Maybe It’s Big Government

February 24, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Economic issues, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

Argentinian President Christina Kirchner is becoming wildly unpopular. In amidst of a global economic crisis she has managed to nationalize all private pensions and raise taxes on grain and beef, disillusioning and alienating one of country’s main economic producers and a key part of her governing coalition. Today the farmers are finally fed up and Kirchner is looking more and more like a paralyzed governor:

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner is contending with defections from her governing coalition just when she needs solid backing in talks opening Tuesday with farmers who have posed the greatest challenge to her authority.

The loss of allies could limit Mrs. Kirchner’s policy options as the global recession begins to be felt in the country’s farms and factories.

Last week, four senators abandoned the government’s bloc within the dominant Peronist party, expressing displeasure with Mrs. Kirchner’s agrarian policy and seeking to distance themselves from the unpopular president ahead of October’s midterm elections.

That spurt of desertions followed a steady trickle of defections over several months that cost the Kirchner administration its majority in the lower house of Congress and narrowed its once-towering advantage in the Senate.

Several former and current governors are also among the dissidents forming what’s been dubbed in the local press as the “Kirchner Diaspora.”

These breakaway politicians, some of whom have presidential ambitions, are testimony to the growing weakness of Mrs. Kirchner, whose approval rating has been halved to around 30% since early last year, shortly after she took office.

Much of the discontent stems from her repeated conflicts with farmers, who on Friday began a four-day halt in sales of grains and some beef products to call attention to their demands for a reduction in taxes and export controls and more aid against a withering drought.

Time For Some Pragmatism In Colombia

February 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Economic issues, International Affairs, Latin America | Leave a Comment 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will overlook China’s documented human rights abuses for economic security, but will she do the same for Colombia whose free-trade agreement with the U.S. was squashed with union support on questionable allegations of widespread human rights abuses.  WSJ editors think she should:

Judging by her Asian tour, Hillary Clinton clearly thinks she is more realistic about the world than her predecessor. The Secretary of State said, for instance, that pressing China on human rights “can’t interfere” with cooperation between Washington and Beijing on other issues like the economic crisis or climate change. But strangely — or perhaps not so strangely — Mrs. Clinton and her boss seem to have a far more pinched conception of realpolitik when it comes to Colombia.

Recall that last year Nancy Pelosi rewrote House rules to scuttle the Bush Administration’s free-trade agreement with Bogotá solely on human-rights grounds, even after the pact had been rewritten to include new union protections. President Obama explained last fall that he was opposed because “The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination, on a fairly consistent basis, and there have not been prosecutions.”

Actually, antilabor killings have dropped by almost 87% under President Álvaro Uribe, and convictions have gone up sharply. Yet neither Mr. Obama nor his top diplomat have lifted a finger to move the Colombia deal — which would open new markets for U.S. exporters when most Colombian goods already enter the U.S. duty-free, as well as strengthen a crucial ally in Latin America. This one should be easy, but the AFL-CIO and the rest of organized labor have ordered that no vote ever occur, and Democrats have so far obeyed.

Watch What We Say Not What We…Dooops

February 23, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Domestic issues, Economic issues, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

The intrepid Detroit News has tracked down the automobile registrations of the eight members of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry appointed last week to save the American automobile industry.  The paper also checked out the auto info of  the ten White House staffers assigned to help them in their tasks.  And it turns out that sixteen of the eighteen are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.  (And the two only get a pass because they don’t own cars.)  

Starting at the top, with the two co-chairs, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whose grandfather was a vice president of the Ford Motor Company, owns a 2008 Acura TSX.  And National Economic Council (and former Treasury Secretary) Lawrence Summers owns a 1995 Mazda Protege.

Here’s what other task force policy aides drive:

• Austan Goolsbee, staff director and chief economist for the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board, owns a 2004 Toyota Highlander.

• Joan DeBoer, the chief of staff to LaHood, said in an interview Sunday she drives a 2008 Lexus RX 350. She doesn’t consider herself “a car buff” and views her car as a way to get around town.

• Heather Zichal, deputy director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, owns a Volvo C30, according to public records and officials.

• Gene Sperling, counsel to the Treasury Secretary, owns a 2003 Lincoln LS, and previously owned a 1993 Saturn SL2.

• Edward B. Montgomery, senior adviser to the Labor Department, owns a 1991 Harley-Davidson and previously owned a 1990 Ford Taurus L station wagon, public records show.

• Lisa Heinzerling, senior climate policy counsel to the head of the EPA, owns a 1998 Subaru Legacy Outback station wagon, according to her husband.

• Diana Farrell, the deputy National Economic Council director, doesn’t own a vehicle. Her husband, Scott Pearson, owns a 1985 Peugeot 505 S.

• Dan Utech, senior adviser to the Energy Secretary, owns a 2003 Mini Cooper S two-door hatchback.

• Rick Wade, a senior adviser at the Commerce Department, owns a 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier and previously owned a 1998 Toyota Corolla.

• Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economist, owns a 2005 Honda Odyssey.
 

Are Better Angels All Socialists?

February 20, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Economic issues, Ethics, Faith, Lifestyle, Money, Religion, economy | Leave a Comment 

G. K. Chesterton used to say that the idea of “original sin” was “a fact as practical as potatoes” and “the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”

As the nation-at-large wrestles with monumental problems, there are many who advocate strategies that rely on what is often referred to liberally as “the essential goodness of people.” The idea being that given a fair choice and level playing field people will generally do the right thing.

As Dr. Phil might ask: “How’s that working for you?”

I certainly believe people can rise up and do good things following what President Barack Obama, quoting Abraham Lincoln, is fond of calling our “better angels.” But the truth is that the default position of human behavior actually falls short of the ideal. Various forms of theology explain this propensity in terms of “original sin” or “total depravity” – that we are wired with a spiritual-genetic flaw.

In other words, the very suggestion of the existence of “better angels” in our nature implies other “less-than-better angels” – putting it mildly; or maybe “fallen angels.” The mention of better begs the question: “Better than what?”

Some people will dismiss this kind of thinking as puritanical. But it’s sort of like a paraphrase of that old Marxist line (Groucho, not Karl): Are you going to believe them or your own two eyes? Empirical evidence abounds that people tend to follow paths of least resistance and worse.

We are in this mess now because many people either made unwise choices (rejecting personal responsibility or deferred gratification), or they were manipulated and deceived by predators. Others on a certain street in lower Manhattan exploited everything. All of this while Barney Frank kept an eye on things. Clearly, any angels in attendance weren’t of the “better” variety.

People harm and take advantage of others because it is part of human nature. People pollute the planet because it is part of human nature. People lie, cheat, steal, and commit adultery, because humans (all of us) are sinners. And sometimes a toxic storm is at work in a life and monsters emerge to do despicable things. We are tempted to call them insane, and maybe they are by some psychological standard, but they are also very depraved.

All sins great and small flow from the same polluted human nature stream, whether they are grave and life destroying in our eyes or relatively excusable in today’s “I-did-it-because-I-am-a-victim” world. The lack of integrity that leads some to break a vital covenant and others to commit abhorrent crimes are connected to the same ugly ancestral disorder.

For example, we are witnessing a surge in bank foreclosures and people are losing homes. What is being little noticed though, is that while it is true some have lost jobs and can’t pay, there are cases where some who really could pay have stopped making payments and are deciding to walk away unless the government makes it easier for them. The home is now “less attractive” than it once was as an investment. Some are walking away only because they are upside down – not because they really can’t pay.

Stay tuned taxpayers. Keep your eyes on the funds and mechanisms as they become available to help people catch up on, or renegotiate, mortgages. I predict that some people will still simply choose to walk away, in spite of help available, because their homes just won’t be worth it in their eyes. In many cases, it may be more about the value of a home than the ability to pay.

Won’t it be interesting if money to help some people “stay in their homes” winds up going unused because, when it comes right down to it, they don’t really want to stay after all? Is being behind on payments the big problem (certainly it is for some), or is being upside down the big deal? There is a difference between catching up and getting out from under.

Upside down may be becoming an excuse to move from inside out.

In many places there is a scenario called “buy and bail.” This is where someone buys a new – cheaper – home, while still in the original dwelling. Then once the deal is done – they walk away from the first, more expensive home. Admittedly, this practice is not widespread now, largely because some states have cracked down on it.

What we do know is this, when homes go empty for whatever reason it hurts everyone who is trying to really play by the rules and keep their word. Upside down/walk away homes on an already depressed market contribute to the downward spiral of home values and prices – damaging those who believe that when they signed the mortgage they made not only a financial commitment, but a moral one as well.

If liberal-bail-out-advocates really believe in the “greater good” and “spreading the wealth,” they might want to consider that the wealth they want to redistribute is actually disappearing because of the “help” they are providing. People who made bad choices in the first place are being encouraged to continue doing things that hurt everyone. How is this about the greater good?

While we are trying to figure all this out, we meet a lady named Nadya Suleman. She recently gave birth to eight children. She’s been all over the news and now we hear she is looking at a new million-dollar-plus-pad for her growing family. I haven’t figured out whether she is a caricature or a metaphor. Maybe she’s both.

Of course, the Suleman story is objectionable and infuriating to us on so many levels because she clearly seems to be deranged. Or maybe she is just depraved. Maybe she is a manipulative, scheming, deceiver, who is thinking only of self. I am not trying to bash the lady – that line is really too long.

After all, if OctoMom, as she has been dubbed, is indeed trying to “work the system” with the mother of all scams (literally), is she really all that different from many others right now? I’m talking about those who are already slowing down on the personal responsibility side of things because we have a cool new government in place ready to stimulate all of us. Nadya Suleman may be more like the not-too-distant future of America than we might care or dare to admit.

Here’s where “original sin” comes in. Like it or not, we all bear a moral-DNA similarity to OctoMom, in the sense that we have this natural propensity to be selfish and deceitful. It is only as this part of us is restrained (by law, fear, inspiration, or love) or transformed (by grace – or, if you prefer, “a higher power”), that we can function in any effective social-contract sense.

Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky said, “If there is no God, everything is permissible.”

There is a lot of talk these days about America becoming socialist and more like Europe. What needs to be noticed is that these trends not only have to do with the size and role of government, but also speak about a culture moving toward dominant secularism and sterile religion.

I ate at a restaurant the other day in Manhattan. It was in a beautiful building that had once been a thriving church. It was a church; now it is an eatery. Then I thought about how so many of the churches in Europe function basically as museums, if at all. Is this where we are headed?

One of the basic differences between socialism and capitalism as they manifest themselves in social, cultural, political, and even religious senses, is that the former believes in the essential goodness of humanity. On the other hand, capitalism tends to be more realistic about basic human nature and works to channel that “self-interest” in ways that can lead to something better for everyone.

Of course, human nature is at fault in runaway capitalism and the excesses of a few can be detrimental to many. This is why very few conservatives these days advocate a radical form of laissez-faire capitalism. Human nature will take advantage and there have to be times of balance, judgment, adjustment, and reckoning.

Somebody does have to watch the store. But the store should be privately owned.

The thing Americans need to be thinking through these days is, however, what system has a better overall record? Is it really better in France, Sweden, or Denmark than America today? Do we really want to admire nations where people surrender significantly more than half of what they earn to a government in exchange for state-run services that are chronically insufficient, incompetent, and impersonal?

If so, then we need to be fair and concede that, as Pogo might have put it, we have met Nadya Suleman and she is our future.

Of Character And Industry

February 18, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Economic issues | Leave a Comment 

The indispensable Victor Davis Hanson gives an anecdote of personal survival in tough economic times:

Things seemed pretty bad as I counted over 100 ‘For Sale” signs in a mere five mile stretch. I collated my own status. The equity on the farm is way down. I figure I lost about the last 5 years of 401(k) contributions— omnis effusus labor as Virgil says of Orpheus in the Georgics or as my favorite singer Mark Knopfler sings: “And if it’s all for nothing. All the road running it’s been in vain.” The Tribune Media outlet for whom I write a weekly syndicated column has declared bankruptcy, and some of the payments have been reduced and metered through a federal bankruptcy judge. Invitations for both public speaking and free-lance writing are way down, and compensation is reduced. Book advances in New York are either nonexistent or depressed. We are facing many cuts here at the Hoover Institution, given the natural reduction in the endowment. Until recently I was up to well over $10,000 in owed money by various groups for whom I have written or spoken for, but who have not paid. Farm prices are going back down, and the rent (I now lease out my 45 acres) scarcely covers the taxes, irrigation fees, insurance, and infrastructure maintenance. Some members of my family are either out of work or worried they soon will be. So in some sense, whatever we call the downturn is very real.

Yet like 93% of work-age Americans I still have a job, and thus, as my grandfather reminded me of others in town, things for those still working are not catastrophic. Gas is way down—indeed the country is saving hundreds of billions of dollars in reduced oil importation fees as a barrel crashed from $150 to below $40 (some stimulus!). Interest rates are coming down. Food is lower. Propane and natural gas are cheaper. For those who can meet a $500 or so monthly payment, there are real steals on cars. I get phone solicitations to buy everything from washers to frozen steaks in bulk. I saw a used boat the other day on the way to the mountains whose ridiculously low price did not seem real? If any young people have jobs, housing is finally affordable—and getting cheaper.

So what are we in? Mostly a time of psychological depression and waiting—but hardly a depression as my grandfather knew it, when he once bragged to me that for two years they had eaten everything—poultry, eggs, milk, vegetables, fruit, juices—but bread and coffee from what they grew and raised.

Aggressive Conservatives On The March!

February 14, 2009 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Economic issues, Presidents | Leave a Comment 

Ever vigilant, Terry Gross and Will Bunch explore how “a new, aggressive breed of conservative” is promoting the myth of Ronald Reagan in a cynical effort to lower your income taxes. Grab a can of Lysol, and read about it here.

The Stimulus: Yes We Can’t

February 13, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economic issues, History, Money, Republican Party, U.S. History, economy | 5 Comments 

Addressing the Democratic Party faithful last week in Williamsburg, Virginia, President Barack Obama brought the house down with a now-famous bit of political sarcasm about the stimulus package now emerging from the congressional laws-and-sausages-making mill. He mocked some who have been characterizing it as merely a “spending bill” with the question, “What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point.” Then as the audience burst into laughter and applause (one could almost hear a Ralph Kramden-like “Har Har Hardy Har Har”), he added, “No, seriously, that’s the point.”

Seriously? Really?

These days it is accepted as gospel that government spending, spending, and more spending is the cure for America’s economic ills. Accordingly, still basking in the glow of an impressive victory last November, Democrats are gleefully using the cover of the current crisis to exact generational revenge on the politics and policies of those who decried big government in the past. Leaders such as Ronald Reagan and even, ironically, Bill Clinton who famously said the “era of big government is over” during his days in the Oval Office.

The president himself talked during his inaugural address about no longer wanting to define government as too big or small. He promoted a new standard; that being simply: “Does it work?” Well, if more is inherently better, then we are on the threshold of a golden age promising 17 chickens in every pot, with the pot itself made of gold, and a colorful rainbow not too far away. Of course, rainbows are all image with no substance.

Is unleashed and unprecedented government spending a stimulus to the economy as a whole, or does it just grow the government? Is the real plan for all of us to become more and more addicted to the toxic drug of statism? When Gerald Ford traveled around the country giving speeches as a congressman, vice-president, and ultimately president, one of his few memorable lines (he was not known for his oratory) was that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Okay, so Ford was no Lincoln – but he did have a point. We all know the phrase “it comes with strings attached,” meaning that there are times when receiving something can have dire, if sometimes deferred, consequences. Well, those stimulus strings are beginning to look a lot like piano wire.

I think all the talk of “doom and gloom” is not misguided; it’s misdirected. A catastrophe will not result from a failure to inject a trillion dollars of government spending into a struggling economy. The thing we should really fear is the fallout from a toxic overdose of federal dollars. If our economy actually survives the euphoric rush of a stimulus-driven high, it will just be a matter of time before an emerging majority of strung out neo-socialist junkies will be clamoring for another fix.

The fact is, there is no empirical evidence that massive government spending stimulates anything except massive government growth. Is anyone noticing that while unemployment nationwide is now at well over 7% – with some of the harder hit areas at twice that – that the bedroom counties around Washington, D.C. report jobless rates ranging from 1.9% in Arlington County to 2.1% in Fairfax County?

Guess what the big industry is in the area? Really, can you guess?

As Mitt Romney has been talking a lot about recently, the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy. No matter how you view economics, it is simply true that funding for new and exponential government spending has to come from somewhere.

It can come via taxation. In the best-case scenario, the gain to the taxpayer is theoretically equal to the tax paid – which begs the question, why take it just to give it back? Of course, most taxpayers won’t get it back dollar for dollar because of “overhead” (or in the government’s case “big giant head”) and the fact that so many really nifty programs will be funded. Not to mention, the earth will cool down dramatically.

Awesome.

Additionally, in a “we’ll get the money from taxation” model, it’s hard to envision an expense so unprecedented to even be possible without tax increases coming from somewhere (better: someone). And there seems to be near universal agreement that raising taxes in a recession is just plain dumb. Therefore, congress will probably raise our taxes in the near future.

Another way to finance the mother of all stimulus packages is to borrow the money. But this would dramatically increase the demand on the lending mechanisms in the country; this at a time when credit is already pretty much paralyzed. One result of this could be a return to rising interest rates – certainly no stimulus there. The Japanese government tried this in the 1990s, yet the economy did not recover.

The third way for government to find a trillion or so dollars to save us all would be to create money. They could do so “ex nihilo” – from the Latin meaning “out of nothing” (often used by those of us who believe God created all things, pardon this awkward insertion at a time when all amoebas mark Darwin’s 200th birthday). However, absent any U.S. department of alchemy (wait – that would be making something out of something – oh well, you get my drift), the best the government could do is to print more money, possibly finding a place to put “yes we can” on the new currency.

Most economists admit that just printing money would be dramatically inflationary. No stimulus there, either.

Here’s a better idea – one that I know would really help working people in this country, as well as stimulating businesses to hire new workers. Simply declare a 90-day moratorium on the payroll tax, thus putting real money into the hands of those who earned it in the first place. Don’t take it away and then try to find clever ways to trickle it back. Leave it with “we the people.”

Someone might argue, “But what will government do? How will they fund all the programs?” Well, they were going to have to borrow money in the first place for the stimulus. Three months won’t break the bank – heck, the government has wasted that much of our money on wacky ideas before. But it might just be enough time for American workers to start really stimulating the economy themselves. Novel idea, huh?

It would save trees (no government checks), cut down on electricity (for electronic fund transfers), save money for the post office, and create real jobs the way real jobs are created – by private businesses. And if it meant that some federal employees would have little to do during the duration of this experiment, maybe they could work on the nation’s infrastructure – or the area around the Jefferson Memorial.

There might be a downside, though. If it worked too well, many current members of congress might find themselves out of work in two years. That would be just sad.

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, I am sure some reading this are preparing to correct me about that Gerald Ford quote – thinking it goes back to Jefferson. But it really doesn’t. Here’s one that does, though, from his inaugural address on March 4, 1801:

Still one thing more, fellow citizens: a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…

One thing for sure – the number of Democrats in America using this Jeffersonian nugget during recent Jefferson-Jackson Day festivities was less than the number of Republicans voting for the so-called stimulus package.

Price Is Right: This Is Wrong

February 13, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Congress, Economic issues, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

Freshman Georgia Republican congressman Tom Price has taken to YouTube to expose the jerrybuilt monstrosity that is about to be ramrodded through the Congress so the members can get on with the really important things (like trips to Europe).

Dr. Price (he was an orthopedic clinician and professor before he ran for the Georgia Senate, where he became the first Republican majority leader since Reconstruction) represents the 6th District which covers Atlanta’s northern suburbs.

Digging A Hole

February 12, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Congress, Economic issues, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

Peter Wehner on Judd Gregg’s sudden resignation as Commerce Secretary nominee (in a seeming slew of mishandled cabinet nominations)  in embattled economic times:

At some point, things like this can begin to cement a (negative) image in the public imagination. Discrete issues converge and form a single, harmful impression. Obama & Company were looking increasingly amateurish before today; this is now bordering on incompetence. It’s always hard to tell when things metastasize—but if we’re not there yet with Team Obama, we’re probably getting close. And based on Judd Gregg’s statement withdrawing his name from nomination, I suspect the Census issue is going to attract a good deal more attention than it has.

Less than a month ago, Barack Obama was seemingly sitting atop the world. We all knew reality would set in soon enough; what we didn’t know was how quickly the magic would fade, and give way to what we are now witnessing. It’s still early, of course, and presidents can recover from their initial missteps. But Obama and his team have dug themselves a fairly deep early hole.

Votes Have Consequences

February 11, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Economic issues, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

Camille Paglia’s monthly column appears on Salon today.  As usual she covers a multitude of subjects, but she begins with the Obama administration’s rudderless first few weeks at the helm.

Money by the barrelful, by the truckload. Mountains of money, heaped like gassy pyramids in the national dump. Scrounging packs of politicos, snapping, snarling and sending green bills flying sky-high as they root through the tangled mass with ragged claws. The stale hot air filled with cries of rage, the gnashing of teeth and dark prophecies of doom.

Yes, this grotesque scene, like a claustrophobic circle in Dante’s “Inferno,” was what the U.S. government has looked like for the past two weeks as it fights on over Barack Obama’s stimulus package — a mammoth, chaotic grab bag of treasures, toys and gimcracks. Could popular opinion of our feckless Congress sink any lower?  You betcha!

Why in the cosmos would the new administration, smoothly sailing out of Obama’s classy inauguration, repeat the embarrassing blunders of Bill Clinton’s first term? By foolishly promising a complete overhaul of healthcare within 100 days (and by putting his secretive, ill-prepared wife in charge of it), Clinton made himself look naive and incompetent and set healthcare reform back for more than 15 years.

President Obama was ill-served by his advisors (shall we thump that checkered piñata, Rahm Emanuel?), who evidently did not help him to produce a strong, focused, coherent bill that he could have explained and defended to the nation before it was set upon by partisan wolves. To defer to the House of Representatives and let the bill be thrown together by cacophonous mob rule made the president seem passive and behind the curve.

Most mainstream American voters are undoubtedly suffering from economist fatigue these days. This one calls for tax cuts; that one condemns them. One says we’re wasting hundreds of billions of dollars; the other claims that sum falls pathetically short. A plague on all their houses! Surely common sense would dictate that when Congress is doling out fat dollops of taxpayers’ money, due time should be delegated for sober consideration and debate. The administration’s coercive rush toward instant action, accompanied by apocalyptic pronouncements of imminent catastrophe, has put its own credibility on the line.

Of course there’s one big difference here.  When Hillarycare imploded, the First Lady moved on to other things.  If the stimulus implodes, it will only be after close to a trillion dollars has been spent on setting up all the rules and regs and bureaucracies that  one trillion dollars can buy.

It’s Hard To Debate The Stimulus When….

February 9, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under American Politics, Congress, Economic issues | Leave a Comment 

You are a draft day bust (Harry Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley puts down North Carolina Congressman and former pro-quarterback Heath Shuler (D) for slamming other Democrats for partisanship):

Let me get this straight – this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?

Maybe Someone should tell congressman Shuler that under the leadership of President Obama we have put together a bipartisan bill that will create or save 3 to 4 million jobs, and that We have been more than willing to work with our republican friends. We have accepted some of their ideas and will continue to do so. But not at the expense of creating jobs, investing in our future of helping the middle class. He can stand on a stage if he wants, but senate democrats are busy trying to pass legislation that will provide essential investments designed to create and save jobs.

Obamania Redux Or Just Plain Boredom?

February 9, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, Congress, Economic issues | Leave a Comment 

According  the Washington Post today,  President Obama is hoping that he can implement policy just as he got elected, becoming resigned to the  idea that he is better at campaign politics than governing politics. But is it just as easy to campaign on decisions that he will be accountable for? Or will he put himself in danger of lame incumbency unusually early in his first term?

If the latter is true and Jennifer Rubin is right, he is over-exposing himself on a stimulus bill that could prove ineffective, moot, or even disastrous in a feeble economy, effectively wasting political capital without any way of replenishing it. The prospects of mandating support are somewhat limited now, considering that local precinct leaders are reporting a lack of enthusiasm for nitty gritty wonkishness among the Obama faithful:

Dozens of grassroots groups held small meetings over the weekend to discuss President Obama’s economic stimulus plan and figure out ways to keep the momentum of the campaign moving. Organizing for America is trying to get the 13 million people who signed up to push Obama’s campaign agenda to remain involved. But the group is noting a drop in activism, as just ten people showed up at a weekend meeting in Chandler, Arizona, eight people gathered in Miami, and nobody showed up for a meeting in Atlanta. The organizer of the meeting in Atlanta is worried people are now becoming complacent now that they succeeded in helping Obama get elected. He added without the daily rallies on the campaign trail, many people seem to have lost enthusiasm. Republicans are watching the group closely, figuring out how to use the Internet to build support for their candidate for the White House in 2012.

Picture Perfect

February 7, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Congress, Economic issues | 1 Comment 

Three McCain supporters (Senator’s Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter) pictured with Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson are certainly not Barbara Boxer, Carl Levin or Ted Kennedy, but are harldly the cover Obama needs.

Mr. Reich, Unions Are Actually Bad

February 7, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Economic issues | Leave a Comment 

US News blogger James Pethokoukis cites an eye-opening study that reveals unions are responsible for 10 % diminishing returns.

Which Way Do I Vote?

February 6, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Congress, Economic issues, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

Sen./Commerce Secretary designate Judd Gregg deals with his conscience crisis. Byron York:

One interesting side story in this Senate stimulus fight is the role of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg.  There are just 41 GOP senators, so every vote is important to the party.  But does Gregg vote with his party against the bill, or does he vote with the man who just nominated him to be Commerce Secretary, for the bill?  His office tells me that Gregg has recused himself from all votes pending his confirmation.  No amendments, no final vote, no nothing? I asked. “That’s correct,” I was told.

Richard Nixon, Socialist Hero

February 6, 2009 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Economic issues, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

…says the Daily Kos.

Can Geithner Sell A Tax Hike?

February 5, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Economic issues, Obama administration | Leave a Comment 

Jennifer Rubin explains how Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner may not have escaped the political firestorm at least policy-wise:

When Daschle backed out, the conventional wisdom was that Geithner had gotten “lucky” since he slipped through before the firestorm. But that might not be right and, in fact, he may now be a never-ending source of angst for the Obama team. When we get to the inevitable Obama tax hike on the “rich” will Geithner be the one trying to sell the proposition to the voters and Congress? You can hear the Republican retort already. (”Yeah, not a problem since you don’t pay all your taxes!”) Even now, is he capable of performing PR for the administration on the news show circuit while the first question would be whether he too should step down?

The one person entirely delighted by this (other than Michael Steele, the RNC, and the Republicans in Congress) is no doubt Larry Summer. With his larger-than-life personality, he hardly needed any assistance in establishing himself as the big dog on the Obama economic team. But with Geithner sidelined Summer will likely rein supreme.

That brings us back to the rationale for allowing Geithner to pass through despite his tax problems. We were told he was indispensable to addressing our economic woes. But since he is hobbled and now a liability to the President doesn’t the justification for the tax cheat “waiver” disappear?

Obama To Heed Nixon’s Advice To Reagan?

January 27, 2009 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Barack Obama, Economic issues, Presidents, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

The legendary Lou Cannon:

[E]conomic recovery became the exclusive early Reagan agenda. The president was further encouraged by a detailed private memo from Richard Nixon, then too much of a pariah to appear in public with Republican office holders. Reagan valued the former president’s experience, particularly on foreign policy, but the memo instead urged him to focus on economic policy for at least the first six months. “Unless you are able to shape up our home base it will be almost impossible to conduct an effective foreign policy,” Nixon wrote. Reagan was so impressed that he quoted the opening portion of Nixon’s memo to a friend and added: “If we get the economy in shape, we’re going to be able to a lot of things. If we don’t, we’re not going to be able to do anything.”

Warning: A Blog About Monetary Policy

January 27, 2009 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Economic issues, Richard Nixon, Watergate | Leave a Comment 

Richard Nixon was politically crucified on the cross of the gold standard, argue Stephen Moore and John Tamny in the “American Spectator”:

With the real economy weakening due to rising inflation, Nixon’s approval ratings tanked, which allowed the relatively minor scandal of Watergate to force his resignation. Some years after he left office, Nixon told a group of friends and advisors that the policy decision he regretted most was taking America off the gold standard, and that had he not done that, he could have withstood the Watergate scandal.

The End Of Bi-Partisanship

January 26, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Congress, Economic issues | Leave a Comment 

Despite the dignity of Inauguration Day, did it ever go away? Nevertheless it’s astonishing that 75 % of Republican Senators voted against confirming Treasuty Secretary nominee Tim Geithner, even the flambuoyantly bi-partisan John S. McCain.

« Previous Page — Next Page »