuesday when he broke into The Price is Right for his speech. Usually, he gives the impression of being out of his depth. I always used to question why Bill Clinton was considered a genius. Rhodes scholar? Come on, he's no Kris Kristopherson. Consequently, when W ran, a man I respect who I view as both smart and decent, I suspected that PR people advised, "Look, women and blacks are not going to go for a self assured, strong, intelligent white guy. Play dumb and maybe they will let you be President." "He's not smarter than us, we only let him be President," would be the attidue of the public. So the game continues with Obama. In a country where the only people who actually prove they are superior are kick boxers and basketball stars, what will be next? Here is our 2012 candidate, a block of cheese.
Well, about the tea party, I think we need more statistics. Who exactly are these people? When black radicals and Bill Mahar claim the tea party is comprised of racists, it is almost plausible. I loved the statistic in a previous article about 63 percent of citizens are paying mortgages. I had wondered about that statistic for awhile. We see Suze Orman on PBS glibly talking to an audience of people with "$20,000 emergency savings" and "250,000 in retirement savings." Even Beck one day on his old TV show mentioned how a person in Manhattan working at a bank earning $250,000 a year could barely make ends meet. Excuse me? These people do not realize that we have a large class of working poor now, and we need the statistics, but I think the working poor class would be very large and, in fact, dangerous if they ever turned off Desperate Housewives or Survivor long enough to pay attention. God help us if the buckets of chicken or the pizzas ever stop.
My point is that with statistics we will see who is who. What percentage of the tea party crowd are working poor and what percentage are well off with corporate jobs, medical insurance, college funds for kids, and well stocked 401k plans? Are twenty percent the rich middle class hoping to not give up any of their hoarded amounts? Are eighty percent actually not middle class looking to hold onto assets but true working poor who will lose their houses if they lose their jobs? Or, is the entire tea party filled with only the rich middle class not wanting to give up what they grabbed since 1989, the year Reagan left office? We need clearer definitions.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Mike Hayne
Tue Aug 2, 2011 9:14 PM
Re: Mike Hayne Why is the legitimacy of a political movement dependent on "clearer definitions" as to how poor or rich its members are? You seem poised to accept tea partiers as entitled to exert political influence or dismiss them as selfish, depending on which of your socioeconomic profiles they fall into. If you're conditioning the legitimacy of a political cause on the balance sheet of its members, you might consider: within the faction whose take of other peoples money consistently exceeds their own contributions, there are surely some who got their by no fault of their own. Just as surely, there will be some within that faction whose own irresponsibility created their circumstances, making the political coalitions they form in order to shake down others questionable. If we're conditioning the exercise of political rights on what profile one falls into, we might question the political impact by those who consistently vote themselves other peoples money while vigorously exercising the right to govern those they shook down. Some liberals characterize the tea party's principled stance as political blackmail. They fail to recognize that political rights are exercised not so much to govern others, but so that one will not be misgoverned by others. Doubtless, every political movement attracts all kinds to its ranks, and it's hard to sort out the motives and backgrounds of all its members, but why engage in this exercise at all? Shouldn't a cause be evaluated on the merits of its arguments rather than the socioeconomic profiling of its members?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Richard S
Wed Aug 3, 2011 7:44 AM
"Mocked by The Wall Street Journal and Sen. John McCain as the little people of the "Lord of the Rings" books, the Tea Party "Hobbits" are indeed returning to Middle Earth — to nail the coonskin to the wall."

"coonskin"?

Once I got past that statement, I'd have to, for the most part, agree with Mr. Buchanan's assessment.

However, he's more than old and savvy enough to understand that though Mr. Obama is one-half Caucasian, utilizing the word 'coon' in any of its incarnations harkens back to a dark and malicious time in our history.

Mr. Buchanan is absolutely right on the money concerning Mr. Obama's capitulation. He's also correct that Liberals are playing word games.

What he fails to mention is the culpability the Repubicans have in all of this.

As a 'political movement', The Tea Party is a force to be reckoned with. But like the current lineup of Republican Presidential hopefuls, they're scattered and not nearly focused enough. Perhaps it's time to call it what it truly is or needs to be, a political party.

Mr. Buchanan fails to understand that some of us Conservatives of Color, would love nothing more than some of what he advocates. But I cannot and WILL NOT stand idly by and allow such bigoted, prejudicial and on occasionally racist remarks go unnoticed.

He knew exactly what response he was going to elicit with that remark. It is so beneath him and the policies he supports. It's a slap in my face.

And I AM the face of the new Conservative.
Comment: #4
Posted by: E.Y. Figueroa
Wed Aug 3, 2011 8:07 AM
Good point, Richard. I was thinking about the numbers of people in each group so we could ascertain how any future vote might go. If the working poor (Nickel and Dimed mentioned it was 29%) was larger than the Tea Party, that would lead to one type of vote. If the Tea Party was larger than the working poor, that would lead to a different vote. But another serious issue is the make up of the Tea Party. It would be somewhat dishonest to have a small part of the Tea Party well secured in 401k accounts, good corporate jobs, and in nice suburban homes while other members of the tea party were actually working poor about to lose their homes or jobs and with no savings or security. That would mean that the Tea Party actually was not very well defined. How would we know what they actually stood for?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Mike Hayne
Thu Aug 11, 2011 12:11 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

25 May 2012 The Unraveling Myth of Watergate

5 Oct 2010 The Balkanization of Barack's Party

9 Sep 2011 What 9/11 Wrought: The Bush Legacy