Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Wall Street Weekly | 10/09/2009 12:45 pm

Sinking Dollar Fair Warning to Obama, by Liz Peek

Image: WhiteHouse.gov

Bears, Bulls, Chickens and Pigs: wOw’s Wall Street Weekly with Liz Peek (Week of 10/5) 

Editor’s Note: Liz Peek is a financial columnist.

The New York Times ran a story this week about the art that the Obamas have chosen for the walls of the White House. Featured in the piece was a painting by Ed Ruscha. The chosen canvas has a red background with the words "wait a minute," "maybe yes" and "maybe no" floating across the space. What an appropriate choice for our young president, who is suddenly irresolute about Afghanistan. Having once pronounced Kabul as central to the war on terror (oops! make that the Overseas Contingency Operation), the president is now angling for a Goldilocks position: not too little, not too much, responding to polls that show waning support for our activities in that desperate country.

President Obama is uncertain not only about our military options, but also – dangerously – about economic choices. He recently affirmed while addressing a Wall Street crowd that "I’ve always been a strong believer in the power of the free market." That was good to hear, because almost none of his proposed programs suggest a love affair with capitalism. Instead, he has offered up one measure after another that substitutes government fiat for market economics – most notably in autos, health care and energy. The newest entry is the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency whose czar will be empowered to decide on "the manner, settings and circumstances for the provision of any consumer financial products or services." Moreover, he has revved up his antitrust department, sanctioned pro-labor policies burdensome to American employers and started a trade war.

This litany of business-unfriendly stances is taking a toll, not only on the president’s popularity, but on the dollar. The dollar took a sizeable hit this week (and gold soared) when the Australians boosted their key interest rate, signaling a recovery in that country. While earlier this year global investors drove the dollar briefly higher in their quest for safety, they have since had second thoughts. The euro, for instance, has gained 18% in value compared to the dollar since March. You don’t have to read the tea leaves to find reasons to sell the dollar – you can simply delve into the budget projections.

To put things in perspective, note that budget deficits in the U.K. are about to sink the Labour Government. The IMF puts the U.K. budget deficit this year at 11.6% of GDP and at 13.2% next year. The net public debt of Great Britain is expected to amount to 92% of GDP in 2014, up from 58% today and 38%in 2007. (The Obamacare folks should note that the IMF has called for the U.K. to rein in their health-care program, a leading budget-breaker.) The Brits are alarmed about this state of affairs, which is why they are about to junk their existing government. David Cameron, the Tory leader most likely to take over as Prime Minister, has warned that the country is in for tough times – severe cuts in social spending and higher taxes. That is not the usual campaign rhetoric, but the country is looking the future square on, and does not like what it sees.

Here’s the sobering news for the U.S.: we’re not that far behind the U.K. Our budget deficit will total 12.5% of GDP this year according to the IMF, and our national debt will soar to 85% of GDP by 2014. These figures are spurring talk that the dollar will no longer be the world’s reserve currency and that oil producers may move to price their product eventually in a basket of currencies.

249 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Leigh Hart
Deaniseann, It is unconstitutional for the president to accept the prize money. He had two choices, donate or reject the award. Don’t think he’s be magnanimous.
By Leigh Hart on 10/13/2009 11:46 am
Deniseann Taylor
Leigh I did not know it was unconstitutional for a seated President to except an award of this magnitude.  I know Al Gore won a Noble Prize for his work on the world environment, but he wasn’t the Vice Pres at the time.  I also know that Gov’t officials can not receive money from Gov’t contractors or gifts, and they have to disassociate from any organization or firm (law) that does business with the gov’t while they are in office.  But does the Nobel prize fall under this category???? I don’t know, I’ve not read any recent amendments to the constitution in the past nine yrs.   I would appreciate it if you could tell me where or what website I can go to, I realize I need to keep myself more up to date on the affairs of our gov’t as a whole.
By Deniseann Taylor on 10/14/2009 2:29 am
Leigh Hart

Deniseann, There is no recent amendment to the Constitution on this issue. This was addressed back in 1787 by the Founders.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Foreign-med…

There are many bright constitutional minds who believe that because the Nobel Committee is not part of the Norweigan government per se, believe it is merely an extension of the government because all committee members are appointed by the government. 

Aside from this being addressed in the Articles of the Constitution, gifts other countries considered to be gifts to the country, not the president.

By Leigh Hart on 10/14/2009 8:33 am
Deniseann Taylor
Leigh thank you for the History lesson and information, I will be going to this site after signing off from here.  I beleive that NO Gov’t Officer/Offical should be allow to receive gifts from anyone in the public or private sector, there’s enough in this world to corupt a person and dangling money and gifts in their face, not all are strong and can say NO, then we end up with a corupt official who is not looking out for the people who put him/her in office but looking out for themselves.
By Deniseann Taylor on 10/14/2009 2:52 pm
B Clark

"I understand that x-Presidents now get lifetime Secret Service protection - a fairly recent development."

Recent only if you consider 1965 to be recent.

From   http://www.secretservice.gov/faq

"In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection."

By B Clark on 10/10/2009 9:30 am
C jay
By C jay on 10/10/2009 8:26 am
C Hardy

Yes I feel the POTUS should take his time and make a wise decision about additional Troops in Afghanistan BUT he was approached with this 9 months ago - how long does it take.  If you can’t make up your mind then PULL our Troops out and bring them all home then decide.  Dont leave small amounts of Troops there - outnumbered and sitting ducks.  Almost everyday this week I have heard on the news of yet another Solider dying in Afghanistan - please hurry & make up your mind Mr. President. 

By C Hardy on 10/09/2009 1:37 pm
Maggie W

C Hardy, when Sarkozy was elected President of France in in 2007, Condi Rice asked what she could do to help him.  His answer," Improve your image in the world."

How we proceed in Afghanistan is an ongoing calculated strategy that reflects our image.  Afghanistan today is not the same as 9 months ago.  Part of the deliberations involve other countries that have interests there.  A central task of diplomacy is to explore areas of agreement and support with hopes of creating a more stable world.  It took six years to stand up an Iraqi Army of 250,000… and still US forces are needed there. 

Remember, too ,that LBJ had a domestic agenda that was continually derailed by Vietnam, with its many costs and deaths. In 1966, there were about 200,000 US troops in Vietnam.  By 1968, there were 537,000.   We learn from the past.

There is no easy or fast answer here, and there should not be.    Consider this quote by Taliban Mullah Aga Mohammed…" You have the watches, but we have the time. We were born here. We will die here. We aren’t going anywhere."  Seeing how insurgents see this war and their obvious revival can be no easy task.    I hope the President and his many advisors make no hasty decisions .

 

By Maggie W on 10/09/2009 2:21 pm
C jay
It isn’t a matter of the POTUS making up his mind - watch the MSNBC Tip of the Sword special this weekend, and you might see the mess this was from Day One. Believe it, these war crimes against others, and us, did not start in a vacuum, if you recall!
By C jay on 10/10/2009 8:28 am
deber B
C Jay, it’s clear to me that President Obama will be making a political decision on Afghanistan.   If he increases the troops he will lose his liberal supporters.   If he doesn’t he loses re-election in 2012.    Let’s see what he does….politically.
By deber B on 10/10/2009 1:19 pm
C jay

Deber, at this point, I doubt he is concerned about re-election! He’s far above that, and also above being pressured to the point of changing what he believes is best for America, by anyone, in any Party! No one is perfect by any means, but I do believe he has our nation’s best interest first in his mind, and plans. Other nations think so too, obviously - but that too won’t ‘drive’ him.

 

By C jay on 10/10/2009 2:47 pm
deber B

C Jay, it is ALWAYS about re-election and keeping a democrat in the White House!  If you believe that Obama is far above being a politician first  who was elected to do things the far left democratic way especially after the enormous campaign donations that got him elected then I’m stunned.  Obama is always thinking about re-election….in fact, his democratic congress is, too.   Some will jump ship to separate themselves from Obama’s decisions so that they CAN be re-elected in 2010.

C Jay, I will say this.   I admire you for being supportive of our President.   I cannot do that because I believe he is taking our country in the wrong direction.   He needs supporters like you now more than ever.  

 

By deber B on 10/11/2009 5:25 am
C jay
Deber, back up 12.8 months …
By C jay on 10/11/2009 10:20 am
deber B
C jay, okay, I just backed up now what?  : )
By deber B on 10/11/2009 11:20 am
Marjorie C.

C jay:   I do believe he has our nation’s best interest first in his mind,…

Obama has his version of our nation’s best interest in his mind.  If you happen to agree with his version, you can relax.  If not, best be vigilant for changes that are not in our best interest.

By Marjorie C. on 10/11/2009 11:01 am