As a follow-up to my previous post, I think the President's modus operandi is now clear. He makes agreeable noises, language inoffensive to all, then pushes bills through Congress that are full of controversy, and that in some cases, contradict his spoken intentions.
All of it without debate, or due diligence, that Congress is supposed to provide. After all, this is an emergency.
It is interesting to note that after the State of the Union speech, Obama's public opinion approval ratings held, and even the markets ticked up the next day... until the budget was actually published, whereupon the markets plunged, just as they had immediately after the housing bill was announced. Of course, investors aren't as moved by rhetoric as they are by details and the numbers, because their job is figuring out how government policy will affect the value of capital.
That should be instructive to us taxpayers.
And now, this morning, I read that he will pursue Cap and Trade sooner rather than later. Here's the deal: Government experts tell you (individual or corporation) how much carbon you can consume. You pay fines to Uncle Sam if you exceed the limits. Uncle Sam then distributes the fines to the middle class and the poor (or in the vernacular of the Obama White House, "the vulnerable") to help them pay for the higher energy costs that Cap and Trade created in the first place.
In his speech, Obama told us that he will see to it that renewable energy becomes more affordable. He didn't say that he would do so by driving up the cost of oil, coal and gas generated energy.
But that is exactly what he is proposing, and it is consistent with the thinking of the Earth First / No-Growth crowd, who would have us canning beats for the winter rather than buying avocados from California. It all makes you wonder how far he wants to take the extremist environmental agenda.
Really, it should come as no surprise for those of us who raised an eyebrow last summer when he was asked how he felt about $4/gallon gas, and responded that it was a shame only that the price went up to fast. See the video...
Again, the words provide only a hint of the actions.
Such a convoluted scheme as Cap and Trade could be very disruptive, of course, and it deserves extended study and debate before a vote. Whether or not we get the debate we deserve, or not, will be evidence of how circumspect Obama is, and how wise.
2.26.2009
2.06.2009
The Vision Revealed?
A brief followup to my previous post on Robert Reich... Please see the excellent American Spectator commentary on Robert Reich's testimony to House Ways & Means. The author gets right to the crux of the problem with Reich and many of Obama's followers (if not Obama himself), and of leftist ideology in general:
There is a good chance, however, that most of them did not vote for socialism, or whatever you want to call Obama's or Reich's central-planning ideas, but that they voted for its obtuse facade: Change.
Week by week, we are seeing the facade fall away and expose the aspirations of the new regime. Fortunately, there is always a gap between the aspirations of a regime, and its actual achievements. The tug-of-war around the so-called Stimulus Package is a good example. As presently constituted, it is a third pork, 50 per cent political payoff to groups like ACORN, the teachers and public service unions, etc., and 12-20% stimulus (dependong on the source) -- spending that we know will enter the economy quickly and result in hiring.
Of course, Obama does not need any Republican support to pass this bill as presently constituted. He needs their support only for political cover, to share the blame if things don't go as planned (a near certainty in the execution of government programs).
Instead of using his bully pulpit to cajole his Congressional majority to strip the bill of things unrelated to job creation, yesterday Obama used it to mock Republican (and a healthy number of Democrat) critics. One week he says he is interested in ideas that produce results, not ideology. The next week -- with a trillion dollars hanging in the balance -- he is taking a party line. This is disappointing.
In Reich's worldview, it's groups that matter and individualism that's the enemy. "The American myth of the Triumphant Individual may have outlasted its time," Reich has explained. "The story of the little guy who works hard, takes risks, believes in himself and eventually earns wealth, fame and honor" is outmoded.I believe this is what divides supporters of market-driven and planned economies, of republican democracy and totalitarianism, and increasingly, of free speech and "political correctness," the Maoist phrase that has eerily become a commonplace in American vernacular. It's time for us all to re-read Atlas Shrugged, as well as the Communist Manifesto. That so many of our countrymen and women voted for the latter last November is surprising, and troubling.
There is a good chance, however, that most of them did not vote for socialism, or whatever you want to call Obama's or Reich's central-planning ideas, but that they voted for its obtuse facade: Change.
Week by week, we are seeing the facade fall away and expose the aspirations of the new regime. Fortunately, there is always a gap between the aspirations of a regime, and its actual achievements. The tug-of-war around the so-called Stimulus Package is a good example. As presently constituted, it is a third pork, 50 per cent political payoff to groups like ACORN, the teachers and public service unions, etc., and 12-20% stimulus (dependong on the source) -- spending that we know will enter the economy quickly and result in hiring.
Of course, Obama does not need any Republican support to pass this bill as presently constituted. He needs their support only for political cover, to share the blame if things don't go as planned (a near certainty in the execution of government programs).
Instead of using his bully pulpit to cajole his Congressional majority to strip the bill of things unrelated to job creation, yesterday Obama used it to mock Republican (and a healthy number of Democrat) critics. One week he says he is interested in ideas that produce results, not ideology. The next week -- with a trillion dollars hanging in the balance -- he is taking a party line. This is disappointing.
1.22.2009
Hope Versus Dread
I took a vacation from this blog to enjoy Christmas, and to let the dust from the election settle, and see where things really stand. I certainly don't have much to add to the inaugural that hasn't already been said. It surely was a great day for the country.
I heard many hopeful signals from Obama during the last two months, including the selection of his cabinet, the management of the transition, but especially the following snippet from last week on the so-called Stimulus: Policy will not be guided by ideology... there will be no left wing ideas or right wing ideas, only ideas that get results. Wonderful!
While he was saying this, however, one of his many economic advisers, and former Clinton acolyte Robert Reich was testifying to Charlie Rangel's Ways & Means Committee:
Reich couldn't have said anything more directly opposed to Obama's results-rather-than-ideology statement.
Rather than debate how to maximize the general economic impact of the spending in terms of metrics (growth of GDP, jobs, fewer unemployment applications, etc.), some in the new regime are more concerned with the social impact of the spending.
Nor have they considered the inflation that will likely accompany new economic activity. Who benefits -- besides state and federal government tax receipts -- when inflation soars into double digits, as it did in the 1970s? We all know how slow state and federal governments are to index tax rates when inflation rises. And they are slow for a reason: By increasing government revenue without legislative action, inflation is a tax that doesn't risk anyone's re-election!
And it takes hold more quickly, before people feel its pinch.
If you think I'm being too conspiratorial here, tell me why, with the Treasury increasing the money supply since October, there is no discussion of how to mitigate inflationary risk in the implementation of these spending programs?
We all know, from reading Reich's memoir Locked in the Cabinet, that President Clinton made a clear choice to grow the nation's economic output and reduce federal debt as a means to general prosperity rather than pursue Reich's Marxist agenda of central economic planning, limiting the nation's economic output through government policy, then rationing pieces of it to politically correct constituencies.
Similarly, Obama will have to control the left wing of his party and Congressional patronage hacks if he intends to get broad-based growth as a result of his Stimulus package, rather than ideological triumphs. Let's see how he does. If he can't, Joe the Plumber was right.
I heard many hopeful signals from Obama during the last two months, including the selection of his cabinet, the management of the transition, but especially the following snippet from last week on the so-called Stimulus: Policy will not be guided by ideology... there will be no left wing ideas or right wing ideas, only ideas that get results. Wonderful!
While he was saying this, however, one of his many economic advisers, and former Clinton acolyte Robert Reich was testifying to Charlie Rangel's Ways & Means Committee:
"I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white male construction workers, I’m just saying there are other people who have needs as well."Well, I'm sure we don't want highly skilled people building bridges, let alone the dreaded white male. But the last time I looked, we were talking about a spending bill to stimulate the general economy. That's why it's called the Stimulus package, as opposed to the Welfare package, or the Homeless Relief package, or the Affirmative Action package.
Reich couldn't have said anything more directly opposed to Obama's results-rather-than-ideology statement.
Rather than debate how to maximize the general economic impact of the spending in terms of metrics (growth of GDP, jobs, fewer unemployment applications, etc.), some in the new regime are more concerned with the social impact of the spending.
Nor have they considered the inflation that will likely accompany new economic activity. Who benefits -- besides state and federal government tax receipts -- when inflation soars into double digits, as it did in the 1970s? We all know how slow state and federal governments are to index tax rates when inflation rises. And they are slow for a reason: By increasing government revenue without legislative action, inflation is a tax that doesn't risk anyone's re-election!
And it takes hold more quickly, before people feel its pinch.
If you think I'm being too conspiratorial here, tell me why, with the Treasury increasing the money supply since October, there is no discussion of how to mitigate inflationary risk in the implementation of these spending programs?
We all know, from reading Reich's memoir Locked in the Cabinet, that President Clinton made a clear choice to grow the nation's economic output and reduce federal debt as a means to general prosperity rather than pursue Reich's Marxist agenda of central economic planning, limiting the nation's economic output through government policy, then rationing pieces of it to politically correct constituencies.
Similarly, Obama will have to control the left wing of his party and Congressional patronage hacks if he intends to get broad-based growth as a result of his Stimulus package, rather than ideological triumphs. Let's see how he does. If he can't, Joe the Plumber was right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
