January 24-27, 2009
Jan 24 03:28 Obama to GOP: 'I won' Jan 24 17:05 Let's Hope They'd Rather Be Right Than Popular Jan 25 04:44 Rush's Response Jan 25 05:52 TARP, Taxes & Tim Jan 25 16:19 An Endless Supply Of Panic Jan 25 19:18 Paterson's Problems Multiply Jan 26 02:04 Is Obama's Post-Partisanship Aura History? Jan 26 08:18 The Definition of Cold-Hearted Jan 27 10:16 The Resistance Is GROWING!!!
Obama to GOP: 'I won'
That's the title of this article written by Jonathan Martin and Carol Lee. My response to President Obama would've been brief and succinct: Whether you won the election is irrelevant to setting good economic policy. This stimulus package is terrible economic policy.
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning, but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.Simply put, the stimulus package will have little impact in the short term. According to the CBO's study , significantly less than half of the stimulus package will be spent before the 2010 midterm election. Here's a short list of items that money is being appropriated for:
The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don't pay income taxes, the sources said.
- $650 million for digital TV coupons .
- $6 billion for colleges/universities, many which have billion dollar endowments.
- $166 billion in direct aid to states, many of which have failed to budget wisely.
- $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts .
- $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.
- $200 million for the National Mall, including grass planting .
Though nobody is paying attention, the Obama administration is admitting that it doesn't know what effect spending $850,000,000,000 will have in terms of creating jobs:
" Can you tell me Mr. Barthold, how many jobs will be created as a result of this legislation? " Camp asked. Barthold replied, " In short, Mr. Camp, I can't. " Camp then pressed Barthold to clarify his position, "So we don't have an estimate of the number of jobs this would create either private sector or public? We don't have any estimate of the economic effect that this legislation would have on our economy, whether it would create any growth in our economy at all? We don't have that data before the committee today?" Barthold then nodded his head and shrugged.The best that the Obama administration can do is admit that they'll spend unprecedented amounts of money. Unfortunately, they'd also have to admit that there isn't a guarantee that spending that much money will help the economy. Why should people have any confidence that the Obama adminstration knows what it's doing in terms of righting the nation's economic ship?
The good news in this for the Obama administration is that they'll pass this legislation without difficulty. The bad news for the Obama administration is that they'll own the high inflation, weak job growth and unprecedented annual budget deficits that will happen as a direct result of this stimulus package.
"We expressed our concerns about some of the spending that's being proposed in the House bill," House Minority Leader John Boehner said after meeting with Obama. "How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?" Boehner asked. "How does that stimulate the economy?"The Obama administration better get used to hearing the drumbeat of criticism for his irresponsible spending habits and for his not having a clearly defined plan on how he'd fix the economy.
Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton wrote a book titled Putting People First: How We Can All Change America outlining his economic plan. In that book, he talked about fiscal policy, middle class tax cuts, re-inventing government and reforming welfare. It was his blueprint.
Based on Thomas Bathold's testimony in front of the House Ways and Means Committee, Barack Obama's blueprint seems to be "I'm going to spend lots of money. Let's hope it works."
Forgive me if that doesn't give me confidence in the Obama administration's economic plan.
Posted Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:31 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 24-Jan-09 08:51 AM
I don't mean to criticize, but I think we should avoid criticizing the Congress and Obama for "spending money" in this stimulus bill. We SHOULD be criticizing them for spending money that does not exist, except as mortgages on our children's futures. It's even more of a crime because our children will get no benefit from all of this debt-- that is, they will get essentially nothing in return. Even worse, as you point out, neither will we. Government spending does NOTHING for an economy, and cannot, for every dollar it spends on what /it/ wants simply displaces a dollar spent by an individual on something they actually need.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 24-Jan-09 11:14 AM
With all due respect, Jerry, I'm not highlighting this stuff without purpose. The purpose behind my highlighting this is to highlight how much money is being pissed away without a plan.
I suggested to a friend that they put a post together making the argument that we could pull out of this recession without spending billions of dollars.
That post might happen later this week.
Comment 3 by eric z at 24-Jan-09 02:37 PM
J. Ewing and Gary -- It was started with no plan and $700 billion for Wall Street and banks; plus putting the future generations in hock for deficit financing of a most improvidential war. Obama has to clean up the mess left on the White House lawn by Barney and the others in there with him before the Obama family moved in - so to speak. They were your people, not Obama's.
And BHO did not create the dire economy. Cheney, Bush and Paulson did that. More mop-up.
Where to get the money? Tax accumulated wealth. Huey Long knew that would work and suggested it, and that's probably why they shot him.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 24-Jan-09 02:55 PM
Eric, If you're suggesting that Barney Frank helped put some of the mess on the White House lawn, I'll buy that. He, along with Maxine Waters & Christopher Dodd, helped derail legislation that would've reformed Fannie/Freddie.
That isn't opinion. It's part of the congressional record.
I agree that President Bush helped create part of this mess. He's hardly faultless.
BHO, however, isn't help clean up the current mess. He's pissing away money in the so-called stimulus package on things like $200,000,000 for maintaining the National Mall, including planting grass. Think that's gonna jumpstart the economy? If you do, you'd be part of an exclusive club.
The stimulus bill is simply President Obama's best opportunity to ram a huge chunk of his agenda through.
Finally, there's a strong probability that he's gonna ask for another stimulus package later in the year. There's a strong probability that BHO will add more to the national debt in his fist three years in office than GWB & Reagan. COMBINED!!!
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 24-Jan-09 05:24 PM
Eric:
If you're in a room you don't set it on fire and make it worse. Even if every argument you make is right (I disagree with a large premise of your argument) than Barrack Obama has the obiligation not to make the mess any worse. He makes it far worse like setting off a fire by doing this mess.
In 1981 we were going through a rough economic time. Ronald Reagan enacted a tax policy which will create long term economic growth and said we will have some tough times to clean up this mess, but then things will be good. In 1982 unemployment hit double digits. Than with the exception of a mild recession in 1990 caused by Saddam Hussein and a recession in 2001 created in part by the shock of 9-11 attacks we had basically 25 years of economic growth.
So even though this economy has far stronger elements than 1981 your solution is to spend a trillion dollars plus when it doesn't have to be sent.
The biggest reform doesn't cost a cent. Proper reforms in the mortage industry to end bad mortages being given and letting the companies ride out the crisis that is taking place now.
Of course Obama wants to spend money in not cleaning that up.
Walter hanson
NMinneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by JJ at 24-Jan-09 05:49 PM
I think we need some kind of stimulus package, but I agree that we certainly don't need any of the pork that is in some of the proposals. I hope the more conservative members of Obama's economic team and the Republicans in Congress can help guide the discussions toward fixing what is actually broken, but without wasting taxpayer money.
I recently saw articles on a few newspaper websites talking about how Obama was working with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to make sure that the stimulus package was smart and effective at fixing the economic problems, now and into the future. I take that as a very positive sign, since Democrats haven't always worked closely with the business community. And with their fiscally conservative outlook, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce can help Obama and the Democrats "see the light" about what is actually needed and what would just be unnecessary costs passed to the taxpayers.
The main points of their discussions have been making sure that the stimulus package includes tax relief, infrastructure funding, housing industry tax credits to assist homeowners, and reducing borrower & lending fees through the Small Business Administration. I agree with all four of those ideas because I think they would genuinely help the economy.
I noticed that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is asking for input from the public to let them know which of those proposals they support the most. The Chamber can then use that data in their discussions with Obama and members of Congress. Make sure to vote in their poll here - http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/email/email4.cfm?id=196
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 24-Jan-09 07:18 PM
JJ, There aren't any people even slightly conservative in Obama's administration. PERIOD.
Check back later. I'm putting a post together on more of the pork that's getting stuffed into this Pork-O-Rama legislation.
Don't refer to this legislation as a stimulus package. It isn't!!!
If you have influence with the USCoC, tell them to withhold their support of this legislation because it pisses away money at unprecedented & unsustainable rates. What's worse is that a majority of the things in this legislation is either PORK or is a payoff to longtime political allies...OR BOTH!!!
Let's Hope They'd Rather Be Right Than Popular
President Obama apparently has a message for DC Republicans : If you want to be accepted by the in crowd, you'll have to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh:
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.Let's hope Republicans take principled stands against what's being called a stimulus package. That seems to be what John Boehner and Eric Cantor are doing. Frankly, I'd love seeing the bill get zero GOP votes. That way, voters can't hang it around our necks when it goes splat.
One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts. "There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."
One thing that's certain is that President Obama is going to continue his fearmongering campaign in hopes of getting his stimulus package passed:
"We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly," Obama said during the meeting.This combination of fearmongering and hyperbole is something I'd expect from Al Gore. It appears that President Obama is equally willing to tell tall tales to get his agenda passed. People with a grasp of recent history realize that Al Gore was best known for his partisan, divisive tactics and his willingness to say anything to get President Clinton's agenda passed.
Here's what House Minority Leader Boehner said in confronting President Obama on the stiumulus package:
"You know, I'm concerned about the size of the package. And I'm concerned about some of the spending that's in there, [about]...how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives," House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said. "How does that stimulate the economy?"The simple answer is that things like that won't stimulate the economy. They aren't meant to. Here's some additional proof that President Obama will use fearmongering tactics to spend unprecedented amounts of money:
But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: "There was a lot of agreement in that room about the notion that we're facing an economic crisis unlike we've seen in quite some time...that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets."While there's no denying the fact that we're in a recession, it's intellectually dishonest to say that "we're facing an economic crisis unlike we've seen in quite some time." We certainly saw something far worse during the last days of the Carter administration.
The key question that we must keep asking is how spending $200,000,000 on maintenance of the National Mall will help pull us out of this recession. Here's another key question we should keep asking: How will spending $650,000,000 on digital TV coupons pull us out of this recession?
Let's hope R's in Washington, DC start paying attention to the bad policies being pushed by the Obama administration. Let's hope that they vote against pissing huge chunks of money away. It isn't that I think they'll derail this pork-laden legislation. Rather, I'd hope they'd vote against this so they don't get blamed for the damage this legislation will do. I'd hope they'd vote against this legislation so they don't get blamed for the wasteful spending that's a significant part of this legislation.
BTW, here's a thought worth pondering: John McCain campaigned saying that he'd veto bills that had earmarks in them, saying that I'll veto the bill. I'll expose their names. I'll make them famous." Now he's irritated that John Cornyn is actually following conservative principles in opposing this legislation.
It's also interesting that Sen. McCain isn't raising any objections about the corruption machine known as Timothy Geithner.
Posted Saturday, January 24, 2009 5:12 PM
No comments.
Rush's Response
In classic style, Rush has responded to President Obama's anti-Rush partisanship. Here's the part of Rush's reply that we must focus on:
There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.I've repeatedly said that this legislation is about paying off political allies and enacting the majority of President Obama's agenda under the guise of stimulating the economy. This is monster pork bill. It's a political payoff bill. It has little to do with stimulating the economy.
Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.
Starting this instant, Republicans' mantra against Obama's economic plan is centered almost totally on government intervention, wastes nearly a trillion dollars on political payoffs and doesn't rely on the private sector's ability to help solve the current recession. Thus far, I've seen little proof that the Obama administration believes in the private sector.
I say that because all of his proposed solutions are oriented towards the federal government dumping one load of cash after another to (A) solve the banking crisis and (B) lift this economy out of recession.
We should also reject the notion that this is an unprecedented economic crisis though we should be willing to agree that the Obama adminstration's actions, coupled with Congressional Democrats' actions, could turn it into one.
Let's ask some pointed questions about the Democrats' Pork-O-Rama bill. Let's start with this question:
Will spending $200,000,000 on maintaining the National Mall and manicuring the lawn surrounding it jumpstart the economy?
Here's another question that worth considering:
Will taxpayer funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry stimulate the economy? I'm betting not.
Finally, here's another question (for me, it's the most infuriating question):
Will putting $4,190,000,000 into a pot that organizations like ACORN are eligible for stimulate this economy? I'd bet the ranch it won't. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to pay off President Obama's corrupt community organizer allies .
Rush is right. President Obama doesn't want to discuss the merits of the Democrats' pork-barrel spending bill because he knows that the minute the discussion is about the Democrats' spending billions of dollars on frivolous things like grants for ACORN or that it includes a special appropriation of $200,000,000 for maintaining the National Mall, this discussion changes dramatically.
Here's what House Democrats have in mind in making ACORN and other like-minded organizations eligible for these funds:
"For a further additional amount for 'Community Development Fund,' $4,190,000,000, to be used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110; 289), of which-What stimulative purpose will giving $4,190,000,000 to ACORN and like-minded organizations serve? I'd argue that it doesn't and that it wasn't intended to have a stimulative effect. I'd argue that the most likely reason this money is in the Pork-O-Rama bill is to pay off longtime political allies. (Corrupt allies at that.)
"(1) not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition for which eligible entities shall be States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities[.]"
"(2) up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance [,]"
Finally, let's pay attention to Rush about the similarities between President Obama's actions now and Saul Alinsky's tactics of yesteryear:
One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinsky while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:Anyone that doesn't agree with President Obama is quickly trivialized. President Obama certainly tried intimidating Eric Cantor when Cantor challenged the need to
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
I wish I could say I'm surprised. Unfortunately, I'm not.
UPDATE: Welcome Gateway readers. Check out the other posts I've made about the Obama administration's Pork-O-Rama bill. (Explanation: I stopped calling it a stimulus package shortly after Obama's inauguration.) I've also written about Tim Geithner's corruption and about Washington's endless supply of panic regarding this recession.
UPDATE II: I will no longer call the so-called stimulus bill Pork-O-Rama. Once again, Mr. Hewitt has coined a better title: The Jimmy Carter Memorial Bill .
That's why he's the Commish of the Northern Alliance and I'm but a lowly MOBster.
Technroati: Pork , President Obama , Deficits , Inflation , Misery Index , Saul Alinsky , ACORN , Corruption , Rush Limbaugh , Conservatism , Talk Radio
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Originally posted Sunday, January 25, 2009, revised 01-Feb 1:16 AM
No comments.
TARP, Taxes & Tim
If there was a message I'd want conveyed to Republican senators in DC, it would be that they should vote to not confirm Timothy Geithner to be the next Treasury Secretary. It isn't that I think this will stop Geithner's confirmation dead in its tracks. It certainly won't.
If there was a request I could make to these Republican senators, it would be that I wish several senators would stand up and call Mr. Geithner a corrupt man. I'd wish they did that because that's precisely what he is.
His non-apology apology for 'accidentally' forgetting about his tax obligations for 4 years is insulting. We know that Mr. Geithner received checks from the IMF to pay his taxes. We know that he signed documents each year saying that he accepted responsibility for paying his payroll taxes. As awful as that is, it's minor compared with his neglecting his oversight responsibilities as president for the NY Federal Reserve.
After TARP funds were sent out, Mr. Geithner didn't pay attention to what they got spent on. Instead, TARP money disappeared into thin air.
What's worse is that his new boss is asking for more TARP money. I'm not talking about releasing the last $350 billion of the original TARP funds. The Washington Post reported that President Obama is planning on asking for more money :
But with the economy deteriorating rapidly, financial companies are incurring trillions of dollars in losses on failing mortgage loans and other assets, forcing the federal government to consider substantially expanding its response to the crisis, officials said. Leading economists and lawmakers calculate that hundreds of billions more could be required.Mr. President, I'm not a world-famous economist but I've got a suggestion nonetheless: before asking taxpayers for more money, why don't you tell your incoming Treasury Secretary to find out where the first $300-$400 billion disappeared to.
"I don't think many people at the top of the Treasury or the Fed thinks this is the last amount of money they're going to need to deploy," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who speaks regularly with top officials.
Obama has pledged, for instance, to use at least $50 billion of the remaining rescue funds to help troubled borrowers avoid foreclosure on home loans. But in a private luncheon Thursday with Senate Democrats, some of the nation's top economists said the cost of that element of the rescue program alone could approach $250 billion.
In fact, I've got a second request: Stop trusting Barney Frank's advice on financial organizations. He's got a crappy record on knowing when something is going south fast. He was the Democrat that said he didn't see a crisis at Fannie and Freddie.
But I digress. Let's get back to why I think Mr. Geithner is corrupt. I'll make my point with a question: How can someone get a notice from the IRS that 2 years of his taxes are in, putting it gently, disrepair, then not pay his taxes for the other 2 years of his employment in the IMF?
Let's remember that he didn't pay his taxes until he was tapped as OBama's Treasury Secretary-Designate. He still hasn't payed his taxes for all 4 years of employment with the IMF. If that's the modern definition of integrity and honorable, I prefer the old definitions of those words.
The difference between corruption in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is that we feed our crooks to the courts. Democrats nominate their corrupt people to run the IRS.
Isn't it time we demanded more integrity from people in positions of extreme power?
Originally posted Sunday, January 25, 2009, revised 30-Jan 10:59 AM
No comments.
An Endless Supply Of Panic
Since its inauguration, the Obama administration has done its utmost to convince us that the recession we're in is unlike any other the United States has experienced, with the exception of the Great Depression. While it's true we're in a recession, John Stossel writes , it's hardly time to panic. While it's true we'll have to deal with some unique circumstances before climbing out of this recession, it's nothing that can't be solved by thinking things through and reacting rationally.
Stossel points out a phenomenom that we're watching play out today:
Even smart people like Paul Volcker say, "This crisis is different." Politicians say things like this because they're too close to the problem. They've panicked. I saw this again and again doing consumer reporting: People closest to problems often panic beyond reason. After 9/11, people overreacted because of fear of terrorism. We federalized airport security and spent tax money on nonsense like bulletproof vests for dogs. In 1999, it was the Y2K computer technicians themselves who were most convinced that computers would freeze and planes crash. It was the bird flu specialists who were convinced that millions would die from the bird flu. Today, it's the scientists creating global warming computer models who are most insistent that we take economically destructive steps to stop climate change.A friend of mine held a key position in Fingerhut's Y2K team. At the time, I was working at Quebecor in St. Cloud. Another friend of mine was involved in getting Quebecor Y2K compliant. Both were telling me that the crisis was vastly overblown, that newspaper articles were long on crisis hysteria and short on actual facts.
The effect of the media's fearmongering? You couldn't buy a generator if your life depended on it. One guy in Wisconsin bought enoough Hamburger Helper to last 15 months and stored it in his basement. At the time, USA Today showed a picture of the guy's basement. Not only did this gentleman buy that much Hamburger Helper, which might be considered cruel and inhuman punishment in the Obama administration, he bought the metal shelving for that Hamburger Helper.
My point is that this 'crisis' is a fiction created by the Obama administration's desire to spend money at unprecedented and unsustainable levels coupled with Wall Street's corruption and greed.
America, it's time we stood together and sent these panicmongers this bold, clear message: Enough's enough. You made bad decisions? Deal with it. You want to throw more of my money at your panic-driven and ill-fated decisions? Not in my lifetime.
This pork-filled bill is a disaster that Democratic politicians want to hang around OUR necks. We The People should refuse the check. In fact, We The People should get irate that this new administration thinks so little about working people's wallets.
Here's another notworthy paragraph from Stossel's article:
Vice President Biden informed ABC News that "Everyone...says the scope of this package has to be bold. It has to be big." Everyone? Hardly. More than 100 prominent economists signed a petition against the stimulus package , and more than 200 signed a petition against the financial bailout .When Vice President Biden says that "Everyone...says the scope of this package has to be bold", what he really means is that everyone that he hasn't tuned out because they disagree with him says that the government must bail out the free market system.
It isn't dramatically different from Al Gore saying that consensus has been reached on MMGW. In both instances, discord and disagreement reached significant levels. Those asking legitimate questions about MMGW were ignored because the liberals had to save the planet. Those raising doubts about the "unprecedented crisis" are being ignored because this administration thinks that it has to save our economy from the capitalists.
Here's the part of Mr. Stossel's article that I most appreciated:
I liked the headline that the Wall Street Journal gave to an op-ed by George Mason University economist Russ Roberts: "Don't Just Do Something, Stand There." Roberts pointed out that politicians can't wisely spend the trillions they commit, "even if they want to. The information about who needs to be bailed out and who needs to fail is too complicated...It is time to let the imprudent fail and the prudent pick up the bargains."This re-inforces two of my long-held beliefs:
1) Free markets occasionally create messes.
2) Governments don't have enough money to clean up those messes.
Years ago, I was a big fan of This Week With David Brinkley. I think TW was the first show that featured interviews and conducted a roundtable discussion. One particular Sunday morning during the Clinton administration, the subject turned to a difficult situation in the economy. George Will offered the voice of calm, said that this situation would pass. Carol Simpson's reply didn't disguise her do-gooder intentions. She said "Surely, we've got to do something." Mr. Will's rejoinder was classic. " More money has been poorly spent in the name of 'Surely, we've got to do something' than on anything else ."
Washington would be wise to heed Mr. Will's wise words. Unfortunately for the taxpayers, Washington is more interested in listening to the echochamber's conventional wisdom than it's interested in listening to voices of reason and true wisdom.
The truth is that I can make a strong case that The Unifier has been a bigger fearmonger than the Democrats accused President Bush of being after 9/11. The Obama administration is peddling this recession as an economic catastrophe of historic proportions. It isn't.
President Bush could point to verifiable terrorist threats as reason why we had to dramatically change tactics against the terrorists. President Bush could justify the need because we got frequent reminders of their capabilities from Madrid, Bali, Beslan and London.
This crisis mentality can't just be placed on the Obama administration. Nancy Pelosi bears part of the blame, as does President Bush. Here's something that Ms. Pelosi said that we should remember:
Of course some of those companies would fail, and suddenly letting that happen is a political no-no. When the automakers came to Washington to beg, Nancy Pelosi said, " We reject those advocating bankruptcy ." Why? Bankruptcy can be a good thing. Kmart declared bankruptcy in 2002, but it didn't disappear. Filing for bankruptcy allowed the company to reorganize itself and reemerge stronger.The mindset that we shouldn't let businesses fail because we don't want to see pain or suffering is troublesome. Once we got on the backside of Jimmy Carter's disastrous "America must make do with less" policies, we got Reagan, who corrected things and ushered in a generation of prosperity.
The dirty little secret that Ms. Pelosi doesn't want people examining is that the Detroit bailouts weren't for the car companies but for the unions. Had Detroit not gotten those bailouts, GM would've filed for reorganization, which would've forced the unions to renegotiate. That's the last thing Ms. Pelosi wanted.
The Obama administration's 'Surely, we've got to do something' mantra isn't smart policy. That attitude won't lift us out of this recession. And the pork contained in this bill certainly doesn't do anything other than pay off the Democrats' political allies with our money.
The economy isn't on the verge of collapse. The sky isn't falling. And the Obama prescription for prosperity is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Posted Sunday, January 25, 2009 4:27 PM
No comments.
Paterson's Problems Multiply
When David Paterson took over from Eliot Spitzer, it's been a foregone conclusion that he'd win in 2010. That 'sure bet' thing is pretty much out the window now, especially after reading t his editorial :
Gov. Paterson had the opportunity, and the obligation, to appoint a U.S. senator who has the standing and expertise to be a national leader in rescuing the American financial system and economy from dire peril. He fell far short.Though that isn't insignificant, I suspect that this is the least of Mr. Paterson's problems. I suspect that this will cause him far more re-election troubles:
The governor's selection of one-term upstate Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand for this highly critical post, a seat long held by people of enormous stature, was decidedly underwhelming and thoroughly disappointing.
For good measure, Gov. David A. Paterson's advisers piled on a few more salacious tidbits: She has embarrassing skeletons in her closet related to taxes, a nanny and her marriage.Gov. Paterson knew that not picking Ms. Kennedy wouldn't get him on the Kennedy's Christmas card list but then stabbing her in the back after she humiliated herself by dropping out was political suicide. The Kennedys know a thing or two about sharpening the long knives right before going for the political kill.
That Paterson would sanction such a frontal assault on Kennedy after she already had ended her quest to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton stunned even the most grizzled political insiders.
What was to be gained when advisers close to Paterson decided to dump on Kennedy in interviews with The Buffalo News and a handful of other news outlets Thursday, less than 12 hours after she already dropped out of the running?
What was the benefit the governor saw in attacking Kennedy, whose political connections, including straight to the Oval Office with President Obama, go far beyond anything the governor enjoys?
When history books are written, it will note that Gov. Paterson's political career was inconsequential, tumultuous and exceptionally brief. I'd be surprised if he doesn't lose in the primary. I wouldn't be surprised if he announces soon that he's retiring at the end of this term.
Here's something interesting from the article:
Some Democrats say Paterson's choice of Gillibrand could have selfish political motives. One lawmaker theorized that he took a lesser-known Democrat as a way of making the 2010 Senate race more attractive for a big-name Republican, say Rudolph Giuliani, to take on instead of running against Paterson next year.I don't have any insight into what Rudy's ambitions are but I wouldn't be surprised if he ran for governor so that Peter King could run against Gillibrand. Whether that's the best top of the ticket for Republicans is another story.
One thing's that's certain is that Paterson's picking Rep. Gillibrand gives the GOP a shot at regaining that House seat. The governor's race will be far more competitive than experts predicted in 2007. Since then, Eliot Spitzer got run out and Paterson inflicted alot of political damage on himself. I'll still have to see more to put this Senate seat in the toss-up column but it's alot closer to being competitive than it was a year ago.
That's alot of potential damage from a single bad decision.
Posted Sunday, January 25, 2009 7:23 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Jan-09 02:00 PM
He should have appointed Spitzer for the open Senate seat. That would have been a hoot.
Is Obama's Post-Partisanship Aura History?
In asking whether President Obama's post-partisanship tour is over, it's realistic to ask whether it wasn't more smoke-and-mirrors than reality. Nonetheless, the UK Telegraph is asking the same questions in this article :
After less than a week in office, Mr Obama's presidency is already encountering the very partisan bickering he had pledged to stamp out during his first 100 days. He faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.It's apparent that President Obama thinks he's bulletproof, that he can say anything and get away with it. My instincts tell me that he's wrong, that his image will take some hits the minute he starts making real decisions impacting real people.
The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."
He then told them to break free of the confrontational mindset epitomised by Mr Limbaugh, the highest paid talk show host in America. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Mr Obama said.
John Hinderaker makes that point in this post :
Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Democrats' over-the-top "stimulus" plan, most Americans are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that "Congress and President Obama will increase government spending too much in the next year or two." Conversely, only 17% worry that they will cut taxes too much. (I think we can safely reassure that group that their fears are unfounded.)There isn't any doubt but that this level of spending will create significant amounts of inflation, which will likely cause significant layoffs. That isn't the shortest path between today's recession and tomorrow's prosperity, though it might be the shortest path between today's supermajorities and embarassing midterm defeats . It's important that Republicans stay calm and make the smartest arguments against this so-called stimulus package.
This suggests that the seeds of the Republicans' resurgence have already been sown. Congress will indeed spend far too much money, increasing the federal deficit to ridiculous levels. Before long, the monetary and fiscal policies now emerging will lead to wealth-destroying and income-eroding levels of inflation. As long as the Republicans in Congress stick to their principles and oppose the Democrats' pork-fest, they should be well positioned for a comeback in 2010 and 2012.
One of the best arguments that I've figured out about it include highlighting the supplemental appropriation for maintaining the National Mall. Another great argument against it is questioning the Democrats' putting $4.2 billion into "neighborhood stabilization activities." How does putting billions of dollars into that type of thing stimulate the economy?
Perhaps the best argument against the Democrats' so-called stimulus package was provided by the Obama administration itself:
"Can you tell me Mr. Barthold, how many jobs will be created as a result of this legislation?" Camp asked. Barthold replied, "In short, Mr. Camp, I can't." Camp then pressed Barthold to clarify his position, "So we don't have an estimate of the number of jobs this would create either private sector or public? We don't have any estimate of the economic effect that this legislation would have on our economy, whether it would create any growth in our economy at all? We don't have that data before the committee today?" Barthold then nodded his head and shrugged.That type of testimony has the potential to be an unmitigated disaster for this administration. It essentially says, under oath no less, that they didn't do the math on this legislation. It also says that their 'plan' was just to spend alot of money and hope that it helped.
This is potentially the first time in his political life where President Obama might be judged on the results of his policies rather than on his speaking ability. That's got to scare him just a little. His policies are about to be put into action. Until now, people could project their own values and priorities onto him. When the interest rates climb, the inflation rates don't drop and the economy doesn't stabilize, what's the likelihood that the American people will trust him when he proposes another massive spending bill to stimulate the economy?
The Lady Logician sums things up pretty nicely here :
The crux of Krugman's column is if the Fed prints a boat load of money and nationalizes the bank and if the federal government creates a whole slew of temporary government jobs then the economy will bounce back. Banks can not be forced to lend money to people who don't want to borrow! Right now, the people who can best "rescue" the economy don't have faith in it. That faith was killed, in some part by the very politicians that now want to rescue it from certain disaster! The consumers are the ones who can best rescue the economy and right now they are not spending money out of fear of higher taxes, higher fuel costs, an over higher cost of living and a stock market in free fall. The job creators of the country are not creating jobs out of fears of high taxes, higher fuel costs, an overall higher cost of doing business and a stock market in free fall! We simply can not spend our way out of this mess. Responsible spending mixed with tax cuts, permanent job creation and ceasing to live well beyond our means are all parts of the solution to this problem.No amount of President Obama's personal charm will change people's fears. the trust that people have with President Obama isn't based on anything substantive. Their trust certainly isn't grounded in his long list of accomplishments. He didn't have any in the US Senate or the Illinois Senate.
People didn't trust Ronald Reagan on the economy because of his personality. People trusted him because of their prosperity and his long list of accomplishments. They also trusted him because of all the speeches that he gave,the debates he participated in.
As much as anything, the people's trust in President Obama is based on his speaking ability and the media's not doing their due dilligence on him. Now he'll have to perform. If they aren't better off in October, 2010 than they are now, Democrats will pay a price that November. It's that simple.
Originally posted Monday, January 26, 2009, revised 06-Sep 5:51 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 26-Jan-09 10:26 AM
People continue to talk about the stimulus plan as the government "spending money" when in fact they have NO "money," only the ability to increase the leaden pile of debt on us, our children and our grandchildren.
The Definition of Cold-Hearted
Last night before going to sleep, I saw this article on Drudge:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming " contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government ."Several observations are appropriate here. First, and most importantly, Speaker Pelosi isn't the least bit concerned with the loss of human life. Second, Speaker Pelosi is admitting that a significant number of abortions happen solely for financial reasons. Third, and least signifcantly, this is one of the flimsiest justifications for any expenditure I've ever heard.
Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.
The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy .
Developing...
She got caught flat-footed on this question. She didn't expect Stephanopoulos to ask her about spending money on an article of the Democrats' faith. I'm betting that's why she scrambled and put together such a flimsy answer.
It's a revealing insight into Ms. Pelosi's mind, though it wasn't a particularly nice sight.
Posted Monday, January 26, 2009 8:19 AM
No comments.
The Resistance Is GROWING!!!
I've been harping all weekend that the bill currently being touted as the salvation of our economy isn't anything of the sort. Now people are joining the chorus. People like Jennifer Rubin :
The notion of a bipartisan, pro-growth stimulus plan that could pay for some much needed infrastructure was appealing to many Americans. Even Republicans skeptical of the entire Keynesian premise were willing to go along with the deal if they could get some private sector help and some needed spending on national defense. But what has emerged from the clutches of Nancy Pelosi is a grab-bag of liberal special interest group goodies, welfare disguised as "tax relief" and precious little of long term value to the country.Charles Krauthammer isn't buying it either :
Look, this is one of the worst bills in galactic history . It's not only on the timing of it, as we saw from the Congressional Budget Office, more than half of the infrastructure stuff with the bridges and roads will not be spent until two years hence when the recession will be likely over or coming out of it, and it will only add to inflation, not jobs.Leave it to Mr. Krauthammer to put things that succinctly. Saving the best for last, here's Ms. Rubin's finest observation in the entire article:
And it's the content of this. We heard earlier in Major's report, a third of a billion for contraception, a billion to states to help them collect child support, nursing training--all this is worthy, but it ain't stimulus.
If you look at what was left behind after last year's stimulus, $160 billion, it didn't have any effect on the economy. It left nothing behind. This bill has a fifth of a billion for grass at the Jefferson Memorial. FDR left behind the Hoover dam and Eisenhower left behind the interstate highway system . We will leave behind , after spending $1 trillion, a dog run in East Potomac Park .
And on a political level, the Democrats have given Republicans every reason to oppose the bill and no reason to support it. As a result the "bipartisan" stimulus will be the Democrats' bill.It's refreshing to see conservatives growing a spine instead of crumbling before The Unifier. If Republicans stop free-spending ways, they'll pick up seats in 2010.
Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:17 AM
Comment 1 by Steve at 27-Jan-09 07:38 PM
Great post!!
Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
