Critique of Obama’s Economic Policies So Far

Obama has been in office for about  ten months. In terms of important economic issues, let’s assess his results so far.

(1) Monthly federal budget deficits have been decreased by one-fourth. For October 2008, the CBO reported a federal budget deficit of $232 billion. The CBO reports the October 2009 deficit at $175 billion, a reduction of 24.6%.

(2) Equity markets have soared by about 59%. After hitting a low in early March just below 6500, the DJIA has risen past 10,300.

(3) Monthly job losses have declined substantially. All through 2008, the net number of jobs shed by the economy grew each month, reaching its worst point in January, when the economy lost more than 700,000 jobs. From that moment forward, the picture has been improving, with net losses shrinking each month to 190,000 in October. Of course, losses are losses, and so this means that total unemployment has continued to rise. But how can we look at Chart 2 in this link and not conclude that the jobs market has been heading in the right direction since early 2009?

(4) Credit markets have resumed functioning in a more or less normal manner; and

(5) The severe recession ended, at least enough for the economy to grow in the third quarter.

 

 

Pop Quiz: Which president is this?

Which president is this?:

This president faced a severe recession early in his administration, which he battled with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases. The stock market responded to the economic improvement with a long, sustained rally. To be sure, federal debt skyrocketed as a result, but that was left for later generations to deal with.

Barack Obama?  Ronald Reagan? The answer is, of course, both.

That’s not to say there aren’t big differences, certainly. Federal debt nearly tripled under Reagan, where it is increasing at “only” about 10% per year under Obama, although from a much higher starting point. The economic crisis Obama has had to battle was far more severe than the Reagan recession. And there’s something we don’t know yet. Reagan’s years ended with a thud: the financial markets in free fall (remember the crash of 1987?) and the economy headed into another recession, which landed during GHW Bush’s term. We don’t yet know if that fate will befall Obama.

My point is, if you find yourself lauding President Reagan and critical of President Bush — or listening to pundits who adopt that posture — you should ask yourself why. Isolate what Reagan did right and what Obama is doing wrong, and then analyze how they are different. It’s harder to do than you may think.

 

The peculiar relationship between conservatives and Republicans

I have been having a very thought-provoking conversation with a blogger named Texas56. It started with a post of hers, raising a number of very legitimate criticisms of Sen Boxer of California. My most recent comment to her blog became the origin of this post.

The exchange got me more focused on an issue that has been bothering me for some time. Who decided that Republicans were the party of conservative America? Despite the occasional ”damn all the politicians” sentiment from the likes of Glenn Beck, and despite a very thin veneer of non-partisanship blanketing the tea-party movement, how is it that Democrats are scathingly excoriated by the right, while Republicans are merely admonished from time to time? What exactly is conservative about the modern Republican party?

In my opinion, Republicans these days are every bit as responsible for undermining conservative principles as Democrats. Okay, maybe that’s not fair. If Democrats get a score of 15/100 on the conservative scale, maybe Republicans deserve a 30. But that is scarcely recognized in terms of how the voice of conservative America speaks forth.

I ask my conservative friends:

Is not liberty a fundamental conservative principle? Yet it was Republicans who trampled our liberty into the dust via the Patriot Act. Republicans who have persistently sought to stamp out liberty for gays and pregnant women. Republicans who consistently oppose voter registration drives. Why are conservatives not apoplectic over these egregiously anti-liberty positions of the modern Republican party?

Is not fiscal responsibility not a fundamental conservative principle? Yet, somewhere along the way, Republicans decided that massive federal debt is the answer to funding our government. They keep pushing tax cuts, but never spending cuts. How politically expedient is that? — “Have some more dessert, voters; don’t worry about eating your vegetables!” How can putting this country $11 trillion in debt — the pre-Obama total, mind you — possibly be considered fiscally responsible? In fact, I would argue that cutting taxes is the most fiscally irresponsible act possible — if spending is not cut and a massive accumulation of debt is the result. Just ask Dave Ramsey.

So, here’s the real challenge: Are conservatives willing to throw Republicans under the bus along with the Democrats? Are conservatives willing to denounce Republicans who oppose liberty when that means gay rights, or a woman’s right to choose, or giving every possible person the opportunity to vote? Are conservatives willing to embrace fiscal responsibility when that means higher taxes? If so, I’m there to join with you. I’m ready to vote for candidates like that. If he came from my part of the country and were still active in politics, I would vote for Joe Scarborough in a heartbeat.

But as long as Democrats have to take the hit alone, as long as Republicans are given a free pass by conservatives, as long as conservatives remain blind to the myriad of ways that Republicans violate conservative principles in this country, as long as conservatives howl at Nancy Pelosi but cheer Joe Wilson — or Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin, or any other inexplicable dichotomy — I cannot stand with them.

OMG, I’m starting to sound like Ron Paul. Somebody help me.

 

Why reasonable political discourse matters

Let me start with a clear statement of the premise of this post: the political behavior of both politicians and we the people has become downright abysmal, and it threatens our future.

Start with the politicians. We have members of Congress who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that President Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president. Literally cannot get the words to come out of their mouths. Others who cannot bring themselves to rebuke Rep. Wilson for his unambiguous violation of the House code of conduct. Still others who cannot bring themselves to rebuke Rep. Grayson for his characterization of Republican healthcare plans as, “don’t get sick” – and if you do, “die quickly.” We have Sarah Palin out there fanning the “death panels” flames. We have Rep. Franks declaring that our president is “an enemy of humanity” who has “no place in any station of government.”

Why is this? This is done because it sells tickets, i.e., it generates political support and votes. It’s good for business among the political set. Does anyone of serious mind actually doubt the president’s constitutional qualifications?  Or that that Wilson, Grayson, Palin or Frank were out of line? Have you ever heard anyone express support for these politicians’ actions who isn’t also ideologically aligned with them? You have not. Ideological blinders are an absolute prerequisite to seeing these any of these actions as justified, or intellectually honest, or in any way creditable.

And, that’s where we the people come in. We buy this stuff. We soak it up. We love it. If you are an obscure South Carolina or Florida congressman or a small state governor or whoever, this stuff works. It works politically. You get more donations. You get bigger tiny crowds at your appearances. You get more votes. In the end, you get re-elected.

Where does all of this lead us? To the state of affairs in Congress today. Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, is among the most disdained and reviled institutions in the land. Various polls show an overall approval rating of Congress in the mid twenties percent range. If you or I set out with boundless determination to ruin our reputations, it would take a miracle to earn the disgust of so many.

We are caught in an ever-worsening feedback loop. Politicians on the right disconnect further and further from reality, become more and more willing to abandon all reasonable standards of discourse — and are rewarded with money and votes from an increasingly marginalized right wing electorate. And in turn: Politicians on the left disconnect further and further from reality, become more and more willing to abandon all reasonable standards of discourse — and are rewarded with money and votes from the left wing electorate. (I omit “increasingly marginalized” for the left wing only because it is in the ascendancy now; five years ago, it would have been reversed, and it will reverse again.)

Here is why this matters. There are real issues to be confronted by our government. We live in times which require thoughtful, forward-thinking, fresh, creative and wise leadership. But we punish those who are thoughtful, forward-thinking, fresh, creative and wise. We are left with a big bunch of losers, play-acting at being “Congressmen” and “Congresswomen.” I cringe to think that this generation in Congress will be the ones to decide how to handle healthcare policy, or energy policy, or environmental policy, or economic policy, or fiscal policy, or any other important policy. Frankly, I would cringe equally whether it was Pelosi or Boehner with a 256 – 177 majority and the task of crafting the thoughtful, forward-thinking, fresh, creative and wise legislation these issues demand.

Just remember, though: it is not their fault. We voted for them. We sought out and got exactly the kind of rhetoric-filled, ideologically blinded Congress we wanted. Good luck with that, America.

 

Obama, Romney, and Beck: a word on religious hypocrisy

How many Americans still think Obama is a Muslim? 10%? 20% I don’t know. But that view is well-entrenched in the tea party crowd. The whispers continue: “He was born in Kenya;” “He’s a Muslim;” “He’s not Christian.” It is all made to sound as if he is some sort of mole, planted in our midst, and ready to turn the US into a caliphate at the first opportunity.

The great irony here is, of course, that Obama also got punched in the face repeatedly for his long-standing association with the United Church of Christ parish pastored by Jeremiah Wright. Politics is not a fair environment, but to be blasted simultaneously for being a Muslim and a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church, well, that’s pretty tough luck, that is.

None of that commentary so far represents any new thoughts, of course. Here’s what’s new in my mind. Two of the most prominent and influential conservatives are Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck. Both Mormons. Poor Obama has to fend off patently false rumors of being un-Christian and Muslim; but somehow the religion these guys truly do practice isn’t given a passing thought. Where is the outrage? Where is the suspicion? Where is the vehement “You’re not a Christian” denunciation of these two?

Please don’t think I hate Mormons. I think neither Romney nor Beck should have to listen to a single word against them for their chosen faith. I just have to observe the bitter irony that Obama continues to have to deal with this false issue, while not a peep is made about the very real religious affiliations of Beck and Romney.

How can this not be a double-standard? And how can this hypocrisy be explained? Strange times.

 

Not sure what the markets are telling us

The WSJ is reporting two bits of good news this morning. One, industrial production rose 0.8% in August, following a 1.0% rise in July. Both results exceeded analysts’ expectations. Fed Chairman Bernanke is now making pronouncements that the recession could be over. The second news item was that inflation remains very low. We have seen the stock markets increase by, what, maybe 35% since the bottom was hit earlier this year?

What I don’t get is how this is happening in the face of various government actions that have garnered scathing criticism from some quarters, and deep concern from many other quarters. The view advanced by many is that towering federal deficits, massive government intervention to rescue the financial markets and auto companies, the stimulus package, and worries over the cost of the healthcare reform legislation should be shaking our economy to its core.

 But that just doesn’t seem to be happening. How do we make sense of this? Do we trust the markets to give us an objective assessment of our actions? Were the doomsdayers off base? Did it turn out that the ocean of our economy was big enough to absorb and dilute the economic pollution from these governmental actions? Whatever the explanation, critics of the Administration need to take note of these positive indicators.

 

Fox News exposes Bush Administration: In bed with ACORN

An analyst or guest (not sure who the guy was exactly) was on Fox & Friends this morning, reporting that ACORN had received more than $10 million in government funding. The scroll notes during his comments indicated ACORN had received $1.6 million this year alone. That leaves $8.4 million+ that was funded prior to this year. Proof that the Bush Administration was in bed with ACORN.

Right?

 

Why are the “Tea Party” people protesting in Washington?

Okay, so there’s this strong wave of anger manifesting itself in these ‘tea parties,’ including now a big rally in Washington. The sentiment is, as best I can understand it, that they mistrust government, and they feel betrayed by our elected officials. In the words of one individual quoted in the NY Times, “I want Congress to be afraid. Like everyone else here, I want them to know that we’re watching what they’re doing. And they do work for us.”

He’s right, and he’s wrong. He’s right that they do work for us. But he’s wrong that they’re betraying that responsibility. Other than perhaps Arlen Specter, each and every member of Congress, and certainly the president, is fulfilling the mandates upon which he or she was elected. They are not violating them. The American people sent Obama, and Capitol-ful of Democrats, to Washington to reform healthcare, to end Bush-era economic and foreign policies we had ceased to believe in, to lead us to a different energy future, to address climate change. Were they now to undertake a different agenda, something contrary to what they campaigned on, I think somebody might point a finger at them and shout, “You lie!”

So, the problem, my tea party friends, is not betrayal on the part of our elected officials. The problem is that so many people have a different view than yours, that a different breed of elected officials has been sent to Washington. I understand that you are angry and frustrated. I understand that you simply don’t like the prevailing winds. The quoted gentlemen has the right idea of recourse when he says, ”I want Congress to be afraid” — assuming that he means by that, afraid of what will happen at the next elections. But then why are you directing your anger at the elected officials? Why are you not reaching out to me, and tens of millions of others like me — the vast centrist swath of the electorate who decide elections and who support responsible, pragmatic government action to address the issues of the day?

The tea party types need to ponder a very serious political reality. By retreating further and further into the margins, and by taking the Palins and DeMints and Bachmanns and Wilsons with them, they are leaving the policy-making to the liberal Democrats. We have two camps in Washington now. Reid, Pelosi, Waxman, Baucus, etc., who are making the laws; and a group of shrill Republicans who are making political theater. The tea party movement is having the brutally ironic effect of shifting policy radically leftward, by making it more politically lucrative to leave the negotiating table than to remain there as the voice of sensible conservative thought.

At any rate, if you count yourself among those who sympathize with the tea party sentiments, just remember: I vote. Millions like me vote. Elections have consequences. If you lose, don’t try to change MY candidates. Get back to work to elect your own.

 

What was Rep. Wilson thinking?

Without yet getting into whether Rep. Wilson was “right” or not, what he did was one of the most profoundly un-conservative acts in memory. The first principle of conservatism is to conserve. Conservatives more than any other segment recognize, or ought to, our mutual responsibility to conserve, defend and protect those basic institutions on which order, stability and prosperity depend. His act demeaned and belittled the presidency, an institution which has been constitutionally ingrained in our way of life for more than 200 years. If he has something to say, he has any number of legitimate means of expression. Whatever happened to op ed pieces in the paper, or appearances on Hannity, or speeches to his constituents, or posts on his website? Whatever the merits of his outburst, he chose the one radical means of expression that utterly belies conservative principles.

I also have to point out this irony. There are many aspects of Pres. Obama’s healthcare ideas that require a hard swallow to accept at face value. He is, after all, a politician by trade, and he is going to spin the story in his favor as much as he can get away with. Yet, Rep. Wilson chose to brand as a lie one of the most incontrovertibly true statements of the night. Who is this guy, and, basically, WTF on that???

 

Suppose we had a healthcare bill that could do this…

· Cut the amount that America spends on healthcare in half.

· Provided universal health insurance coverage. Yep, 100%.

· If you have a serious illness, such as cancer, paid 100% of the costs of treatment.

· Used the private market to deliver all healthcare, including an option for doctors and others to opt out of participating in the government-funded plan. Retained the fee-for-service arrangement that dominates US healthcare system now, to minimize disruption. Provided doctors with greater independence in diagnosis and treatment than the European model.

·  Reduced infant mortality by 40%; raised life expectancy; lowered mortality rates from preventable diseases.

Would you support a plan like that? Welcome to France. If you would not support that, why not?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/wn_20090718_3933.php