Month: February 2009

Obama Pays Back the Unions for their Support

On Friday, February 6 at 4:30 pm, just before the end of the day and start of the weekend, Obama quietly signed an executive order which in effect bans all non-union construction shops from being awarded any federally funded construction projects. This effectively discriminates against the 84% of construction workers who are non-union. Didn’t even wait a month to pay back his union cronies, amazing. See discussion on this subject on the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. webpage here. See RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s official statement in response to this shameful example of crooked politics as usual here, also quoted below for easy reference:

WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele today released the following statement concerning the executive order quietly signed by President Barack Obama on Friday ordering the use of union labor for federal construction projects:

“President Obama’s executive order will drive up the cost of government at a time when we should be doing everything possible to save taxpayer dollars. Federal contracts should go to the businesses that can offer taxpayers the best value – not just the unions who supported the Democrats’ campaigns last year. Quietly signing executive orders to payback campaign backers undermines Obama promise to change Washington. It is a disappointment for Americans hoping for more transparency and less politics as usual in Washington.”

Fact Checking the President: Take A Wild Guess

The Associated-Press-as-cheerleader act is finally waning as they realize that election night euphoria is turning to a scorching case of buyers remorse, and they actually have a job to do.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that the government could rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means.

But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.

The president skipped over several complex economic circumstances in his speech to Congress — and may have started an international debate among trivia lovers and auto buffs over what country invented the car.

A look at some of his assertions:

OBAMA: “We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values.”

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn’t said so.

Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it’s important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

“I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed.”

Brilliant Benji. I’d have to say in this context we need to let him burn to get the stupidity out of the gene pool.

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it’s not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn’t afford.

“I think it’s just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans,” Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

Or… “we’re too lazy (and it’s frankly not in our interest) to do any analysis whatsoever, except when it comes to which incomes can be fleeced with higher taxes, then we’ll analyze ’til the donkeys (jackasses) come home.”

——

OBAMA: “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”

THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany’s Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

——

OBAMA: “We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before.”

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

——

OBAMA: “We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.”

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don’t mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won’t be 10 years from now.

——

OBAMA: “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.”

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn’t only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

——

OBAMA: “In this budget, we will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.”

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That’s all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama’s proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

——

OBAMA: “Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.”

THE FACTS: While the president’s stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.

——

OBAMA: “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.”

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president’s own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, “It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.”

Beyond that, it’s unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it’s clear when jobs are abolished, there’s no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus.

All I can say is wow. Read the full article here.

Hundreds of Economists Say Obama/Democrats Wrong

In an ad taken out in major newspapers across the country by the CATO Institute, a conservative think tank and voice of reason in this time of amateur presidency, hundreds of economists, including Nobel laureates and other prominent scholars, are trying to fight against Obama’s death march to financial irresponsibility. Trouble is, because he got this job through record spending, he thinks that’s the solution to everything. The rest of us have the ability to conjure logic and use it to our advantage.

“There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.”

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

  • Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
  • Douglas Adie, Ohio University
  • Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
  • J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
  • Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
  • Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
  • Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
  • James Bennett, George Mason University
  • Bruce Benson, Florida State University
  • Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
  • Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
  • Alberto Bisin, New York University
  • Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
  • Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
  • Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
  • Donald Booth, Chapman University
  • Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
  • Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
  • Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
  • Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
  • George Brower, Moravian College
  • James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
  • Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
  • Henry Butler, Northwestern University
  • William Butos, Trinity College
  • Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
  • Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
  • Art Carden, Rhodes College
  • James Cardon, Brigham Young University
  • Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
  • Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
  • V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
  • Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
  • Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
  • J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
  • Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
  • R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
  • John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
  • John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
  • John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
  • John Coleman, Duke University
  • Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
  • Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
  • Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
  • Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
  • Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
  • Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
  • Antony Davies, Duquesne University
  • John Dawson, Appalachian State University
  • Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
  • Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
  • John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
  • James Dorn, Towson University
  • Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
  • Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
  • Francis Egan, Trinity College
  • John Egger, Towson University
  • Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
  • Paul Evans, Ohio State University
  • Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
  • W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
  • Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
  • Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
  • Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
  • Peter Frank, Wingate University
  • Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
  • B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
  • John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
  • Rick Geddes, Cornell University
  • Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
  • William Gerdes, Clarke College
  • Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
  • Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
  • Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
  • Richard Gordon, Penn State University
  • Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
  • Ernie Goss, Creighton University
  • Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
  • Earl Grinols, Baylor University
  • Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
  • R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
  • University, Edwardsville
  • Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
  • Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
  • Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
  • Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
  • Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
  • David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
  • Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
  • Gailen Hite, Columbia University
  • Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
  • John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
  • Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
  • Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
  • Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
  • Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
  • Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
  • Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
  • Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
  • Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
  • Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
  • Daniel Klein, George Mason University
  • Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
  • Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota
  • Marek Kolar, Delta College
  • Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
  • Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
  • Deepak Lal, UCLA
  • George Langelett, South Dakota State University
  • James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
  • Robert Lawson, Auburn University
  • John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
  • David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
  • Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
  • Dean Lillard, Cornell University
  • Zheng Liu, Emory University
  • Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
  • Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
  • John Lunn, Hope College
  • Glenn MacDonald, Washington
  • University in St. Louis
  • Michael Marlow, California
  • Polytechnic State University
  • Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
  • Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
  • Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
  • John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
  • Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
  • Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
  • Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
  • John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
  • James Miller III, George Mason University
  • Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
  • Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
  • John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
  • Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
  • Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Michael Munger, Duke University
  • Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
  • Richard Muth, Emory University
  • Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
  • Seth Norton, Wheaton College
  • Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
  • Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
  • Evan Osborne, Wright State University
  • Randall Parker, East Carolina University
  • Donald Parsons, George Washington University
  • Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
  • Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
  • Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
  • Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
  • Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
  • Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
  • Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
  • Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
  • William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
  • Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
  • Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
  • Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
  • Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
  • Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael’s College
  • Adriano Rampini, Duke University
  • Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
  • Mario Rizzo, New York University
  • Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
  • Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
  • James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
  • John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
  • Charles Rowley, George Mason University
  • Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
  • Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
  • Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
  • Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
  • Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
  • Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
  • William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
  • Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
  • James Smith, Western Carolina University
  • Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
  • Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
  • Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
  • Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
  • Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
  • Shirley Svorny, California State
  • University, Northridge
  • John Tatom, Indiana State University
  • Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
  • Henry Thompson, Auburn University
  • Alex Tokarev, The King’s College
  • Edward Tower, Duke University
  • Leo Troy, Rutgers University
  • David Tuerck, Suffolk University
  • Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
  • Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
  • Charles Upton, Kent State University
  • T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
  • Richard Vedder, Ohio University
  • Richard Wagner, George Mason University
  • Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
  • Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
  • Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
  • Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
  • Walter Williams, George Mason University
  • Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
  • Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
  • Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
  • Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University

Additional economists who have signed the statement

  • Lee Adkins, Oklahoma State University
  • William Albrecht, Univ. of Iowa
  • Donald Alexander, Western Michigan University
  • Geoffrey Andron, Austin Community College
  • Nathan Ashby, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
  • George Averitt, Purdue North Central University
  • Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
  • Timothy Bastian, Creighton University
  • Joe Bell, Missouri State University, Springfield
  • John Bethune, Barton College
  • Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
  • Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
  • Donald Boudreaux, George Mason University
  • Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
  • Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University
  • Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
  • Edwin Burton, Univ. of Virginia
  • Jim Butkiewicz, Univ. of Delaware
  • Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
  • Don Chance, Louisiana State University
  • Robert Chatfield, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas
  • Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University
  • Peter Colwell, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Michael Connolly, Univ. of Miami
  • Jim Couch, Univ. of North Alabama
  • Eleanor Craig, Univ. of Delaware
  • Michael Daniels, Columbus State University
  • A. Edward Day, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
  • Stephen Dempsey, Univ. of Vermont
  • Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University
  • William Dewald, Ohio State University
  • Jeff Dorfman, Univ. of Georgia
  • Lanny Ebenstein, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
  • Michael Erickson, The College of Idaho
  • Jack Estill, San Jose State University
  • Dorla Evans, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville
  • Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
  • Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research
  • Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
  • Arthur Fleisher, Metropolitan State College of Denver
  • William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
  • Ralph Frasca, Univ. of Dayton
  • Joseph Giacalone, St. John’s University
  • Adam Gifford, California State Unviersity, Northridge
  • Otis Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
  • J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
  • Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
  • Gauri-Shankar Guha, Arkansas State University
  • Darren Gulla, Univ. of Kentucky
  • Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
  • Richard Hart, Miami University
  • James Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
  • Thomas Hazlett, George Mason University
  • Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
  • Bradley Hobbs, Florida Gulf Coast University
  • John Hoehn, Michigan State University
  • Daniel Houser, George Mason University
  • Thomas Howard, University of Denver
  • Chris Hughen, Univ. of Denver
  • Marcus Ingram, Univ. of Tampa
  • Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
  • Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University
  • Scott Kelly, Albany State University
  • Carrie Kerekes, Florida Gulf Coast University
  • Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
  • James Kurre, Penn State Erie
  • Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
  • W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
  • Stan Liebowitz, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
  • Anthony Losasso, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
  • John Lott, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
  • Keith Malone, Univ. of North Alabama
  • Henry Manne, George Mason University
  • Richard Marcus, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
  • Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
  • John Matsusaka, Univ. of Southern California
  • Thomas Mayor, Univ. of Houston
  • John McConnell, Purdue University
  • W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
  • Mario Miranda, The Ohio State University
  • Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie
  • James Moncur, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
  • Charles Moss, Univ. of Florida
  • Tim Muris, George Mason University
  • John Murray, Univ. of Toledo
  • David Mustard, Univ. of Georgia
  • Steven Myers, Univ. of Akron
  • Dhananjay Nanda, University of Miami
  • Stephen Parente, Univ. of Minnesota
  • Allen Parkman, Univ. of New Mexico
  • Douglas Patterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University
  • Timothy Perri, Appalachian State University
  • Mark Pingle, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
  • Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
  • Robert Prati, East Carolina University
  • Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
  • Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach
  • Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
  • Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University
  • Larry Ross, Univ. of Alaska Anchorage
  • Timothy Roth, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
  • Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University
  • Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University
  • Eric Schansberg, Indiana University Southeast
  • John Seater, North Carolina University
  • Alan Shapiro, Univ. of Southern California
  • Thomas Simmons, Greenfield Community College
  • Frank Spreng, McKendree University
  • Judith Staley Brenneke, John Carroll University
  • John E. Stapleford, Eastern University
  • Courtenay Stone, Ball State University
  • Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, UCLA
  • Scott Sumner, Bentley University
  • Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University
  • William Trumbull, West Virginia University
  • A. Sinan Unur, Cornell University
  • Randall Valentine, Georgia Southwestern State University
  • Gustavo Ventura, Univ. of Iowa
  • Marc Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
  • Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University
  • Gene Wunder, Washburn University
  • John Zdanowicz, Florida International University
  • Jerry Zimmerman, Univ. of Rochester
  • Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville

Economist: Obama Lost At Sea

The Economist, which has been a respected newspaper by Tickler in the past, but lost much of it when they endorsed the Obamination, if beginning to come its senses. Read the full article here, excerpts follow…

The Obama rescue

Feb 12th 2009
From The Economist print edition


This week marked a huge wasted opportunity in the economic crisis

Illustration by KAL
Illustration by KAL

THERE was a chance that this week would mark a turning-point in an ever-deepening global slump, as Barack Obama produced the two main parts of his rescue plan. The first, and most argued-over, was a big fiscal boost. After a lot of bickering in Congress a final compromise stimulus bill, worth $789 billion, seemed to have been agreed on February 11th; it should be only days away from becoming law. The second, and more important, part of the rescue was team Obama’s scheme for fixing the financial mess, laid out in a speech on February 10th by Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary.

America cannot rescue the world economy alone. But this double offensive by its biggest economy could potentially have broken the spiral of uncertainty and gloom that is gripping investors, producers and consumers across the globe.

Alas, that opportunity was squandered. Mr Obama ceded control of the stimulus to the fractious congressional Democrats, allowing a plan that should have had broad support from both parties to become a divisive partisan battle. More serious still was Mr Geithner’s financial-rescue blueprint which, though touted as a bold departure from the incrementalism and uncertainty that had plagued the Bush administration’s Wall Street fixes, in fact looked depressingly like his predecessors’ efforts: timid, incomplete and short on detail. Despite talk of trillion-dollar sums, stockmarkets tumbled. Far from boosting confidence, Mr Obama seems at sea.

The fiscal stimulus plan has some obvious flaws. Too much of the boost to demand is backloaded to 2010 and beyond. The compromise bill is larded with spending determined more by Democrat lawmakers’ pet projects than by the efficiency with which the economy will be boosted. And it contains “Buy American” clauses that, even in their watered-down version, send the wrong signal to trading partners.

For all those shortcomings, the stimulus plan gets one big thing right. Given the pace at which demand is slumping, a big, and sustained, fiscal boost is vital for America’s economy. This package, albeit imperfectly, administers it.

That makes the inadequacy of the financial rescue all the more regrettable. Fiscal stimulus, indispensable as it is, cannot create a lasting economic recovery in a country with a broken financial system. The lesson of big banking busts, such as Japan’s in the 1990s, is that debt-laden balance-sheets must be restructured and troubled banks fixed before real recoveries can take off. History also suggests that countries which address their banking crises quickly and creatively (as Sweden did in the early 1990s) do better than those that dither. This is expensive and painful, but cautious, penny-pinching governments end up paying more than those that tread boldly.

By any recent historical standards America’s banking bust is big (see article). The scale of troubled loans and the estimates of likely losses—which are now routinely put at over $2 trillion—suggest many of the country’s biggest banks may be insolvent. Their balance-sheets are clogged by hundreds of billions of dollars of “toxic” assets—the illiquid, complex and hard-to-price detritus of the mortgage bust, as well as growing numbers of non-housing loans that are souring thanks to the failing economy. Worse, banks’ balance-sheets are only one component of the credit bust. Most of the tightness of credit is owing to the collapse of “securitisation”, the packaging and selling of bundles of debts from credit cards to mortgages.

Fixing this mess will require guts, imagination and a lot of taxpayers’ money. Mr Geithner claims he knows this. “We believe that the policy response has to be comprehensive and forceful,” he declared in his speech, adding that “there is more risk and greater cost in gradualism than aggressive action.”

But his deeds did not live up to his words. His to-do list was dispiritingly inadequate on some of the thorniest problems, such as nationalising insolvent banks, dealing with toxic assets and failing mortgages. Mr Geithner promised to “stress-test” the big banks to see if they were adequately capitalised and offer “contingent” capital if they were not. But he offered few details about the terms of public-cash infusions or whether they would, eventually, imply government control. His plan for a “public-private investment fund” to buy toxic assets was vague and its logic—that a nudge from government, in the form of cheap financing, would enliven a moribund market—was heroic. Banks’ balance-sheets are clogged with toxic junk precisely because they are unwilling to sell the stuff at prices hedge funds and other private investors are willing to pay. Vagueness, in turn, led to incoherence. How can you stress-test banks if you do not know how their troubled assets will be dealt with and at what price? Amid these shortcomings were some good ideas, such as a fivefold expansion of a $200 billion fledgling Fed facility to boost securitisation. But for nervous investors and worried politicians, desperate for details and prices, the “plan” was a grave disappointment.

How serious is this setback? One interpretation is that Mr Obama’s crew mismanaged expectations—that they promised a plan and came up with a concept. If so, that is a big mistake. Managing expectations is part of building confidence and when so much about these rescues is superhumanly complex, it is unforgivable to bungle the easy bit.

More worrying still is the chance that Mr Geithner’s vagueness comes from doubt about what to do, a reluctance to take tough decisions, and a timidity about asking Congress for enough cash. That is an alarming prospect. “Banksters” may be loathed everywhere (see article), but more money will surely be needed to clean up America’s banks and administer the financial fix the economy needs. That, as this newspaper has argued before, means both some form of “bad bank” for toxic loans (with temporary nationalisation part of that cleansing process, if necessary) and guarantees to cover catastrophic losses in the “good” banks that remain. Mr Obama’s team must recognise this or they, like their predecessors, will come to be seen as part of the problem, not the solution.

Hidden Healthcare Nightmare Slipped Into Spending Bill

Critical read on Bloomberg a couple of days ago…

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) — Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective.

Read as SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE, I’ve lived in it, I know.

The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties.  “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

So much for the bleeding heart liberals. Dropping the treatment of old people isn’t very good Democrat PR.

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Get ready for it, here’s the really sinister Democrats we’ve seen and know. Obama and Daschle want you to read the next part very quickly and don’t think about it.

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

Could America have made a bigger mistake putting this guy in office? I can’t imagine what could be worse at this time than Obama. If you voted for him, you owe the rest of us to stop his domestic terrorism against America.

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com

Spectator on Obama: “America, What Have you Done?”

I was referred to a very concisely and well written article by Melanie Phillips, in the Spectator, recently on Obama’s utter lack of bringing hope or change to Washington. Take the time to read it and click through…

President Obama has had, by general consent, a torrid First Fortnight. To put it another way, it has taken precisely two weeks for the illusion that brought him to power to be exposed for the nonsense that it so obviously was. The transformational candidate who was going to sweep away pork-barrel politics, lobbyists and corruption has been up to his neck in sleaze, as eviscerated here by Charles Krauthammer. Despite the fact that he came to power promising to ‘ban all earmarks’, his ‘stimulus’ bill represents billions of dollars of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections — which have nothing to do with kick-starting the economy and everything to do with favouring pet Democrat causes.

He has been appointing one tax dodger, lobbyist and wheeler-dealer after another. After appointing one official,Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who had unaccountably forgotten to pay his taxes, he then watched his designated Health Secretary Tom Daschle fall on his sword because he too had taken a tax holiday. Daschle was furthermore a prominent actor in the world of lobbying and influence-peddling. Leon Panetta, Obama’s nominee for Director of the CIA has also, according to the Wall Street Journal, consulted for prominent companies and sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. The Weekly Standard reports that Secretary of Labour nominee Hilda Solis was not only involved with a private organization lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she helped sponsor, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.

In foreign policy, Obama has started by trashing his own country through grossly misrepresenting its history and grovelling to America’s enemies such as Iran, which has flicked him aside with undiluted contempt.  He has gratuitously upset America’s ally India by suggesting that America should muscle in and resolve the Kashmir question.

His right hand doesn’t seem to know what his left hand is doing. He reportedly asked retired Marine General Anthony Zinni to be US ambassador to Iraq, but then abruptly withdrew the appointment without explanation after it had been confirmed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And the precise role he is offering Dennis Ross – special envoy to Iran? Special adviser to Hillary? Special adviser to other special advisers? – remains mired in confusion.

I have argued before however that, given Obama’s radical roots in the neo-Marxist, nihilist politics of Saul Alinsky, it is the undermining of America’s fundamental values that is likely to be this President’s most strategically important goal. I have also suggested that, since this agenda is promoted through stealth politics which gull the credulous middle-classes while destroying the ground upon which they are standing, his second-tier appointments should be closely scrutinised.

And here’s a humdinger. Obama has picked a man called David Ogden to be deputy Attorney-General. Ogden has made his legal career from representing pornographers, trying to defeat child protection legislation and undermining family values.  As FoxNews reported this week, he once represented a group of library directors arguing against the Children’s Internet Protection Act, which ordered libraries and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene sites. And on behalf of several media groups, he successfully argued against a child pornography law that required publishers to verify and document the age of their models, which would have ensured these models were at least 18.

The Family Research Council has more examples of his contribution to upholding American and western values. In one such case, he expressed the view that abortion was less damaging to a woman than having children:

In sum, it is grossly misleading to tell a woman that abortion imposes possible detrimental psychological effects when the risks are negligible in most cases, when the evidence shows that she is more likely to experience feelings of relief and happiness, and when child-birth and child-rearing or adoption may pose concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects …

In another, co-authored brief, he argued that it was an unconstitutional burden on 14-year old girls seeking an abortion for their parents to be notified — because there was no difference between adults and mid-teens in their ability to grasp all the implications of such a decision:

There is no question that the right to secure an abortion is fundamental. By any objective standard, therefore, the decision to abort is one that a reasonable person, including a reasonable adolescent, could make. [E]mpirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment-related decisions. These unvarying and highly significant findings indicate that with respect to the capacity to understand and reason logically, there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between minors in mid-adolescence, i.e., about 14-15 years of age, and adults.

And how did the 44th President react to the growing public dismay over the mess he was making? He threw his toys out of the pram — or perhaps that should read, he got into the pram. For he fled the scene of the disaster and sought the company of seven year-olds instead. As the Telegraph reported:

‘We were just tired of being in the White House,’ he told a group of excited seven-year-olds before discussing Batman and reading them a book.

Tired of being President – after two weeks!

Tax cheats, pork-barrel politics, ancillary child abuse, incompetence, chaos, treachery and infantilism. America – what have you done?!

Amen.

Smartest Australians Block Their “Stimulus” Package

Wow. Change the names and numbers and this sounds very familiar. At least Australia has their Democrats pegged and publicly called out. Unlike the embarrassment of liberals cheerleaders that call themselves journalists here.

Turnbull defends decision to block stimulus

Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has defended his decision to vote against the Government’s $42 billion economic stimulus package.

The Government is planning a raft of cash payments, tax breaks and infrastructure spending to boost the economy.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has attacked the Opposition’s decision to vote against the measures.

In an address to the nation, Mr Turnbull says he knows it is not a popular move, but it is the right thing to do.

“The Prime Minister has given the Parliament only 48 hours to consider and approve the expenditure of $42 billion,” he said.

“That isn’t sensible, or prudent. It’s an insult to Australian taxpayers and we in the Opposition will vote against this package.

“We know this won’t be popular with many people but we are determined to do the right thing for Australia and its future.

“Somebody has to stand up for strong financial management. Somebody has to stand up for taxpayers. Somebody has to stand up for future generations.

“We don’t reject the need for a stimulus at this time but our judgment is that $42 billion is too much right now and $200 billion is too much debt. This is not a time for panic. It’s a time for sound, calm judgement.

“There’s no evidence that last year’s $10 billion cash handout was an effective economic stimulus. It did not create the jobs the Government said it would.

“So we oppose rushing to another cash splash. Rather, we propose bring forwarding permanent tax cuts for Australians. This will make many families more than $1,700 better off over the year. It allows them to keep more of their own hard earned cash into the future.

“He’s [Kevin Rudd] asking Parliament to increase our national debt to $200 billion – a level never seen before. That is $9,500 of debt for every Australian, a debt our children will have to pay off years into the future.”

Federal Parliament is sitting late into the night to debate the stimulus package.

The legislation is expected to pass the Lower House overnight, but will face more hurdles in the Senate.

Earlier today Mr Rudd branded Mr Turnbull’s decision to block the package as “rank political expediency”.

“What you have embarked upon today is to vote against the biggest building program in every primary school in the nation,” he said during Question Time.

Democrats are nearly everything that’s wrong with this country, as if I had to say it.

How is Murtha not in jail?!?

Seriously, blood started to spurt out of my eyes as I read this article.

My favorite part:

Good government groups have long criticized Murtha’s cozy relationship with a handful of lobbyists and defense firms, ties that see millions of dollars in government spending go out from Murtha’s office, and hundreds of thousands in campaign donations come in. Murtha has said his earmarking has helped revive his economically depressed district.

He does the Democrats proud.