Is it just imagination?

From very early in his presidency, Barack Obama seemed to come under greater attack by his critics and political rivals than any other United States president anyone I know can remember.

The negative attacks, primarily from Republicans and their ultraconservative cohorts, started with allegations that he was a Muslim and the Antichrist. Then came the barrage of 'birthers', followed more recently by attacks on a range of issues such as: debt ceiling; spending cuts; tax cuts; jobs; health care; the S&P downgrade with a negative long-term outlook; the stock market; gas prices; and the family vacation at Martha's Vineyard.

I went on the Republican National Committee (RNC) website to see how much of this would be reflected there. They display a list of 'hot topics' of mostly negative headlines, arranged by subject. There must be more than 300 of them.

Regardless of the broader or less politically motivated point the sources were seeking to make or publicise, the RNC has crafted their headlines derived from them to drive home their underlying message: What is going on in Washington these days is not good for America and must be changed:

• The loss of America's AAA credit rating is another bleak record in the failure of the Obama presidency;
• The downgrade of America on the president's watch is, "an ignominious legacy for Obama";
• Obama, the undisputed debt king;
• Americans losing confidence in Obama's economic policies.
• And the talking faces on TV add:
• Obama has spent more money in less than three years than the five presidents before him combined, says one;

Obama was just handed a US$2.3-trillion blank cheque, says another, to spend in any way and where his excesses lead him, adds another.

The way Obama is borrowing from the Chinese, they will soon be able to buy the US for one dollar, smirked another.

WHAT'S THE REAL PICTURE?

First, US presidents cannot spend money on their own. Any programme a president wants to have funded must first be approved by both houses of Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate. So Congress must accept some of the blame for overspending.

Regarding the debt ceiling, there is always a cap on spending for programmes already approved by Congress. No new programmes are in there. That is why the ceiling needs to be raised in order to borrow new money to pay off debt.

The US Treasury does the borrowing through the debt securities they issue — Treasury bills, bonds or notes. And, federal law requires the Treasury to get permission from Congress before Treasury can borrow. So how was the US$14.3 trillion debt accumulated and who owns most of it? What follows was carried in the New York Times on July 28, but I believe few in Jamaica may have seen it.

The US$14.3-trillion debt was built up through debt overhangs going back before 1981, that is, before President Ronald Reagan. President Obama has contributed US$2.4 trillion or 16.8 per cent for stimulus spending and tax cuts for 2009-2011, as well as for other recessionary effects, lost revenues and automatic spending such as unemployment benefits between 2007-2009.

The remaining 83.2 per cent would be attributable to the five presidents before Obama (see Table 1).

WHO OWNS THIS DEBT?

More than two-thirds, 68.6 per cent, of the US debt is owed to US individuals, corporations, financial institutions, and to federal, state and local government agencies. At US$1.2 trillion or 8.4 per cent, China is owed the single largest amount, followed by Japan with US$900 billion. However, one should bear in mind that this debt is in the form of various interest-bearing Treasury securities - bills, bonds and notes - with different maturity dates. No creditor can demand payment until the Treasuries they hold mature (see Table 2).

RAISING THE DEBT CEILING

According to the US Treasury Department, the debt ceiling has been raised 78 times since 1960 — 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic ones. During that time, the US has had five Republican and five Democratic presidents, serving a total of twenty-seven years, and one month and twenty-two years and four months, respectively.

Most of these increases have occurred without fanfare and public debate. The last one was the first time that the debt ceiling increase had been married to spending cuts, resulting, in part, to the bitter partisan performance that played to the world two weeks ago.

BEHIND THE NEGATIVES

Negative campaigning is an integral part of politics everywhere. Why struggle to promote your own virtues when it appears easier to demonise your opponent sufficiently to have the voters reject him or her? Obama must be rejected, conservative Republics may argue, because his election in the first place was a mistake. There was collusion among liberals, socialists and other undesirables to get him elected. We'll show him that he can't get away with that. So a congressman shouts, "You lie," when he is explaining his health reform programme in the halls of Congress.

We will not allow him to amass money to build the huge central bureaucracy he would love to have so we will debate for budget cuts in advance, even it will take the country to the brink of default. After all, the default would be on his watch anyway. We must unite to defeat him.

Some of us are still not sure that he is really a natural born American; He does not practise Christianity the way we do. He lectures when he should lead. He's timid and leads from behind. He bounces about the world apologising for America. And, he plays basketball. We must unite to make sure he is a one-term president.

I have a hunch that the true objections of this brand of Republican to Obama is not so much about his policies or his programmes or his management style as it is about who he is. Could this just be my imagination?

Lloyd Hunter is a management communications consultant,lbhpro@flowja.com