Obama Versus The Economy

There has been a lot of discussion during the last three years regarding Obama's handling, if you will, of the economy.  The left's view seems to be that Obama inherited a mess entirely of George W. Bush's making, and that but for Obama's herculean efforts and vision, America would have plunged into a Greater Depression.  It looks like that line of thinking has finally hit the wall, as the CBO has acknowledged that the stimulus programs have a negative effect on long-term economic growth. 

Meanwhile, on the right, the debate is whether Obama is simply ignorant and inept regarding the economy, or whether he is a sly fox who knows exactly what he is doing and his design is to weaken the economy and increase the number of Americans who are dependent upon the government.  I have long believed that Obama falls into the latter category, and that part of his plan is to create a permanent bloc of democrat voters, and squeeze the country until we all give up and consign everything over to a larger federal government, resulting a giant social democracy. More on this in a future post.

Getting back to the present, Charles Krauthammer wrote a nice piece in Friday's WaPo about the Keystone XL Pipeline.  It also addresses the schism between Obama's economic political decision-making.  In short, Krauthammer observes that Obama realized that green lighting the pipeline would not garner him a single additional vote, but stalling it - no matter what the cost to our economy - could gain him the support of thousands of "environmentalists."  The cost to our economy?  Thousands of actual jobs; easy access (read: cheap) to oil (read: ENERGY that we don't have to buy from the Middle East).  This decision was probably win-win for Obama - politically expedient AND curbs economic growth.

Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker takes up the same point with Obama's decision to halt shale gas drilling in Ohio.  His colleague Steven Hayward carries that story a few yards farther in his post, Obama to Ohio: Drop Dead.

Operation Lead Or Get Out Of the Way

From Today's WaPo we get clever things like this:

“What will matter most to Americans of all backgrounds boils down to this: the President is fighting every day to provide economic security for the middle class and to make the economy more fair, while the Republicans want to double down on policies that led to the challenges we face,” campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in an e-mail.

This is in reference to Obama's campaign Operation Vote.  That's right - the incumbent President has a facet of his re-election campaign titled "Operation Vote."  It is designed to get people to...vote.  Presumably it is focused on getting people to vote for Obama. I suppose this would be the time to make a joke about about Operation Vote's biggest hurdle being the challenge of overcoming the results of Obama's policies and lack of leadership on every front - it's like his campaign is working towards an opposite result than that of his actual presidency!

Operation Vote is really an attempt to rally minorities to the polls.  Obama is calling on minority voters to help bail him out; he says he needs their help so that he can continue to help them.  Because he's been doing such a great job of helping Americans thus far.  Obama has been raising the cry that "there are those in Washington who are working against me."  Interesting.  For 2/3 of his current term, Obama enjoyed a House and Senate that were both controlled by the Democrats.  Were they working against him, or were the policies enacted during that time just crap?

But that's not the point of this post.

Economic security for the middle class. Let's look at that for a moment.  Forget that this is all tied into campaign rhetoric - all Obama knows how to do is campaign, but since he is President I think it's fait to view his rhetoric as his actual policy.  What is economic security for the middle class?  (Remember - by singling out the middle class and impliedly juxtaposing it against the upper class one is not necessarily engaging in class warfare - one is merely inciting class warfare; Obama is cooly above all things.)  Economic security is probably most easily defined as JOBS.  If you are part of the middle class, the most important aspect of your economic security is your continued employment.  Obama should be bragging about all the things he has done to help shore up employment opportunities in America.  Except that he can't.  Corporations are sitting on tons of cash right now; banks are sitting on tons of cash as well.  No one hiring and banks aren't lending because of all the uncertainty surrounding Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an EPA that is drunk with power, etc.  Obama is chocking the life out of american business.  These are the companies - large and small - that employ the middle class.  The middle class is NOT made up solely of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other government employees.  We can't simply raise taxes on the wealthy and expect the resulting revenue will fund all the middle class jobs.  Look at the cost per job of every stimulus-created job - over $200,000 per job, and those jobs don't pay $200K!

But there's a deeper issue here as well.  Obama loves Warren Buffett.  He listens to that hypocrite, but ignores one important aspect of Buffett's teachings.

The arithmetic makes it plain that inflation is a far more devastating tax than anything that has been enacted by our legislatures. The inflation tax has a fantastic ability to simply consume capital. It makes no difference to a widow with her savings in a 5 percent passbook account whether she pays 100 percent income tax on her interest income during a period of zero inflation, or pays no income taxes during years of 5 percent inflation.

 All of the Fed's attempts at stimulus, particularly the QE measures, are directly aimed at raising inflation.  Obama wants to reduce our debt by manipulating the currency and devaluing the dollar.  Actually another way of writing that sentence could have been to say that by devaluing the dollar, Obama is working towards his goal of destroying the american economy.

If Obama really wants to help the middle class remain employed and able to save money, he would be far better served to abandon his policies rather than create a sub-group of his campaign aimed at playing the race card in the hopes of getting voters to forget what they already know.

Oh, Please Let This Come To Pass

I wrote yesterday about Maureen Dowd having her Maureen doubts on the viability of Obama as the Democrat candidate.  It appears that one of two things is happening: either it has become fashionable for liberal writers to pine for a better candidate, or the left is just not that into  Obama  anymore.

The latest water boy  to step up to the keyboard is Salon's Matt Stoller.  You may never have heard of him, but he has quite a resume for such a young man; he has worked for the group that was trying to draft Wesley Clark into the 2004 presidential race...he worked for Simon Rosenberg's campaign to become chair of the DNC (Rosenberg never became chair)...he worked for Jon Corzine...he supported Ned Lamont...most recently he was senior policy advisor to Alan Grayson (Yes, THAT Alan Grayson).  Let's say that Mr. Stoller is no stranger to failure.

Stoller writes, in a piece titled, "What Democrats Can Do About Obama," that the Democrat party should have other candidates challenge Obama in a primary.  Seriously.  He wants this.  It gets better, though:

Obama has ruined the Democratic Party. The 2010 wipeout was an electoral catastrophe so bad you'd have to go back to 1894 to find comparable losses. From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low.

Why does Stoller  want to get rid of Obama, exactly?  For one thing, it's because Obama doesn't listen to Paul Krugman.  The fact that no one listens to Paul Krugman (or that no one SHOULD) is lost on Mr. Stoller.  But here are his words:

If would be one thing if Obama were failing because he was too close to party orthodoxy. Yet his failures have come precisely because Obama has not listened to Democratic Party voters. He continued idiotic wars, bailed out banks, ignored luminaries like Paul Krugman, and generally did whatever he could to repudiate the New Deal. The Democratic Party should be the party of pay raises and homes, but under Obama it has become the party of pay cuts and foreclosures. Getting rid of Obama as the head of the party is the first step in reverting to form.

Stoller works hard to make his case that a challenger is needed, if for no other reason than to make Obama take notice...of the fact that his party doesn't like what he's doing.  I guess Obama ignores the polls, because the polls suggest that most of Americans don't like what he's doing.  Maybe Stoller's right and it's really hard to actually get Obama's attention.  But who to run against Obama?  What candidate is out there who can step onto the stage and boldly shove the country's first minority President aside?  What visionary leader can stride forth and put the nation back on track?

Tom Harkin.

Tom Harkin?!?  Stoller suggests Tom Harkin should get the ball rolling.  The Democrats have passed on the magic of Tom Harkin as presidential candidate enough times already.  There were enough dubious ideas in Stoller's piece before he suggested Harkin, but now it's clear: Stoller is in training for the Biggest Dope in America Who Holds a Degree From Harvard competition.  Look out Shumer, Grayson, et al; Matt Stoller is entering the ring.

What I found really interesting about this piece was that it really illustrates the desperation on the other side.  The left is increasingly viewing Obama as part of the right, which he most certainly is not. The right sees Obama as borderline, if not dyed-in-the-wool, socialist.  Stoller cites a poll wherein 32% of Democrats want a different candidate!

Wouldn't it be wonderful if some other Democrats decided to challenge Obama in a primary!  I would love to watch him trying to convince his party that he's liberal enough to continue as their candidate, and then have to switch to convincing the independent voters that he's not too liberal for them to support.  Throw in the amount of fundraising that he would have to engage in and he wouldn't have time for his speeches.

Of course, this is all wishful thinking; it's not going to happen, but not for the reasons Stoller suggests.  Quite simply the Democrats could never survive dumping the first african american president.

While the Republicans try to pick among the current candidates and keep one eye on the door for new entries (ones NOT named Palin), it's nice to see that across the aisle the opposition isn't enthralled with their choice either.

Breaking Down Dowd's Breakdown

...AAnnnddd we are back.

Today's NYT contains an op-ed by Maureen Dowd.  It's called One and Done? and you can read it here.

Dowd's column is interesting because you can actually watch her transform from mechanical supporter and reflexive demonizer of the right to open dissatisfaction with Obama.

Her initial attempt to characterize the President as just a guy "in a bad spot" who's expectations of the opposition were overly hopeful falls short being accurate.  I think that's just her conditioning coming through.  It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama is the victim of circumstance at this point; his ideas have been few and far between, and the ones we have seen and that have been implemented have been losers.  Obama has had over two and a half years in office; for the first two years his party controlled both houses of Congress.  The fallout of those two years resulted in the Democrats losing a supermajority in the Senate, and losing outright control of the House; Nancy Pelosi lost her job and Harry Reid nearly lost his (Harry Reid would have lost his re-election bid had the Republicans run a reasonable candidate in Nevada, but that's another story).   Dowd's efforts to paint Obama as a reasonable man are laughable.  The Debt Ceiling talks disclosed Obama as a major obstacle, not a facilitator.  The compromise was reached only when the players involved bypassed Obama. Grand Bargain?  Obama never articulated a plan; he simply wanted to continue to negotiate, moving the goal line every time he sat down.

Dowd says that Obama's re-election strategy is to paint the Republicans as "disrespectful."  I have never understood this strategy.  First, the President, like everyone else who isn't a monarch, has to earn respect.  George Bush failed to earn the respect of millions of Americans, notably the media and late night talk shows and comedy programs.  Obama used his inauguration speech to slam Bush - as Bush sat a few feet away.  Obama used his State of The Union address to lie and disrespect the Supreme Court as many of the Justices sat 20 feet in front of him, prompting Justice Alito's expression of disbelief.    Has Obama earned anyone's respect?  He has proven that he can't lead, has no ideas, is thin-skinned and somewhat mean-spirited.

But then Dowd gets to the heart of it.  She cannot escape her frustration and apparent disgust with Obama. I actually think she captures the essence of it quite well when she writes:

If the languid Obama had not done his usual irritating fourth-quarter play, if he had presented a jobs plan a year ago and fought for it, he wouldn’t have needed to elevate the setting. How will he up the ante next time? A speech from the space station?
Republicans who are worried about being political props have a point. The president is using the power of the incumbency and a sacred occasion for a political speech.
Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.

 Dowd does not end her piece with a redemptive tone; she instead concludes ruefully that Obama is not The One.  When Maureen Dowd has finally gotten to this point and the NYT is printing it, perhaps we can start to believe that reality is finally dawning on America, and Obama's shine is wearing off as time wears on.

More On Keynesian Thought

Over at The Burning Platform (H/T Zero Hedge), there is a rather interesting article about the failure of Keynesian economics.  It even has graphs so most people can keep up with it.  Anyway, it's well worth reading, although strict adherents to Keynes will probably not enjoy it very much, which is ok - the rest of us don't enjoy John Maynard very much!

Some excerpts:

I can reveal his plan today because the White House has already leaked the major aspects of his plan. He will call for an extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut of 2% for all working Americans. This was supposed to give a dramatic boost to GDP in 2011. Maybe it will work next time. He will demand that extended unemployment benefits be renewed. Somehow providing 99 weeks of unemployment benefits is supposed to create jobs. It’s done wonders thus far. He will propose some semblance of an infrastructure bank or tax cuts to spur infrastructure spending. It will include a proposal for training and education to help unemployed people switch careers. He will attempt to steal the thunder from the SUPER COMMITTEE of 12 by coming up with $2 trillion of budget savings by insisting the Lear jet flying rich fork over an extra $500 billion.

You may have noticed that followers of Keynesian dogma like Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, Brad Delong, Richard Koo, John Galbraith, every Democrat in Congress, and every liberal pundit and columnist have been shrieking about the Tea Party terrorists and their ghastly budget cuts that are destroying our economy. They contend the stock market is tanking and the economy is heading into recession due to the brutal austerity measures being imposed by the extremists in the Republican Party. There is just one small issue with their argument. It is completely false. It is a bold faced lie. This is 2011. The economy has been in freefall since January 1. No spending cuts have occurred. Nada!!! As the CBO chart below reveals, the horrendous slashing of government will amount to $21 billion in 2012 and $42 billion in 2013. Of course, those aren’t even cuts in spending. They are reductions in the projected increases in spending. Politicians must be very secure in the knowledge that Americans are completely ignorant when it comes to anything other than the details of Kim Kardashian’s wedding and who Snooki is banging on Jersey Shore.

 Obama has taken Keynesianism to a new level. Federal spending will total $10.8 trillion in Obama’s 1^stthree years, versus $8.4 trillion in the previous three years. Even a Harvard economist can figure out this is a 29% increase in Federal spending. What has it accomplished? We are back in recession, unemployment is rising, forty six million Americans are on food stamps, food and energy prices are soaring, and the middle class is being annihilated. The standard Keynesian response is we would have lost 3 million more jobs, we were saved from a 2^nd Great Depression and the stimulus was too little. It would have worked if it had just been twice as large.

The 2^nd Great Depression was not avoided, it was delayed. Our two decade long delusional credit boom could have been voluntarily abandoned in 2008. The banks at fault could have been liquidated in an orderly bankruptcy with stockholders and bondholders accepting the consequences of their foolishness. Unemployment would have soared to 12%, GDP would have collapsed, and the stock market would have fallen to 5,000. The bad debt would have been flushed from the system. Instead our Wall Street beholden leaders chose to save their banker friends, cover-up the bad debt, shift private debt to taxpayer debt, print trillions of new dollars in an effort to inflate away the debt, and implemented every wacky Keynesian stimulus idea Larry Summers could dream up.  These strokes of genius have failed miserably. Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner and Obama have set in motion a series of events that will ultimately lead to a catastrophic currency collapse. We have entered the 2^nd phase of the Greater Depression and there are no monetary or fiscal bullets left in the gun. Further expansion of debt will lead to a hyperinflationary collapse as the remaining confidence in the U.S. dollar is exhausted. We are one failed Treasury auction away from a currency crisis.

John Maynard Obama got everything he asked for in January 2009. He had both houses in Congress and did not need to consult Republicans to pass his Keynesian $862 billion porkulus bill. It seems that $252 billion, or 29% of the package was nothing more than transfer payments. Of course, according to Keynesians, the $252 billion should have had a multiplier effect when it was handed out. I think they were right. Obama was able to multiply the number of people on food stamps in January 2009 from 32 million to the current tally of 45.8 million. The monthly food stamp transfer payment has gone from $3.6 billion to $6.1 billion. Keynesians should be thrilled by this success story.

Obama’s Keynesian dream bill included:

• $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years.

• $2 billion for child-care subsidies.

• $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts.

• $400 million for global-warming research.

• $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects.

• $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

• $8 billion for renewable energy funding.

• $6 billion for mass transit that had a low or negative return on investment.

• $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles.

• Congress earmarked $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities.

• The Smithsonian received $150 million.

• The Department of Education got $66 billion, more than the entire Education Department spent a just 10 years ago. $6 billion of this subsidized university building projects.

Obama declared in December 2008 there were shovel ready projects across the land that would create immediate jobs. Too bad he didn’t tell the American public only $30 billion of the $862 billion mountain of pork was earmarked for highways and bridges. Obama declared his stimulus would create 3.5 million jobs, later changed to “create or save”. There were 144 million Americans employed in January 2009. Today, there are 139 million Americans employed. Obama gives the term “success story” a new meaning. The Keynesians had their chance and now they want a do-over. Sorry, that isn’t how it works in the real world. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, “We won the election. We wrote the bill.” No truer words have ever been spoken.
As we know, that was only the beginning of our Keynesian debt nightmare. Let’s do some critical thinking and assess the results of Obama’s other Keynesian solutions:

• The Homebuyer Tax Credit cost taxpayers $27 billion or $43,000 per additional house sold. The Keynesians handed 3.9 million people $7,000 to do something they were going to do anyway. They lured first time home buyers into the market. Since the credit expired, median home prices have fallen $15,000 and continue to fall. This wonderful government program has created more underwater homeowners and did nothing to stabilize the housing market or home prices.

• Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $3 billion. An incremental 125,000 cars were sold at a cost of $24,000 per car. This Keynesian dream program lured more people into debt and warped the used car market by destroying used cars and driving up prices for poor people who couldn’t afford a new car. There were no carryover benefits except for government controlled union car makers.

• Obama’s HAMP program allocated $11 billion to supposedly allow 4 million homeowners to modify their mortgages, reduce their monthly mortgage payments and avoid foreclosure. HAMP has proven a colossal failure that has done more to harm than help debt-laden homeowners. It has achieved slightly more than 500,000 permanent modifications, 40% of which the Treasury expects to default. Far more borrowers have dropped out of the program than successfully achieved permanent loan modification. These borrowers, along with those who later default, will often be left with larger outstanding debt, worse credit scores, and less home equity.

• Obama even handed $30 billion to the largest homebuilder corporations in the country, run by billionaires like Bob Toll, by allowing them to carry back their losses and wipe out tax liabilities in prior years. This did wonders for the housing market. It did stimulate bonus payments for the CEOs of these companies.

• Billions of tax revenue was lost by handing out $1,500 tax credits for people to buy new windows, doors, and appliances they were going to buy anyway. We are still waiting for that multiplier effect.

The usual suspects are now declaring that we can’t make the same mistakes FDR made in 1937 resulting in a dramatic downturn in 1938. As usual, the Keynesian storyline about the Great Depression is false.

I know it appears as though I included all of the article, but I promise you I didn't.  Please do yourself a favor and click over there and read the whole thing.  You'll come away smarter...or your money back.

Gallimaufry Time!

I know things have been a bit slow over here in our little tube on the interwebs.  I'd like to be able to blame end-of-summer vacations, good fishing days, pennant races, and the innumerable tasks associated with preparing for the arrival of Mason, Jr...but we all know that it's really just Bush's fault, right?  The last I heard, it was perfectly acceptable to blame anything and everything on the guy who was left the White house nearly three years ago.  Anyway, I digress...but that is actually the point of this post.  With so much going on and so little to actually write about, let's hit it all...let's have a GALLIMAUFRY!!! (apologies to Ken Tremendous and the gang at Fire Joe Morgan)

Unemployment rate has doubled since 2007, and that doesn't take into account the folks who have simply stopped looking for jobs.  We just brought the nation to the brink of something or other in a debt ceiling crisis - but no worries, we have a hyper-partisan committee looking into budget solutions that will be chock-full of proposals that will horrify the other party into a virtual coma.  Where's Obama?  On vacation, of course. But it's ok, because he has explained a few things.  Aside from announcing that he is just weeks away from unveiling his new plan for fixing the economy, he has also told us that he fixed the first recession, or rather he fixed the economy and ended the first recession and that there will be no 2nd or double-dip recession.  Pay no attention to the economists that are all telling us that a double-dip is inevitable, or the signs from the Fed that suggest that nothing will improve for a couple of years (so let's keep the free money coming).  Do pay attention to the economists who say that the recession ended...but ignore the ones who try to tell you that the recession ended in June of 2009.

I know, this all sounds terribly confusing, which is why I recommend getting a teleprompter.  Everything makes sense and sounds good when you read it off a teleprompter.  Here's the key stuff to remember: Obama "fixed" the economy and ended the recession within 5 months of taking office by borrowing a ton of money from China and increasing our national debt.  He did other stuff, too, but let's keep it simple.  Then, no one got their jobs back and no one hired anyone new.  This lasted for...well, it's still going on.  Then in March of 2011, an earthquake and tsunami stuck Japan, and our economy was dealt a devastating blow, which combined with the totally foreseen collapse of the Greek economy in a perverse conspiracy that made Obama sad because it then appeared that he did not know anything about economics.  Charles Krauthammer wrote a nice article about this on Friday.  You should read it HERE.

GALLIMAUFRY!!!

MSNBC has breaking news that Social Security will be out of money by 2017.  Of course, MSNBC skews the story to be about the perceived backlog of cases.  They do, however, report that last year SSA paid about $1.4 BILLION in over-payments.  Perhaps someone can explain how it is that Social Security will run out of money when we just found $1.2 TRILLION in secret zero-interest loans were made to banks (which have yet to pay it back!).  Seriously - how can we say that a bank is too big to fail, but somehow the SSA (which we have all been paying into via FICA taxes) is in danger of becoming insolvent?  This is a great example of how the government is no better with money than your drunk uncle is.

GALLIMAUFRY!!

Note to Rick Santorum: We know you are a dumb person, but exactly what did you hope to accomplish by calling Maxine Waters "vile?"  Oh...you were trying to make the point that the media employs a double standard for jumping on what republicans say versus what democrats say?  Everyone knows this, but let us know how that works out for you.  How is that you are still a candidate and Pawlenty has packed it in?

GALLIMAUFRY!

Via Reuters: (H/T Zero Hedge)

Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein has hired high-profile Washington defense attorney Reid Weingarten, according to a government source, as the Justice Department continues to investigate the bank.
Blankfein, 56, is in his sixth year at the helm of the largest U.S. investment bank, which has spent two years fending off accusations of conflicts of interest and fraud.
The move to retain Weingarten comes as investigations of Goldman and its role in the 2007-2009 financial crisis continue.
The news spooked already jittery investors. Goldman shares fell sharply in the final minutes of regular trading after Reuters reporting the hiring, finishing down 4.7 percent at $106.51, their lowest level since March 2009.
They slipped further in after-hours trade to $105.45.
The Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) in April released a scathing report that criticized Goldman for "exploiting" clients by unloading subprime loan exposure onto unsuspecting clients in 2006 and 2007, and concluded that its top executives misled Congress during testimony in 2010.
Goldman has said it disagreed with many of the report's conclusions, but took seriously the issues addressed. The Justice Department launched its investigation in late April.
On Monday, Goldman said: "As is common in such situations, Mr. Blankfein and other individuals who were expected to be interviewed in connection with the Justice Department's inquiry into certain matters raised in the PSI report hired counsel at the outset."
Blankfein has not been charged in any civil or criminal case.
"Why do you bring in someone like that?" said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly, about Weingarten. "It says one thing: that they're taking it seriously."

This will be well worth watching.  I think I'll start a GoldmanSachs Indictment Watch.

Obama's Econ 101 Grades

A Picture says 1000 words.  This one only needs to say one: FAIL

He Has A Plan

Stop the presses!  The President has a plan...a PLAN! 

The AP is reporting that Obama is preparing to give a speech that will outline his jobs plan, as well as a plan to get the economy going, and, if that weren't enough, a plan to reduce the national debt.

This news is, well, startling.  Of course, we can't get too excited today, because he is going to finish his vacation first, and give the speech after Labor Day...which is 2 and a half weeks from now.  I suppose he has to rest.  He probably has been very busy learning about how the economy works, how taxes influence a host of corporate decisions, including hiring, operating the printing lever at the Treasury.  Perhaps he wants to rest up and be fresh for when he gives the speech reads the teleprompter.  Maybe TOTUS needs a break...

A cynical person might point out that America has been struggling with high unemployment for a few years; that we just had a massive showdown that took us to the 11th hour on a debt-ceiling "crisis"; that the US economy has slowed to a crawl over the past 2+ years, and that Obama has never put anything even close to resembling a reasonable plan forward. (Reminder: his proposed budget failed to garner a single vote in the Senate, and has been roundly dismissed as laughable.).  Most reasonable people would find themselves in total agreement with that cynical person. 

So, to recap, Obama has not previously outlined any reasonable plan regarding budgets, employment (or lack thereof) or national debt.  He has displayed an affinity for history lessons, higher taxes, increased borrowing, higher spending and demagoguery.  He brought so little to the table during the debt ceiling crisis that the other players simply worked around him and his ego.  He NOW has a plan, but his vacation is more important than telling us that plan, so all of the unemployed workers will have to wait about three more weeks before they learn how he intends to get them back in the work force.

I'm a cynic, so I believe that he wants to be able to enjoy his vacation without hearing his plan being mocked by everyone for how ridiculous it is.  We know how thin-skinned this guy is. 

We have seen pictures of Putin's election campaign in recent weeks where he went diving and "recovered" ancient artifacts.  I'm dreading the release of photos of Obama wearing his jeans and sandals, licking ice cream or looking like a complete dork on his 10-speed with a bike helmet.  Go throw a football, or build something or clear some brush.  I know we're gonna end up with a picture of him dropping a Frisbee...

Down With Keynesian Thought

Paul Roderick Gregory has written a wonderful article over at Forbes.com.  It's called "Tea Party Understands Economics Better than Obama or Bill Maher."  It is a great starting point for what I believe to be the most important corner that needs to be turned in understanding economics: debunking Keynes.

The appeal of Keynesian economics is its simple logic. If government spending for goods and services is part of GDP, then any increase in government spending must raise GDP.
As President Obama explained in a town hall meeting on Feb. 8, 2009:
“Republicans say this is not a stimulus bill but a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point.” (Laughter from the crowd).
Keynesian economics is easy, even for stupid people. More thought and analysis are required to understand why it has not worked as it is supposed to. Keynesian skeptics must show that increases in government spending cause other components of GDP, such as consumption, investment, or exports, to fall. Such countervailing forces require more nuanced and sophisticated thought. They are not for the mentally lazy or those seeking simple answers.

Liberal commentators and comedians appear to accept Keynesian economics as such an evident truth that non-believers must be stupid. Keynesian economics has become a liberal dogma, not subject to challenge by reasonable people.
Consider comedian Bill Maher’s quip to a former Obama advisor on Aug. 6, 2011:
“Keynesian economists and climate scientists both know real things, but the stupid people who don’t know things get an equal vote. Isn’t that frustrating?” (Laughter from the audience.)
Liberals target the Tea Party as their favorite nominee for the “stupidity” prize. Tea Party members are not only dunces. They are irresponsible hostage takers who do not care if they bring the country down with them.
Here is a shocker for Obama, Maher and Tea-Party haters: Since the Nobel Prize in economics was established, seven Nobel Prizes have been awarded to economists who cast serious doubt on Keynesian economics. Not one Nobel Prize has been awarded to an economist who advanced the Keynesian agenda. New York Times liberal columnist, Paul Krugman, won his Nobel Prize for trade theory, not for macroeconomics.

Perhaps the president simply does not want to hear from those who disagree with the course he has chosen. It could be that the president’s goal is not recovery and economic growth but growing the size and scope of government to achieve his goal of a redistributive state.

Sadly, Gregory's last paragraph is what I consider to be the truth.

Clueless and Irrelevant

Krauthammer does it again!  Watch this clip (via RealClearPolitics) of Krauthammer describing Obama's economic acumen.

What really needs to be at the forefront of everyone's minds right now is contained in this bit.  Our nation has run up nearly 4 trillion dollars in debt over the first 3 years of Obama's presidency.

Further, it was only when faced with a debt ceiling crisis that Obama discovered the need to start talking about debt reduction, though he only does so in the abstract. 

It is beginning to appear that everyone has taken notice that this President is not a leader and if he has a vision he seems to be wary of sharing it with anyone.  NO vision, no plan, not even a basic framework of an idea, or an outline of goals has made it out of the White House.  It is no wonder that the House Speaker and Senate Leaders have resorted to leaving him out of the discussion. 

Are you $4 Trillion better off than you were four years ago?

$4,000,000,000,000.00 !!!!!

Pay No Attention

Captain Oblivious believes that the economy is growing and there is no reason to fear a double-dip recession. Also, if for some reason people are afraid that the stage is set for a recession, it is important to be clear on one thing and one thing only: it won't be Obama's fault.  See, aside from inheriting a mess from his predecessor (who somehow was actually some kind of god-emperor who caused all manner of suffering despite Congress being controlled by the Dem's for the last portion of his term reign), Obama has also suffered the misfortune of numerous natural disasters (no doubt caused by his predecessor out of spite and racism) that have thwarted his visionary economic recovery plan.

Yes, there is no fear of a double-dip recession.  Unless you talk to any of the last three directors of the Fed's monetary affairs committee, who put the odds of a recession between 20% and 40%.

Unemployment is up, hiring is down, manufacturing is down, inflation is on the rise.  Where exactly are the signs that our economy is turning around?

Oh, right - the lavish birthday party/fund raiser Obama is throwing himself.

You Say It's Your Birthday!

As the ship sinks, the band plays on.  Captain Oblivious, after railing against millionaires and billionaires during the debt ceiling debates tantrums and demanding that the wealthy pay even more of their fair share, is celebrating his 50th birthday in grand fashion.  Really grand fashion, it turns out.  Of course, it's not just a birthday party...it's a fundraiser!  Tickets to the event will cost around $40,000!  I bet a lot of the people who will pay $40K are also owners of private jets or run corporations or even run/own corporations that own private jets.

what is not clear is whether anyone who ponies up the $40K will then get to claim that they have erased their personal share of the national debt.

would a balanced approach to the debt crisis include asking wealthy people to voluntarily donate money to the government for the express purpose of paying off the national debt?  Do any wealthy people give extra money to the government on the belief that the government needs it more than they do, or that the government will find a better and more worthwhile way to spend that money than the individual could?  There is no law prohibiting the voluntary payment of extra taxes.  Finally, when does the government's revenue constitute a windfall?

I just hope that nobody serves Obama peas on his birthday...although the old line, "It's my party and i'll cry if I want to" works on just so many levels these days.

Photo Of The Day

Wishful Thinking

Obama today:

"In the last few months, the economy has had to absorb an earthquake in Japan, the economic head winds coming from Europe, the Arab Spring and the rise in oil prices, all of which have been very challenging for the recovery. But these are things we couldn't control. Our economy didn't need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis to make things worse. That was in our hands. It's pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling for both businesses and consumers has been unsettling and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need and it's something we could have avoided entirely. So, voters may have chosen divided government but they sure didn't vote for dysfunctional government. They want us to solve problems, they want us to get this economy growing and adding jobs,"

I was almost sure that he would then utter the words: "which is why I have chosen not to seek re-election."

Good to see that Captain Obvious (or Captain Oblivious) hasn't missed a step from his lecture series.

Fast & Furious

Turns out the White House knew.

The next question is: why are we learning about this from Investor's Business Daily?

I do know that the more I learn about this scandal, the more furious I get.

Obama's Debt Ceiling Speech

A terrible speech that belied an inability to grasp the issues and showed that he is well aware that his poll numbers are tanking.  He went to his usual well and blamed Bush.  The only surprise there was that he seems to believe that the American people are buying any of that talk.  We know that Bush was not a fiscal conservative, but the President doesn't control the purse strings. In fact, Obama should be well aware of that given the current circumstances - Congress has told him NO to a war kinetic military operation in Libya, and told him NO when he wanted to increase the debt ceiling so he could borrow more money earlier this year.  It is beyond disingenuous to point the finger at Bush and say my predecessor racked up all this debt (especially when Obama was a Senator during part of that period) when Obama tried to go even further into debt faster.

Obama's invocation of Reagan - which is starting to become more of his modus operandi - was lame at best.  Following it with a claim to be seeking a balanced approach might have made more sense if he actually had put a plan on the table.  Telling Congress to "bring me a balanced approach" isn't going to work.  Everyone knows that in order to meaningfully address the debt problem we have to reduce spending  .  Raising revenue is only going to create the ability for the government to get into more mischief down the line - putting the government on a diet just so it can fit into its wedding dress is just for show, when we know right after the wedding it's back to business as usual.  Government has no self control.

Obama urged Americans to contact their congressmen and voice their desire to see a solution.  Well, he's just deflecting there, because looking at the polls, the American people are voicing their feelings.  Obama doesn't want to hear it right now.  He knows he's tanking, so he's in full-on campaign mode; he is saying whatever he thinks sounds good, but, as an old lawyer I tried a number of cases with used to say, "just because he's saying it doesn't make it true."

Boehner Sets It Straight

Boehner deserves credit for being one of the adults in the room.  He has tried to work a deal with the President, but with limited, if any, results.  It seems as if the President is unable or unwilling to put a coherent plan on the table, but rather prefers to speak of ideas and approaches that lack real substance.  It is as though he's ordering a meal at a restaurant, but can't tell the waiter what he wants, but instead responds to the waiter's suggestions with, "Um...no, I don't think I feel like having that..."  Of course, all we do know is that he doesn't want peas.

Boehner told the President that "Congress writes the laws and [the President] decides what he wants to sign."  Finally Boehner is moving in a way that signals that he has concluded that trying to broker a deal with the White House is futile.  Taking the issue back to the House, working out a deal with the Senate majority and then presenting a final version to the President for a yea or nay is probably the only reasonable approach.  the President has repeatedly demonstrated that he has a poor grasp of how our economy works, and has shown that he is incapable of being a leader.  If the President won't/can't lead and won't get out of the way, you have to find a way to move around him, and Boehner is doing just that.

Bring a real plan to the President - not a foundation or starting point for negotiation, but legislation - and force the President to sign or veto it.  Do not give the President room to wiggle - box him in, because it's the only way that anything is going to be accomplished.  Let him be the President of "No" if that's what he wants.  And if Boehner can't get the Senate to agree on anything, keep putting the plan out there. Let America see that it's the Dem's who have their collective boot on the throat of our economic recovery.

US Default Watch, Part 7

Peggy Noonan's piece today in the WSJ echoes some of my thoughts from yesterday.  Specifically, she recognizes some of the strengths and potential for the plan coming from the Gang of 6 - or G6. 

She also points out the lack of actual leadership from the President, and touches on his attempts to reverse-engineer leadership, that is, attempt to demonstrate that the G6 plan is really born from the approach that he has been advocating since...well...since the time he started advocating for something.  We know it's not, but since the President has never given anything remotely concrete (aside from a ridiculous budget in February that failed 97-0 in the Senate) I suppose he feels that he can twist his position into being whatever starts to look popular and promising (Harry Reid's threats to scuttle it notwithstanding).

For the longest time he wouldn't engage, and now he's engaged. For the longest time he didn't care about spending, and now he cares about spending. Good, both in terms of policy and for him. But his decision to become engaged has become a decision to dominate, to have his face in front of the television with his news conferences, pronouncements, and what his communications people are probably calling his "ownership" of any final agreement. He's trying to come across as the boss, the indispensable man, the leader. And, of course, the reasonable one.

And on his recent nose-dive in the polls:

And if you've watched him lately, you know why. When he speaks on the debt negotiations, he is not only extremely boring, with airy and bromidic language—really they are soul-killing, his talking points—but he never seems to be playing it straight. He always seems to be finagling, playing the angles in some higher game that only he gets. In 2½ years, he has reached the point that took George W. Bush five years to reach: People aren't listening anymore.

The other day he announced the Gang of Six agreement with words that enveloped the plan in his poisonous embrace: "I wanted to give folks a quick update on the progress that we're making." We're. He has "continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together." What would those little devils do without Papa? "The good news is that today a group of senators . . . put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I've urged." I've urged. Me, me, me.

 Noonan says what we've all been thinking: the President is in the way.  He can't lead, won't follow, and is desperately trying to find a way to get a solution that gives what he wants and that can  - and here's the important part - help him out in the polls.  In the end, the reality may be that the two goals are mutually exclusive.  We have to wait to see what he decides is more important, when it would be best for him to step off the stage for a minute.

US Default Watch, Part 6

Where does the President get his numbers?  Today he has claimed that 80% of Americans support the Dem's plan to raise taxes.  I took an informal poll around my office - 0% of them want to pay higher taxes for any purpose.
This is not the first time that the President has invented polls or results to show that he has the support of the American people.  The number that I feel best tells the story is this one: 47%-39%.  Obama is losing in the polls by 8 points to a generic Republican (and, as luck would have it, we seem to have a number of generic Republicans competing in the primaries!).  Obama's response: keep telling lies.
Obama claims to want to see a "serious" plan.  I doubt he'd recognize a serious plan if Paul Ryan took one to the floor of the house complete with graphs and charts.  So, Obama appears to be defining a "serious plan" as one that pleases him.  I guess this means that we have to eat our peas, but he doesn't.  Instead, he threatens - don't call his bluff, he won't send out Social Security checks, etc.
He walks out of meetings, and then scolds Congress for not addressing this sooner, because we are on the verge of an economic Armageddon.  Obama's previous plan and speech were jokes that made no sense and caused no laughter.  He says he is more patient than Reagan was - I have no idea what this comparison is supposed to mean; Reagan was a LEADER.
I think Krauthammer gets it right today when he suggests that we need to call Obama's bluff.  If he won't lead, make him fall in line.

WaPo Fact-Checks President?!

Yes!  It's actually true!  The President has been fact-checked and debunked in today's WaPo.  The question is: will any of this distract the MSM from nit-picking every statement made by Michele Bachman?  Don't count on it.  Only 2 ways Bachman gets reduced scrutiny - drops out of the race or her poll numbers plunge giving the MSM a new front-runner to try to de-legitimize.