Posted on 04/15/2009 6:57:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a speech at Georgetown University yesterday, Pres. Barack Obama tried to explain how his economic policies “fit together in a single, overarching strategy.” The only constant we could discern, however, was the president’s desire to use the financial crisis to justify enormous expansions of government power.
Because the crisis is so dire, Obama explained, “we’ve had no choice but to attack all fronts.” His stimulus package, for instance, attacked the financial crisis — a crisis afflicting the banking sector — on the federal-building-construction front, the state-highway-slush-fund front, the green-energy-boondoggle front, etc. The president repeated his line that the stimulus package will be responsible for “saving or creating 3.5 million jobs over the next two years.” Even pro-stimulus economists have admitted that that number is off by about a million. The truth is that we will never know how many jobs the stimulus has “created or saved” — economist Greg Mankiw has pointed out that the ambiguity of the phrasing is an “is an act of political genius” that allows the administration to define “saved” however it wants. But we doubt the stimulus will create or save any jobs, since the government cannot spend money without borrowing or taxing it out of the private sector.
Obama acknowledged concerns about the deficit, but he implored the public not to blame the gargantuan stimulus package. The real problem, he said, is “out-of-control health-care costs” that drive up the cost of our entitlement programs. That’s why he asked for a $600 billion down-payment on a national health-care system as part of his $3.6 trillion budget blueprint.
Rising health-care costs are a big part of America’s entitlement-spending crisis, but, as NR senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru recently pointed out, there are practical ways to bring down the cost of health insurance for middle-class families without raising the tax burden. Nor is it clear that creating a federal health-care bureaucracy could actually curb costs without resorting to the kind of rationing that characterizes the British system.
More important, what does the cost of health care have to do with our potentially insolvent financial sector? By conjuring one side issue after another — health-care costs, fossil fuels, CEO pay, etc. — Obama is using misdirection to distract people from the fact that his administration has yet to provide a framework for resolving troubled financial institutions that cannot save themselves. He said that “the stress tests . . . will soon tell us how much additional capital will be needed to support lending at our largest banks.” But the stress tests have become a punchline. They were designed to allow every bank tested to pass. Federal regulators have instructed the 19 banks undergoing the tests to keep the results a secret, because their goal is to conceal from the public which banks are weak and which are strong; even though the tests are a sham, the feds don’t want some banks telegraphing their relative strength by releasing the results of their stress tests early.
But what if some banks really are beyond rescue? In his speech, Obama rejected both “nationalization” and the free-market approach, though either would be preferable to the status quo of keeping zombie banks on life support indefinitely. The nationalizers want the government to oversee the orderly liquidation of insolvent banks; the free-marketeers think broken financial institutions should work out their problems in bankruptcy court. Either approach would carry risks, but both have the upside of transferring the majority of the losses to bondholders, not taxpayers. As it stands, we’re stuck with the worst-case scenario: Taxpayers have implicitly guaranteed these institutions, yet they remain in private hands. Instead of resolving the zombie banks, we are propping them up. This is exactly the recipe that gave Japan its “lost decade.”
Obama seems to lack either the political will or the ability to make the truly tough calls when it comes to dealing with the financial crisis. The path of least resistance is the path that President Bush and his Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, blazed with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) — a program that has outlived its economic usefulness but doubled its political usefulness by becoming a blank check that the administration can use for everything from rescuing Detroit to bailing out the life-insurance industry. Congress’s most urgent priority when it returns from its Easter recess should be to curtail the administration’s TARP power. As evidenced by his speech, Obama has domestic-policy ADD. He won’t confront the financial crisis directly until resource constraints force his hand.
Idiot socialist.
These tea parties have rattled Obama, IMO. I predict that his more extreme bills (FOCA, Card-check, socialized health-care) are going to be put aside. Of course, we must remain ever vigilant.
The best decision he could make is one that reflects the desires of the people.
OK... so if I still have my job in the next two years... it was "saved" because of your non-stimulus package? I don't think so!
More likely, my job was saved because I worked my rear end off and contributed to the success of my company...
Well....pretty much 100% of my husband’s work group will be gone by years end.....I really do NOT believe the poser’s lies.....
There was a thread about a week ago dealing with Obama’s trip to Strasbourg. It contained a link to a publication for Federal employees in Europe that talked about Obama landing at Ramstein but failing to visit wounded warriors at Landstuhl Army Medical Center. I REALLY need that link again if anyone can please help.
Danged teleprompter....it was supposed to say...
fit togther in a single, over-reaching strategy
The best description of the current political situation is that the Media and DNC have groomed this salesman for years (he is giving speeches pushing their agenda every day, not administrating), and having him in place, are taking advantage of this financial crisis to functionally pull off a stealth coup in the US economy, society, and government.
As far as I am concerned, the media has rigged the US political and social systems.
“These tea parties have rattled Obama, IMO.”
He has thin skin.
” I predict that his more extreme bills (FOCA, Card-check, socialized health-care) are going to be put aside. Of course, we must remain ever vigilant.”
We do. Threats are far from over - the Dems have many midnight voting sessions and hidden budget item tricks to play...
The Obama Threat Assessment Matrix:
- Card-check was killed by Sen Specter. They will try a watered down version that gives other bennies to unions. MEDIUM THREAT.
- FOCA. Low risk/ non-starter. Public attempt to pass it would hand majority to Republicans. Threat moves to PRO_ABORT AT HHS USING ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TO MAKE PRO_ABORT POLICIES. This includes opnely funding planned parenthood, ending the Mexico City policy. etc. Will “salami slice” the pro-abort agenda.
- socialized health-care - HIGH RISK. Reid put this on fast-track in budget to avoid filibuster. The Dems want the trillion dollar socialized medicine stuff paid in next years budget to lock in this victory. DEMS PLAN A GOVT INSURANCE PLAN THAT WILL HAVE MASSIVE SUBSIDIES AND SO WILL UNDERCUT AND DESTROY THE PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET - THIS IS LIKE WALMART SELLING BELOW COST IN A TOWN TO KILL OFF COMPETITION. KILLING PRIVATE INSURANCE WILL LEAD INEVITABLY TO SINGLE-PAYER / CANADA-CARE
- cap-and-trade - MEDIUM RISK. Big risk is direct EPA CO2 regs are coming. Budget bill had push-back where cap-and-trade cannot increase electricity costs (Thune Amendment). Thanks to fast GOP footwork, staved off disaster for some time.
- Immigration - Full-bore Amnesty does NOT have the votes in the House according to some pundits. It’s hard to believe though with the big Dem majority. WILL PROBABLY SALAMI-SLICE THIS AND GET DREAM ACT AND OTHER AMNESTY BILLS PASSED. NOTE THE LIES ABOUT SECURING THE BORDER OUT OF DHS(!!!) OBAMA=BUSH?!?
- BUDGET - HIGH RISK OF US BANKRUPTCY.Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years? The answer is apparently
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.