Showing posts with label Stimulus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stimulus. Show all posts

Has anyone noticed that the Party of “No” is accomplishing more than the Obama?

Wednesday, November 11, 2009



The media and Democrats might want to stop labeling the Republican Party as the “Party of No.” One the surface, the label “Party of No” seems like good political strategy. It is a creative attempt to define and brand the opposition party negatively as the party opposed to all progressive ideas of hope and change. So what’s the problem with a little strategic branding? The problem is that saying “No” to Obama policies as a platform is starting to prove successful in producing tangible benefits for Americans.

Here are just a few successes we’ve seen by simply saying “No” to the Obama agenda:

The Republican Party strongly opposed Obama’s Cap and Tax legislation in July and is currently working to hold the bill up in the Senate. Democrats contend that by holding up the bill, Republicans are harming the world’s efforts to abate global warming. However, a newly released report by NOAA regarding October’s temperatures is telling us a different story. According to the report, October 2009 was the third coldest month on record. The average temperatures in October were 4 degrees Fahrenheit below average for the last century. Of course global warming scientists cannot reasonably explain the shocking drop, but one thing is evident, not passing Cap and Tax into law seems to be having a powerful effect on lowering average temperatures at a dramatic rate.

Republican opposition held up health care legislation in August. Despite claims from Democrats that the Republicans are intentionally killing off the sick as a result of their opposition, Obama touted a dramatic decrease in the number of uninsured from 47 million to 30 million. The drop occurred in less than of month after just saying “No” was congressional drumbeat. Saying no proved cheaper for Americans and dramatically effective.

Let’s also take a look at Obama’s stimulus. Sadly in this case, the “Yes” votes prevailed in February. However, if you look at Obama’s projections below, you will see that following the call of “No” would have put us at 9% unemployment. A dramatic improvement over the 10.2% unemployment we currently have under the stimulus. Only a fool would overlook the obvious wisdom of the “No” strategy.



All kidding aside, (I love writing about paradoxes) it is unfortunate that most liberal media and politicians push the idea that something is better than nothing. The truth is that there are good ideas and bad ideas. We can actually come out of legislation worse then when we came in. Many of Obama’s policies fall under the category of bad ideas. Nearly all of the current administrations big agenda items are crafted and rooted in accomplishing political goals as opposed to solving problems.

For example via The American Spectator:

Liberal John Cassidy explains of the progressive agenda:

"[W]e will be dealing with its consequences for decades to come, and I think it’s important to be clear about what the reform amounts to," Cassidy wrote. He goes on to confess that, "The future cost savings that the Administration and its congressional allies are promising to deliver are based on wishful thinking and sleight of hand. Over time, the reform, as proposed, would almost certainly add substantially to the budget deficit, thereby worsening the long-term fiscal crisis that the country faces."

After explaining many of the accounting tricks the Democrats have used to obtain a passing grade from the Congressional Budget Office, which I have detailed on numerous occasions, Cassidy concludes:

So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government’s spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.


The reason “No” has been so successful to date is that the “Yes” solutions aren’t intended to address any particular problem. It's easy to say "No" to solutions that don't fix problems. The health care bill will cut the spiraling costs of health care, the answer is no so just say "No." Cap and trade will reduce global temperatures, the answer is no so just say "No." The stimulus is jolting the economy back to life, the answer is no so just say "No" more spending. When the leaders in congress and the White House are not bringing viable options to the table, the productive response is "No."

Massa doubles down on Obama’s joke of a stimulus bill and it’s not funny

Wednesday, October 28, 2009


The Steuben County Young Republicans over at Pachyderm Points contacted me regarding footage they had of Eric Massa’s recent announcement to run for reelection for NY’s 29th Congressional District. I’ve posted the video footage below. Just a reminder for everyone, Eric Massa is the leftwing ideologue who promised to vote against the interests of his district for Canadian style single payer health care. Given Massa’s recent statements regarding his support for the stimulus package at his announcement for candidacy, it would seem that nothing has changed in recent months.



FACT CHECK for Massa: Hundreds of millions to your district? How about $60 million to the entire state.

When someone asked Massa whether he would support legislation to end the stimulus package, Massa’s response was, “Hell no! I'm not giving it back!” While his statement sounds like a populous promise to show his constituents the money, in reality, the stimulus has been a raw deal for the voters in the 29th.

A recent AP article estimates that the stimulus had created a massive 3.5 jobs in the Elmira, Ithica, Binghamton region. Even recovery.gov’s rosy jobs saved and created formula shows 50 jobs allotted to Massa and none of those jobs located in Elmira, Schuyler, or Steuben counties. The job creation numbers are a pretty poor showing for a district of over 650,000 people and roughly 58,500 of them unemployed.

Just how deflated is Massa’s stimulus rhetoric? I suggest we evaluate what our $768 billion investment in the stimulus bill is doing for district 29. Since I’m a numbers kind of person, I have the breakdown below.

Cost of the stimulus - $768,000,000,000
Cost of the stimulus per American (307,000,000 people) - $2,500/person
Total cost for the residents of the 29th District (650,000 people) - $1.6 billion
Amount of money paid to the entire NYS as of 10/09? - $60 million

The number only gets worse when I recalculate based on taxpayers instead of population so I gave you the optimistic version. Even Massa's embellished hundreds of millions doesn't break even! Look it up in the dictionary and you will find the definition of a bad decision; spend billions of your district's money to get millions back and "create or save" a handfull of jobs.

At the same time Massa is way behind in stimulating his district's economy, White House Economist Christina Roemer is saying that the biggest effects of the stimulus have already taken effect. Recent news also shows that 49 out of 50 states are showing job losses, not gains since the stimulus was enacted.

If Massa was looking out for the interests of his district, his response should have been “Hell Yeah! Our $1.6 billion is not worth the pittance apportioned to us.” Instead, we watch the video and hear an Eric Massa who is resolved to follow his broken ideology to the bitter, tumultuous end. If I had advice for the 29th district it would be this; do yourselves a favor in 2010 and fire the Massa. Fire him because his ideology trumps you at every turn and your interests are more important than Massa’s Ahab’s errand to test his leftist ideology on your community.

Other Related Posts @

The Lonely Conservative
The Libertarian Republican
Monroe Rising

Links To This Post @

The Left Coast Rebel

It’s stop laughing about the economy President Obama

Monday, June 8, 2009



It looks like even leftist media outlets are starting to echo truth about the stimulus. In my post on 6/4/09, I argued that the Obama administration and Obama's stimulus plan were having a negative effect on the economy. My points were that the stimulus was causing savings instead of spending and the administration had lost as many jobs as they created. Today, AP has an article about how the stimulus is causing interest rates to increase instead of drop.

Quote the AP article:
“The Federal Reserve announced a $1.2 trillion plan three months ago designed to push down mortgage rates and breathe life into the housing market.
But this and other big government spending programs are turning out to have the opposite effect. Rates for mortgages and U.S. Treasury debt are now marching higher as nervous bond investors fret about a resurgence of inflation.”


The article quickly comes to the conclusion:

“That's the Catch-22 threatening to make an awful housing market potentially worse and keep the economy stuck in a funk. Kick-starting the economy requires higher spending, but rising rates mean fewer Americans will be able to refinance their home loans. And some potential buyers will be shut out of the market by higher monthly payments they won't be able to afford.”

What does this mean? It means that any gains in the housing market made by the $1 trillion in TARP spending may be erased by Obama’s policies causing the bank's liquidity problem to become more serious.

All this planned spending is negatively affecting the fundamentals of our economy. Obama’s solution? He wants to spend more of the stimulus, faster and ensure the passing of his health care. Great plan Mr. President, do more of what is causing this new economic problem, faster, while trying to create bigger spending. That ought to help.

The pace at which the media is waking up to the disaster that is Obama’s economic policies is causing is a little surprising. However, don’t expect the NY Times to start covering the truth behind Obamanomics, they had a puff piece out today about how fighting amidst the Obama economic advisors adds to the value of the group and allows the President a diversity of opinions. I’m fairly certain that had Obama’s team been in complete agreement over the new economic developments, we’d have a piece trumpeting how Obama’s unified, cohesive group of economic advisors proves that Obama is going in the right direction on the economy.

Meanwhile, the article misses the point that these advisors were all in agreement over the economics of the stimulus. It was the method of spending the stimulus that they argued over. It also fails to mention that the President doesn’t understand anything about the economy and wouldn’t know what the right economic solution if it bit him. All he knows is politics and that’s evident by his handling of the auto companies.

Obama Must Fail so that the Country Can Win

Thursday, June 4, 2009



As Obama’s website job counter ticks away all the jobs the stimulus is creating and saving, the facts about our economic situation and how the stimulus is dragging down our economy is becoming grimmer every day. Even as the left run media hails Obama’s stimulus as the solution and reason for all the good economic news lately, the truth about how the bill is ruining the economy is bubbling to the surface. That is if you can parse the spin from the truth. Let me bring those truths to light for you, dear reader.

Let’s define what success for Obama’s stimulus bill should look like. First, the point of any stimulus is to stimulate economic recovery. In a supply-sided policy, we’d expect to see companies growing as the cost of investment and risk falls (investment increases as companies have an incentive to create more inventories). In Obama’s demand-sided policy, we should see an increase in consumer spending and if the stimulus is really successful there will be an increase in the rate at which consumers spend. Second, much of the success of Obama’s demand-sided stimulus was to be achieved by making it a mission to save and create 3.5 million jobs to ease the bleeding spending rate that would be inevitable with huge losses in unemployment. To achieve these goals, Obama’s stimulus needs to be quickly implemented, directed in a way that consumer spending is increased, and hopefully an increase in the rate of consumer spending will be a result.

Keynes argued that consumer spending was made up of one part spending and one part savings. They actually work against each other in the model. As the rate of spending increases the rate of savings will decrease. The theory behind a demand-sided stimulus policy is that you put money into the hands of consumers and based on the rate that the consumers spend a money multiplier effect will ripple life back into an economy. It’s like throwing a rock into a quiet pond, the more ripples, the more business transactions created as a result and the quicker the economy will recover. The ripple effect is directly related to the rate of consumer spending. If the spending rate drops, the ripples will be smaller or possibly nonexistent.

After three months we can now say that the stimulus has failed to increase consumer spending. A Bloomberg article on June 1st regarding consumer wages, spending and savings has all the facts needed to show that Obama’s stimulus has achieved the opposite of its intended purpose with regards to increasing consumer spending. The article states that consumer spending has fallen .1% in April and .3% in March. Though this may sound like the stimulus is spurring a slowdown in the drop of consumer spending, the following analysis puts this possibility to bed.

“The savings rate rose to 5.7 percent, spurred by an unexpected jump in incomes linked to the fiscal stimulus.”

The dot that is not being connected in this article is that as the savings rate grows, the spending rate drops. Even though the total amount of consumer spending is not dropping as quickly in April as it did in March, the rate in which consumers are spending had a devastating decrease. There can be no doubt about what was written, the stimulus is actually directly responsible for diminishing the economic ripples that are necessary for the bill to be successful.

If you go on to read, you’ll see that the stimulus has created such an increase in savings that it is wiping out the effect of stimulus and is bleeding into consumer spending that is unrelated to fiscal policy.

“Incomes climbed 0.5 percent, the biggest gain in almost a year, reflecting increases in unemployment insurance benefits and social security payments associated with the Obama administration’s stimulus plan.”

Once again, this sounds like Obama’s plan is working as household incomes are increasing. However, you will notice that the rate of savings has grown at a far faster pace than the rate that incomes increased. To sum it all up, the stimulus is causing people to decrease spending so much that they are saving, not spending, all the stimulus dollars and some of their none stimulus income as well. The stimulus is actually causing the economy to shrink, not grow.

Meanwhile after 3 months, the NY Times reported that Obama estimates he has created 150,000 jobs. The losses the Obama administration ordered in connection with the auto industry more than wipe out those employment gains. Obama has decreased employment as much as he increased them.

Obama gets a failing grade as far as the execution of his bill goes as well. The NY Times reported that after 3 months, only 6% of the stimulus bill has been apportioned. At this rate, it will take nearly 4 to 5 years for the funds to be depleted. As pointed out previously, the stimulus has created less spending and a decrease in the rate of consumer spending.

Bad legislation wouldn’t be complete without other severe negative side effects. After all, what can you expect from a bill that was rushed by a congress who never bothered to read the bill. The stimulus bill started a snowball of international concerns regarding the stability of US currency. Coupled with Obama’s budget which projects a larger deficit than revenues, Obama’s economic policies has caused international investors to shy away from purchasing US debt. The circumstances are becoming so dire that Fed Chairman Bernanke threw Obama under the bus yesterday stating:

“Concerns about large federal deficits," Mr. Bernanke said, are one cause of the unwanted rise in yields. The wider the deficits, the more the Treasury borrows and the higher rates go. Wider deficits also stir inflation fears, which also push Treasury yields up.”

Bernanke also stated that Obama’s deficits must be addressed or the economy will suffer.

The economic score since this blogs inception:

C Gen: 2 (stimulus will be a failure and Obama’s policies will ruin the economy)
Obama: 0
Larry Summers: 0
Ben Bernanke: 0
Timothy Giethner: 0
Paul Krugman: 0


Unfortunately, the Republicans were lambasted by the left and the press (as if they were not one in the same) for their opposition to Obama’s stimulus plan. It turns out that hoping for Obama to fail in passing his stimulus would have been good for the country. Somehow I doubt that the media will now start to point this out. Luckily, we’ve only spent 6% of Obama’s stimulus. It’s time we repeal his package and institute one that will actually create jobs faster than Obama can destroy them, increase consumer spending and the rate of spending. Let’s pass a responsible stimulus that can be quickly implemented and get a bigger ripple in the economy for less of the cost. If Obama’s economic policies don’t fail in congress, then it is certain that the country will suffer. Just ask the Fed Chairman.

What Happens When Your Philosophy is Fairness and Not Efficiency?

Monday, May 11, 2009

An AP article by Matt Apuzzo and Brett Blackledge highlights a trend we are going to see more and more in the future. The article “Stimulus Watch: Road money skips over needy areas,” highlights a fervor and danger in opening the redistribution of wealth box. According to the article:

“Although the intent of the money is to put people back to work, AP's review of more than 5,500 planned transportation projects nationwide reveals that states are planning to spend the stimulus in communities where jobless rates are already lower.”

“One result among many: Elk County, Pa., isn't receiving any road money despite its 13.8 percent unemployment rate. Yet the military and college community of Riley County, Kan., with its 3.4 percent unemployment, will benefit from about $56 million to build a highway, improve an intersection and restore a historic farmhouse.”


There are so many philosophical issues that need to be addressed when taking the role of a god and deciding who will get what. What are your standards? Who gets what and how much? Obama left these questions to be answered by state and congressional politicians. However, when you promise relief to those that are hurting most, what is the likely mindset to those listening? The answer is that those that feel they are hurting in any way; feel they are hurting the most.

Let’s put this article into perspective. On the whole, one unemployed person is the same and hurts as much as the next unemployed person, right? So what does it matter if we are helping the unemployed from an area of 3% unemployment versus one with nearly 14%? It matters because it doesn’t sound fair to those living in the area where there is 14%, pay taxes as much as everyone else, yet they do not receive assistance. Does it still sound reasonable?

Once the promise is made and the door to redistribution is open there is no end to what would be the fairest outcome. For example, the BLS shows that 15% of those unemployed are black males. This is the demographic hardest hit by the recession. Logically, the stimulus funds should go to aid districts with high rates of black male unemployment regardless of the overall unemployment rate of the area. Surely, this is an even better measure to distribute the stimulus than the unemployment rate of the geographic area?

I could go on creating examples of the fairest distribution of the stimulus package and each one will probably sound reasonable. The point however, is that there is no end to the debate of fairness. In truth, the fairest outcome in an economy is one where people have the greatest opportunity to gain wealth as opposed to one that tries to dictate and calculate the worth of an individual then send that individual their supposed fair share. The answer to the distribution question is capitalism.

Driving the Economy with Your Eyes Closed

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

On April 14th, Obama himself touted that there were “signs of economic progress." Now, I’m not a Nobel Prize economist or even a vaunted one. In fact, I'm a disgrace because I work in the real world as opposed to sitting in a college office running complex and unrealistic econometric models. For what it's worth, I believe we are sitting in the eye of an economic hurricane and whether the next half of the storm hits us up to the President.

Let’s dissect what has happened and what could happen. To do so, I will break down this recession into 2 phases. We are at the end of phase 1 and inching close to phase 2.

Phase 1:

At phase 1, the recession was mostly in the financial industry. Bad mortgages and increasing foreclosures caused banks to run out of money to lend businesses. This is called a problem of liquidity. The timing of the economic downturn is important. You see, phase 1 really started to impact economy in the 4th quarter. In response, companies sought to tighten their financial screws to salvage their financial statements for the year. Being that the whole year was not a bad year, the financial wizards in most companies saw an opportunity to make quick sweeping moves to pad the only quarter that looked abysmal, their last quarter. As a result, we saw large increases in unemployment, but not many companies closing their doors. The problem for companies right now is there are no more screws to turn. Companies threw all their eggs into 2008 in the hopes that the recession will subside by the end of 2009. Why wouldn’t CEOs have a bullish outlook on the future? They see that their consumers still want their products and are still buying, they are just buying less. Keep in mind, many of today’s CEO has never had to steer their company through a serious recession. In fact, if you look at the MBA programs of today and there is an overwhelming focus in managing market competition, not market collapse.

The Calm before Phase 2:

Right now we see consumer spending dropping, but not as quickly. This is being padded in part by the time of year. Many people are receiving their tax refunds. Also, this is the time of year that most companies give raises and bonuses. It’s common to see spending pick up a little in the retail business this time of year. We’ll need more than a seasonal boost to pull out of this recession.

Phase 2:

In this phase the recession seeps into the consumer market. Yes, we’ve seen consumer spending fall, but there is still a long way to go. When you loose millions of jobs in a few months, you are most certainly going to see a sudden drop in consumption. In 1929, consumer spending ground to a complete halt instantaneously. This was because most people only had access to cash. So far consumer spending has been greatly padded by credit cards. If you are paying attention to news stories, there have been a number of articles on the beginning of a consumer credit crunch.

Smartmoney.com has an article regarding the growing credit balances that card companies are seeing. According to the article, credit card balances have nearly doubled from 4% lows over the last 4 years to 7% today. It sounds small, but it is huge! With unemployment on the rise and no equity in their homes, people are turning to their credit cards to finance their spending. The problem is that credit card companies are running out of money to give to consumers. Part of the problem is that Obama and Geithner have been doing a poor job of fixing the first part of phase 1. We are starting to see a battle between companies and consumers over who will get the little cash still flowing out bank vaults. The article, incorrectly downplays the problem, but at least recognizes the storm brewing.

Phase 2 will either be triggered by an increasing unemployment rate or a persistently higher than normal unemployment rate. As I stated in phase 1, people are buying, just not as much. The trouble with current levels of unemployment is that we can sustain our current level of consumer spending for only so long. Once consumers run out of cash, spending stops. Once spending stops, companies are going to fail. Thus begins a never ending chain where companies fail and lay people off, causing further drops in consumer spending, causing more companies to close their doors and so on.

Recent polling data shows that of the people currently approving of the Obama administration, their approval is based primarily on his economic policies. This shows two things. First of all, Obama now owns what happens in the economy (He has instituted policies and he is getting credit for them). However, it also shows his downfall. Although he has most certainly taken actions regarding the economy, he has not enacted, proposed, or taken any action that would stem this recession in a meaningful way. His stimulus plan is an utter failure. In fact, I was surprised to see how quickly it could fail. The $13/week “tax cut” is on the chopping block for his budget and has done nothing to change and increase consumer spending. Infrastructure spending is turning into a nightmare. Sure there is spending on infrastructure programs, but not new programs. No, the spending is going to programs that States were going to fund in the first place, but are using government funds instead as a way to fill in their budget gaps. The green jobs investment has also been proven a failure. Vestas, the largest wind power company in the world and the sole supplier of wind blades to the US has gone out of business. Even in the face of UK subsidies, the promise of US green jobs stimulus spending, and Cap and Trade the company has decided that there is no money to be made in wind energy (read the UK Guardian Article). In the US, the same story is being played out. In fact an Ohio company who makes wind turbine bolts and was visited by Obama himself to promote his stimulus, laid off workers in February (read the article).

Where Obama’s stimulus was a poor effort to create jobs, his budget agenda is aimed at eliminating jobs. Cap and Trade will result in lost jobs from coal miners and carbon based power companies and manufacturing. The higher energy costs passed on to businesses as a result of Cap and Trade will be offset by companies in the form of unemploying labor. Arthur Laffer estimates a family of four will pay about $10k/year for Cap and Trade, further stifling spending. Likewise, Obama’s healthcare will cost thousands of jobs in healthcare. Obama’s education will create new jobs in education, but how many? Education is already saturated with consumers since all children go to school and most people go to college. The gains will be more than offset by losses from Healthcare and Cap and Trade.

Early in his Presidency Obama stated, “We can handle multiple problems at the same time.” However, the real question is, “should he tackle them at the same time?” It’s the equivalent of building 10 bridges halfway across the Grand Canyon. Sure there are now ten bridges, but we still end up jumping off the cliff at the end. The time is running out for Obama. Every policy he enacts brings us closer to a “phase 2” recession. It’s already on its way and Obama is responsible.

Read my earlier post on why Obama's stimulus plan won't work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:
I found this little nugget of a story on MSNBC. Proof that occasionally they do have interesting stories. The article talks about the problem of counting stimulus jobs. Of course, the administration can inflate the job number as much as they want, having the stimulus work is what is most important.

A Call to Sanity: 3 of 3 on the new TARP bill

Thursday, April 2, 2009

It was February 13th, 2008 that George Bush signed his stimulus check bill into law and thereby began the most irresponsible, inefficient, and ineffective fiscal stimulus policies that government has ever enacted. It started with the rebate checks, then TARP, then auto company loans, then the Obama’s stimulus, then the omnibus bill, now proposed new regulations, the take over of the auto industry, a proposed new TARP plan, and the Obama budget. Bush spent almost 1 trillion and Obama has spent 1.2 trillion with plans to spend another 2.8 trillion with new TARP and his budget (please note, his budget is far more, but I’m only counting his deficit spending in his budget). These plans have already weakened the position of the nation, limited our options in a time of recession and are or will be utter failures. All the while, congress has barely lifted a finger in opposition, nor have they been open to opposing views and bipartisan ideas.

I’ve been blogging on all of these over the last two months, but wanted to tie it all together with my opposition to the new TARP Proposals and Obama’s budget. I feel it is important to pause for a moment and look at what has been done and what we are doing, before we continue this wanton bleeding of the American economy. I urge you to please consider these failures and ask yourself if we should continue allowing our elected officials to cram the same ideas into law over and over again, without debate and without consideration of alternatives.

So here is a brief history on the policies and failures. See my February post for a discussion on Keynesian Economics. The general rule is that stimulus most change the rate of consumption which also increases investment or change the rate of investment which increases consumption:

Bush’s Stimulus - This was a step in the right direction, but had no staying power. Although the large payments were likely to increase spending, it did not have any long term change in consumption. It was a one time spending spree. Also, the high cost of gas over the summer ate up most of the funds.

TARP - Although it helped to stabilize banks in the short term, it created a large veil of secrecy that has caused instability in the markets to this date. Investors in stocks and companies investing in new capital will not take risks where there is a large degree of uncertainty regarding the risk they are taking. The TARP bill laid out no frame work aside from the dollar amount of the bill and that the Treasury Department was in charge. As a result, you have companies sitting on their funds waiting to see what happens to these banks and investors shuffling their money around trying to guess at what the government is going to do. What do we expect? The bill was rushed into law and set no specifics as far as how the bill was to be carried out. Who was to get what, how much, and what were they supposed to do with the money once they got it? The idea was that institutions were supposed to use the money to back their troubled assets or rid themselves of it. Little of this occurred. Instead, institutions sent the money into their regular operations treating the cash like it was some buried treasure recently found in their basement. In the wake we’ve found miss appropriation to the tune of 40 billion from the Treasury and AIG preferences in paying out billions to foreign companies. Let’s not forget how Geithner dropped the ball with the AIG bonuses. All of this caused the persistence of the credit crunch while a billion dollars sifted through the system like clutching a fist full of sand. The more sand the banks grabbed, the more the sand slipped through their fingers.

Auto Industry Bailout - You can look at my previous post. In taking over the auto industry we have both set a dangerous precedent where government can seize control on a whim, while at the same time causing more uncertainty. The structure of a corporation has always been to allow the shareholders a say in how the company is run. What investor would buy into a company and relinquish their ownership rights to the government. I know many think the rich run companies, but CEOs run the company, they do not own it.

Obama’s Stimulus - I have previously tackled this waste of a bill in my February posts. However, only a month later and we can see how immeasurably useless this bill is. The $400 a month per person, though the general economic theory is an excellent idea, fails in the same way Bush’s stimulus fails and that is that $13 dollars a pay check does not change one’s rate of consumption. Infrastructure spending has become an utter joke as many Republican and Democrat controled legislatures move to use the money to fill in budget gaps. Green energy may create jobs one day, but we’ll be waiting years to see the impact. The reason I’m going back through all of this is because we had an opportunity to get it right. I’ll be the first to admit that Bush did not leave Obama a lot of room to work, but I strongly disagree that this let’s Obama off the hook. A true leader works with what they’ve got. I can only imagine Obama leading the revolution instead of Washington and the endless complaints at each battle lost. How he was hindered by the fact he only had farmers for soldiers where the British were carrier professionals. Obama has missed the important step of American ingenuity, which has almost always been leaders finding solutions to problems using the resources available even if those resources are limited. Obama failed this test of leadership and used his first legislation as President to pass a wish list of “down the road” agendas that will have no impact on the economy in the short run. Since then the world has ceased to finance American debt, leading us to print our way out of the problem. Though I am speculating, I have no doubt that a serious and well thought out stimulus would have been supported by international investors. Instead we are dooming ourselves to devastating amounts of inflation in the future and it only gets worse with every deficit trillion that continues to be spent every month. The promise of inflation is not speculation, it is economics.

Omnibus Bill - A continuation of the irresponsible spending that started with the stimulus. This bill was more about earmarks than keeping the government running. Obama should have stood up for the people of this country and sent it back for revision.

New Regulations and TARP 2 - Like the original TARP, these new regulations are too vague, do not define any limits on the Treasury’s power and lead to instability. Geithner has proposed to hedge systemic risk, by promising bailouts and government take over, instead of creating rules that would minimize systemic risk so as to avoid the need for bailouts altogether. In addition, we are going to waste money on regulation that has never stopped institutions from exploiting the loop holes. We need legislation that will not hedge but minimize systemic risk and end the too big to fail scenario. This will limit the damage of the inevitable loop holes in regulation. All the while, keeping the tax payer dollars away from the danger of constant bailout and keeping the power hungry bureaucrats from nationalizing our banking system.

Obama’s Budget - Simply, this is a continuation of Obama’s denial to deal with the crisis we are in. I understand that a recession is not fun to manage, but most be managed none the less. I understand that Obama would rather work on health care and global warming, but was handed a recession to fix first. However, his denial to act only continues to compound the problems. Obama truly is the exact opposite of Bush in this regard. Where Bush was focused only on the situation at hand, like the war in Iraq, he failed to plan what to do once America gained control of Iraq. Obama on the other hand is so focused on what he wants to do once the recession has ended that he’s failing to make any realistic plan to bring the recession to an end. This of course prolongs the recession, weakens the recovery, and burdens those suffering. Is it any wonder his budget mimics his shortsightedness?

Now the fault of our two Presidents is evident from my remarks, those to blame are continuing to get a pass. I hold the democrat controlled congress most responsible. These are the officials directly elected by the people. Congress has done nothing in the way of creating new ideas, participating in sincere debate regarding the President’s plans, nor offered alternatives. I am tired of seeing the same failed policies being tried time and time again without a second thought from congress.

I apologize for the long post, but someone needs to call a spade a spade. Obama has not been secretive in his grab for power and narrow focus on policy for future years. He’s stated this time and time again. However, anyone can see the folly of counting the chickens before they hatch. Bush gravely mismanaged the war and like such, Obama is gravely mismanaging the economy. We have learned nothing from the last President. As conservatives failed to hold Bush’s feet to the fire, the liberals fail to hold Obama to account. Let’s change the paradigm and hold the President accountable on new TARP legislation and his budget. Let’s force some honest debate and public bipartisan discussion. Just as the President is running out of options with the economy, we are running out of time to force the issues and direct our representatives in a meaningful way.