Hard to believe Obama is already knee-deep in ethical muck. Even Maureen Dowd has gone on the attack, albeit with 28-ounce gloves: “Obama [was telling schoolchildren] his favorite superheroes were Batman and Spiderman,” the New York Times’ third-ranking Bush-hater wrote on Thursday, but “his own dream of being the superhero who swoops in to swiftly save America was going SPLAT.” Is the honeymoon already over, the huge Inaugural throng on the D.C. mall just a faded memory?
Our new President has been perhaps too conspicuously on the defensive, sounding even a tad unctuous in an interview with Brian Williams. Taking the blame usually works better if there is some question as to who should have received it in the first place. Obama sounded more presidential under fire from Fox’s Chris Wallace when he asserted on Tuesday, against a mounting protectionist tide, that “we can’t send a protectionist message”. For sure. But it will be interesting to see if the President stands his ground when unemployment climbs above 10 percent, as seems likely.
His stimulus package has had a bumpy ride in Congress so far, but fat-cat Republicans aren’t the only ones having trouble finding the stimulus in it. One decidedly lean cat, Rusty Staff, a beleaguered mom-and-pop business operator who weighed in on the op-ed page of the ultra-liberal Boulder Camera yesterday, had this to say: “I spent four tedious hours poring over the stimulus bill recently passed by the House. I saw money for ATV trails, money for alternative energy research and development, money for climate change modeling development, money for broadband Internet installation in rural communities, money for weatherization, money for family planning clinics in other countries, and money – no, lots of money – for unemployment and food assistance benefits.”
Who to Believe?
Just so. Obama insists that the programs denounced as wasteful by the Republicans “amount to less than 1% of the entire package.” Somehow, though, Rusty Staff sounds more convincing. Perhaps it’s because he’s genuinely desperate. He had five full-time employees and three part-timers on his staff last summer but is now down to one full-timer (himself – unpaid, of course) and three part-timers. “Rather than assist us after we are casualties of the recession, I hope to see provisions in the final bill that might help companies like mine survive so that, with this assistance, we can work our way through this difficult period.”
Do the Republicans, and sensible Democrats, need more cover than this to oppose a bad bill? Probably not. Problem is, the stimulus package may be politically unopposable, since no one on Capitol Hill wants to be seen right now as doing nothing to “help.” Too bad we’re about to shell out another $819 billion to learn this lesson. (If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)
Comments on this entry are closed.
A bunch of arm chair quarterbacking goin’ on. Too early to tell if BO’s plan will work or not. Not too early to see what the charts have in mind.
Dear Barnie B.
I have not tuned into that Rush show since the Clinton years and even then found his delivery vaguely annoying. If he describes Obama as I did, he is correct. Bush would be hardpressed to reestablish confidence at this juncture, but your missing the point. Confidence among investors and financial professionals went to zero when the house of cards collapsed. Money and credit frozen from Wall St to Main Street. No velocity. No spark of confidence from the President. From the legislature, a 650 billion dollar tranfer payment to non producers. No spark there. Last chance for domestic policymakers is the Fed and the Treasury. If they fail the market will reflect the stagnant or declining economy. No spark, no confidence, no Dow run. That is the point
“He has never had a real job, never had to make a profit, never owned a bond or share of stock, and for the most part was handed everything for free.” Wow, Rush sure has a hold on you.
You just described the last TWO Presidents. Heads up though. You might want to learn how to read a chart. The DOW is poised for a run no matter if we think it should or not and it ain’t because of anything that occurred from 2000-2008.
David has it slightly wrong when he indicated that Obama might have had a difficult time getting employed at Citi or Merrill. Merill Lynch gave the politically correct nod to a lawyer Stan Oneal to run the firm – a non trader, non broker, non manager, all of the same qualifications as Barak Obama. O’Neal’s major efforts were to ensure diversity at the corporation, and to play golf all over the world. The results are history. Obamas honeymoon might be over with certain sectors of the press. More importantly, he has never had the confidence of the investor class. Every significant victory he mustered during the campaigns were met with accelerated selling on Wall Street. With the exception of the press conference when he announced his economic team, whenever he opens his mouth, you can safely go short. Can you blame investors? He has never had a real job, never had to make a profit, never owned a bond or share of stock, and for the most part was handed everything for free. He had the most extreme voting record during his short tenure in the Senate. At this stage of the financial panic, when confidence restoration is vital, he will be no help. Obama is more than emblematic of the problem, he is the problem. The inmates are running the asylum.
“Historical evidence that tax cuts are the best way to stimulate the economy.” Sure and I’ve got some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona. There is zero evidence that tax cuts work. I’ll back that up with this:
Reagan cut taxes for the top 2% = horrible economy left on Bush Sr’s watch. Bush Sr. cut taxes = horrible economy left in Clinton’s lap. Bush Jr. cut taxes and looky where we are now. History does not lie.
Let’s see your statistics.
I have always wondered why liberals have such a deep hate for republicans. If they are both working towards the betterment of our Nation why such animosity? Why in the face of historical evidence that tax cuts are the best way to stimulate the economy do liberals stand firm against a proven strategy. Given that they, the leaders and organizers, are not stupid people by any means it always perplexed me as to why they seemed to be on the wrong side of most arguments.
I heard a conservative radio personality quote Rahm Emanuel yesterday , he said ” Never let a good crisis go to waste”
I wanted to verify the statement as if accurate would be a very very bad sign. In my search to verify his comment (its accurate) I unexpectedly came across the answer to my first question. Why do liberals hate republicans? It is terrifying.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967
Following David’s comment, the Electoral College to select the President was designed by the founders to be more like an “executive search committee”. But it only took a couple elections till a man wanting the office was recruiting Elec Reps candidates to vote for him. Till today most ballots do not even name the Elec Rep candidates, only the Pres candidate they promised to vote for. This corruption of the process will never place a truly competent executive in the office.
No chance we will return to the original design of the Elec Col.
ATV trails? Seriously???
BTW Rick …. You new blog w comments format is great
OK so this pork bill comes in at 800 billion. I didn’t pay much attention because Glenn Beck said we have spent or are committed to 8.5 trillion in bailouts. The 8.5 trillion could shrink if some of the banks recover and some of the toxic debt/CMOs recover in value
And how much has the Fed sopped up via Treasuries/bad paper swaps with banks? At least one trillion I think. The Fed should have only Treasuries on its books but now it has bank’s lousy paper
This is what happens when a president is elected with no management skills. The executive branch is nothing more than a very large, inertia-laden, and hide-bound corporation, and the president has to be CEO material to run it effectively. If Obama had applied to CitiGroup, or Merrill, or anywhere else, for a job with his paper-thin resume, he would not have been offered the CEO position. Instead, he would have been made a branch manager in Toledo or somewhere suitably far enough away so that he could not have done too much damage to the company.
In modern times, virtually every president except Kennedy was some type of executive such as a governor, general (Eisenhower), college president (Wilson), or a cabinent-level secretary (Hoover, Bush I). There has never been a junior senator with less than one term of service elected to the presidency in modern times. Obama’s Chicago experience in no way qualified him for this job.
However, over 50 million voters bought into the “Change” crap and elected a totally unqualified individual to head the most influential corporation in the entire world. The result is a Keystone Kops episode… He is ticking off many of his former supporters and potential foes with from-the-hip rhetoric that he then has to retract. His lack of diplomatic and executive experience is evident to every world leader, and I can imagine that they are lining up to show the new kid how the world really works.
The honeymoon will really be over when they satirize him on Saturday Night Live, giving him the same respect (or lack thereof) that they showed Carter, Clinton, both Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, and on and on.
$819B + interest.