Just Who IS In Charge?

President Obama is scheduled to give his State of the Union address tonight. I will probably watch, but I'm not sure why. He is not in control of the economy. He wants everyone to think he is. He talks like he is. The reality is different.

If Obama were really in control then careless posturing by Sen. Chris Dodd about privitizing banks wouldn't send stocks into a tailspin.

If Obama were in control they wouldn't have passed an enormous spending bill so complex that no one was able to read it before having to vote on it.

If Obama were in control his administration wouldn't feel the need to respond to criticism from Rick Santelli.

If Obama were in control he wouldn't have to hit the road to drum up support for his programs. The press would be doing it for him.

If Obama were in control he wouldn't have been caught off guard by so many of his cabinet picks being sunk by various corruption charges.

If Obama were in control we would not have so many Democratic members of Congress under investigation for various corruption scandals.

But the fact of the matter is either that the Obama who we voted into office in November is NOT the Obama who took office, or he is completely unable to do his job. Neither one is acceptable.

But the fact of the matter is this: there is no one clear voice from Washington calling the shots. There is no clear leadership. Obama is going one way, while Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Schumer are going their own ways. Tim Geithner is falling flat.

It's almost as if none of these people have met to come up with any coordinated plan. No one is in control of the message. It's almost as if they are purposely trying to break the economy down further.

I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists who believes that they're doing this on purpose in order to keep us scared enough to accept further hidden social restructuring (even Schumer was surprised by some of the provisions in the stimulus bill and vowed to roll them back). The thought has crossed my mind, but 2010 is not that far away. If they don't want to get thrown out of office they need to show clear progress by then. They would be foolish to dig themselves too deep of a hole.

But if they don't get their act together that is precisely what they will do. And they can ignore or belittle Santelli as much as they like, but they're failing to recognize what he started. Yes, HE may be a former commodities trader--a so-called poster boy for everything that went wrong with the economy--but his frustration is universal. There are a lot of people who are upset with how things are going and what the Administration is doing about it.

I am one of them. I am NOT a commodities trader. I'm a business systems analyst. I bought a house three years ago right before the top of the bubble. I had mortgage brokers encouraging me to buy bigger houses, but I knew what I could afford. I didn't bite. I didn't gamble on an adjustable rate mortgage to get more house. I knew what my budget was, and I knew how much of a house payment I could handle. I paid 20% down.

I save close to 15% of my income each year. I pay my taxes without complaint. I do not carry a balance on my credit cards. I live within my means. In short, I am responsible.

And I've had it with the government propping up all the irresponsible people. Because of all the irresponsible people I'll be losing my job soon. I am not happy about that. I am not happy to see nearly $800 billion dollars--only about 10-20% of which is actual stimulus--added to the public debt in my name, while the bulk of it is actually to appease Democrat supporters and advance socialistic agendas. Frankly, the mortgage rescue is the least of my concerns.

I'm concerned about a government that seems to have lost its mind. I'm concerned about an administration that can't control its message or its people. I'm concerned about a future that not even the people who sold us this stimulus mess will go on record saying will get better soon.

And that's probably why I don't want to listen to Obama tonight. I'm already depressed. I don't need to feel any worse.

Who Is Blocking Investigations?

I have no idea how this is supposed to stimulate the economy:

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.

So far no one is claiming credit for the provision.'

Snuck in by whom? It’s not entirely clear. “I intend to get down to the bottom of where this comes from,” Grassley vowed. “And quite frankly, it better not come from this administration, because this administration has reminded us that it is not about business as usual, that it is for total transparency.”

Maybe not this time. When I inquired with the office of a Democratic senator, one who is a big fan of inspectors general, I was told the RAT Board was “something the Obama administration wanted included in this bill.” When I asked the White House, staffers told me they’d look into it. So for now, at least, there’s been no claim of paternity.

Somehow I think this just the tip of the iceberg of bad provisions we were forced to accept in the name of saving the economy. More and more it's looking like the bill was a trojan horse for fundamentally changing our government. This seems like "change" intended to dash "hope".

It would be beyond ironic if the Democrats actually DO what they ACCUSED Bush of.

This Much Is True

From President Barak Obama:

“All of us are paying a price for this home mortgage crisis,” Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at a ceremony announcing the program at a Phoenix area high school.

...and for the banking crisis, and for the automakers crisis, and for the Democratic Wish-List Funding Deficiency crisis, and for the supporter payback crisis...

At least it's coming from money that's already been wrung from our dissicated corpses.

Obama Delays Signing "Emergency" Bill

From the DC Examiner:

“Sunlight Before Signing” faded into darkness with the first bill that came across Obama’s desk. The new president signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act two days after it was passed by Congress — and without posting it on the White House Web site.

Then he signed the second bill of his administration, an update of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, within hours after Congress passed it.
.....
As Gibbs spoke, the massive economic stimulus bill was racing through Congress, and the spokesman stressed that Obama’s campaign pledge specifically exempted “emergency” legislation. “If we get this [stimulus] bill, this would certainly meet the president’s test of emergency legislation,” Gibbs explained. “And if we’re lucky enough to have it pass, we’ll sign it rather quickly.”

Then, late Friday, after House and Senate Democratic leaders moved heaven and earth to pass it, the bill was ready for the president’s signature. And did President Obama sign it rather quickly? Not at all.

He also chose not to sign it on Saturday. And not to sign it on Sunday. And he chose not to sign it on Monday. Only on Tuesday, with a big campaign-style event in Denver, would the president finally be ready to put his signature on the bill.

He signs nonemergency legislation in the blink of an eye. And he lets emergency legislation sit for days before lifting his pen.

I don't see the sense in this, either. Either it was an emergency or it wasn't. Weren't we facing the end of civilization as we know it if the bill wasn't passed quickly?

If he didn't plan to pass it for four days, why not let us all have those four days to look it over? I think we know the answer to that one. "Sunlight" was not something this vampiric bill could tolerate for long.

I think he was expecting to see a massive Wall Street rally today. Had he signed it on Friday the markets would have been closed and we would have missed seeing the seas receding and the blossoms blooming. Except today there was no rally. The Dow fell nearly 300 points today. Wall Street, it seems...is not impressed.

I think this "emergency for thee, but not for me" moment will come back to bite him.

Bailout Banks, Not Hobble Them

The Chicago Tribune criticizes language in the Stun-ulus Bill to cap executive compensation:

But keep something in mind: Taxpayers are now deeply invested in the companies that receive a federal bailout. We want these companies to succeed.

Compensation caps would hurt the ability of these firms to attract and retain top talent. If salaries are higher at robust firms that aren't taking federal help, that's where talented people would go. Taxpayers are not going to be better off if the best business minds in the land avoid working at firms that receive federal help. The comp rules may also persuade execs at troubled firms to leave the federal assistance program before those firms are on sound footing.

I think that is right. If you're going to tinker in businesses, why not just insist that the boards fire the bad eggs, but don't hamper their ability to replace them with good ones. These banks are still struggling. They're going to need all the help they can get to survive. Just throwing money at the problem is not going to help. They need better management.

Read My Lips, Chuck

Charles Schumer of New York has declared that when it comes to the pork in the Stimulus bill, the American People don't care.

To that I can only say Chuck, pull your head out of your butt so you can hear better. We care. Remember, both McCain and Obama campaigned on cutting pork. It wasn't that long ago that Obama promised to veto any bill that crossed his desk with pork in it. It was a part of what got him elected.

We care. We're sick of it. STOP IT! You are wasting my money, you're wasting my children's future. Just stop, you frickin' idiot.

Not Change, Not Even Business As Usual

The behavior of the Congress Democrats is utterly disgraceful. They're acting like they don't even have to acknowledge the opposing party--or even America--anymore. They won the election, but they're treating it like the succeeded in a coup. Case in point: The Senate/House negotiations to reconcile the two separate Stimulus bills. According to Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, an agreement on the bills was reached around noon today. Republicans weren't invited to the negotiations until 3:00 pm.

“My name’s Tom Price and I represent the Sixth District of Georgia and [am] the privileged chair of the Republican Study Committee,” Price said. “It’s now noon on Wednesday. I’m standing outside the office of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The door is closed. We just heard news break there’s been an agreement between the House and the Senate on the non-stimulus bill."

Negotiators were slated to meet later in the day. However, since news of a deal was leaked to the media, Price questioned if there were “shady deals” going on.

“It’s curious because Republicans were invited to a meeting they said at 3 o’clock this afternoon,” Price continued. “What this means is there are more shady deals going on behind closed doors -- without the public, without Republicans in attendance.”

Either they just don't care about winning the next elections or they figure they can do all their damage before then. Either way, this does not bode well for the country.

Well, THIS Is Good News!

Nick Gillespie at Reason.com has some data to suggest that the Recession may have already ended, based on the fact that the Stimulus Bill (or ARRA, as in "Arrrrrrra, Matey!) is about to be passed. Read the whole thing, but based on previous recessions and stimulus plans, it appears that the stimulus almost always comes about the same time the recession is ending, if not already over.

In this case, just in time to cause the next one.

And if that doesn't fill you with confidence in our elected officials, how about this Rasmussen poll that suggests that 2/3 of American think they could do a better job on the economy than Congress.

It wouldn't even take an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters. I'm thinking two or three dozen, tops.

Eh? What's That?

A few days ago when the stock market was rallying the headlines indicated it was rallying in anticipation of the Stimulus Bill's passage and the Bailout Plan being revealed.

So how come today, when both actually occur, stocks are tanking? Even the headlines blame it on these events:
Stocks Tumble as Bailout Plan is unveiled (MSNBC).

At any rate, let me get this straight. Congress is looking to spend as much as $839 billion, and this bailout plan will cost $1 trillion? We're not talking about the same money, are we? Where is all this money coming from?! We're talking about a 10-20% increase in the national debt load here, folks!

According to this source, the total value of mortgages in the US is about $3.6 trillion. So we're already half-way to buying back every mortgage in America. In fact, as someone where I work was saying yesterday, why don't we do just that? Instead of all this crap they're proposing, why don't they pay off all the mortgages on primary residences?

Consider that. I'm currently paying about $800 per month on my mortgage. If I suddenly didn't have to pay that I would probably invest much of that and spend the rest on stuff. Both moves would stimulate the economy. Now multiply that by every mortgagee in America. That, folks, would be stimulus. Plus the banks would be able to close out the books on the bulk of their bad mortgages at the same time they'd see a massive influx of cash. That would free up credit.

Americans wouldn't have any mortgage interest to deduct on their taxes. Tax revenues would increase. Many people might just roll their current mortgage payment into buying up some of the depreciated and un-sellable houses currently on the market. That would stimulate demand on housing and raise property values again, further stimulating credit and the economy.

Yes, I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, and there would be other consequences (ie. banks also writing off good loans that would have earned the 100-150% returns over time, and perhaps inflation from the sudden supply of money when production is actually down), but I don't think it's any more lame-brained than what we're currently being force-fed. If we're going to put the country that far into debt, we may as well do something that increases the likelihood of getting back OUT of debt as soon as possible.

I don't see how my plan is any worse than what we're getting.

You're Making Me Sick!

Bloomberg.com reports on the various medical reforms hidden in the Stimulus Bill, which seem to be going completely unnoticed by both sides of Congress:

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.”

President Obama can warn of national apocalypse until he's blue in the face. Senate protocol is there to protect us from idiotic moves such as this. We're being given a trojan horse, and it's not all chocolates and daisies inside. We're being force-fed worms fried in dung-sauce, told its for our own good, and forced to vote for it quickly before anyone can really understand what's in there.

The president who promised us unparalleled transparency is throwing a thick cloak over everything he's doing, and it's going to cost us all very, very dearly.

Read the whole thing. If it doesn't make you sick, then you'd better hope you never get sick after it passes.

More Publicity, Please!

I followed a link from Instapundit this morning to an article in the DC Examiner about a House Democrat with a much cheaper and more targeted alternative to the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) stimulus bill:

His START plan is a $170 billion “bare bones” pure stimulus approach that would put $100 billion immediately into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans, then use the other $70 billion for basic infrastructure projects that create jobs. START requires that all funds not spent by 2010 be returned to the Treasury. START also stops stimulus spending when the nation’s Gross Domestic Product increases in two of three previous quarters, and all START payments are required to be posted on a public website.

Who is behind this revolutionary approach? Walt Minnick, the brand-spankin'-new representative from Idaho.

I had the opportunity to vote for Minnick. I listened to him talk in the debates and thought his ideas sounded good, while his GOP opponent rubbed me the wrong way. But he's a Democrat, and the last thing I wanted was more Democrats in Washington. I couldn't see him standing up to Pelosi.

I'm becoming a believer. He was one of the few Democrats who voted against the stimulus bill. And now he's prepping a much better backup plan. Keep it up, Walt, and I'll vote for you next time!

More Support For "Do Nothing"

(hat tip: Gateway Pundit)
The Congressional Budget Office predicts the recession will end in 2009 even without the stimulus. Actually, they're even predicting the stimulus will hurt rather than help.

So hurry up folks! Let's pass that bill soon so we can take the credit for something that would have happened anyway--unless of course the bill destroys any hope for that predicted rebound...

Pres. Obama - Insurance Salesman

MSNBC.com is running the following lead paragraph today:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama takes to the road this week to promote his plans for reinvigorating the economy.

Except it's not his plan. Pelosi and Reid wrote the thing, remember? So why does Obama have to work so hard to sell their plan?

I think Pelosi and Reid see Obama as a useful fall-guy. If their plan is defeated, or if it doesn't work, it'll have Obama's name and fingerprints all over it, so it'll be his poltical neck.

What gets me is that Obama is not stupid. Why is he sinking so much political capital into this?

My guess is that the Democrats--and perhaps the Republicans, too--see this issue as the battle. If the Dems win it the Republicans may be forced to roll over and sit things out for awhile. If the Republicans win it they're suddenly a party to be reckoned with again, and their minorities in Congress become less symbolic.

Both sides realize the importance of this issue. Still, it bothers me to see Obama taking the role of foot-soldier instead of general. It would be different if it were his plan, but it's not. If he's not careful he could become a lame duck before he completes his first month in office.

UPDATE:

Toby Harnden of the Telegraph has an interesting take:

After a distinctly rocky start to his presidency, he has admitted he "screwed up" and is returning to one thing in his political career that he has perfected – campaigning.
...
Already, however, he is struggling, and the product he is now selling is not himself but a near-trillion-dollar economic "stimulus" package loaded with pet Democratic spending projects that has awakened slumbering Republicans in Congress and is now supported by barely a third of Americans. In between the Indiana and Florida stops, he will return to the White House for a prime-time press conference in which he will appeal directly to citizens and seek to rekindle the magic of his campaign.

Read the whole thing for additional insight on Obama's presidency and the Stimulus Bill.

We Have Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself

Fear sells. We all know that. Salesmen especially. I've had salesman after salesman, selling vitamins to vacuums, use fear to peddle their product. Our environment is poisonous, and our food is losing its nutrition value. We need super-vitamins to survive. There are dustmites everywhere, and they'll kill you! Buy our vacuums. When people don't already have a need for something, create that need. Fear sells.

So what do you do if you're the candidate of hope and you've got a major expenditure to sell? Drop the hope, pump up the fear:

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."
-- President Obama, Feb. 4.

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill. (Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post)

The lead story on MSNBC.com today is jobs: Worst Job Loss Since '74. Meanwhile the Dow is up 174 points. Wall Street has taken a nasty beating, so I don't know why they would be unduly optimistic at this point. But if you look over the last six months you'll see the markets have largely flattened out. We're bouncing around between 8000 and 9000. We've spent about four months in that range now. This would seem to suggest a bottom.

In short, things may be poised to start getting better. So act now, before the Democrats lose this golden opportunity! Pay no attention to the good news coming in. Things are BAD! Trust us on this! We're the politicians that, through our economic ineptitude, brought you this recession in the first place! We KNOW what we're talking about (this time)!

I've said it before. Now could very well be the time for our leaders to boldly stand up and do nothing!

Good News? Maybe.

Daschle feels the heat, gets out of the kitchen. I'm still waiting for Geithner and Rangel. I'm not holding my breath.

And frankly I'd feel a bit better about all of this if it was Mr. "I will change the way Washington does business" Obama calling for their withdrawal. But no, he fully supports them. It's up to THEIR consciences to get the better of them. But I guess what likely got to Daschle was Nancy Killefer's withdrawal over a mere $1000 tax lien. His sin was 128 times that.

Republicans in the Senate at least managed to block $25 billion in more spending being added to the Stimulus, though I note the total has somehow grown to $885 billion. And this would be more comforting if Minority Leader McConnell hadn't pledged to make sure the bill passes in the end.

Show-me State

Megan McArdle addresses her commenters who claim it should be up to the opponents of the Stimulus to prove it won't work.

Her response:

Let's recall that the evidence for this kind of stimulus working in this kind of situation basically rests on a single instance (World War II)--the other two times it was tried (Japan in the 1990s and America in the 1930s) the economy basically rolled along in the doldrums for the rest of the decade.

Proponents say that that's because there wasn't enough stimulus, which is possibly true, but not really satisfying, because first, how do we know this package is enough, and second, that leaves us with a belief in the virtues of stimulus that is essentially non-falsifiable. We might as well move macroeconomic policy to the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

Amen, Sister!

As I keep saying, this isn't about Stimulus, it's about "Getting Our Way--Finally!" It's not a recession to these guys. It's Christmas!

The Senate was supposed to inject some sanity into the bill. Instead they're injecting more spending. At this rate our only hope is that they get this thing passed and signed before it gets any bigger.

I applied for a job with a government contractor yesterday. I hope I get it, as the government seems to be the one industry that is NOT cutting back.

Bi-Partisan Cooperation...But Not Today!

The House passed the Stimulus Bill over unanimous GOP dissent. Eleven Democrats also broke ranks to oppose it (including the one from my district--kinda makes me wish I'd voted for him).

It'll probably pass the Senate, too, but it'll be obvious that the Democrats will own this one, whatever happens. Obama had better pray this works, or else it'll go down in the history books that his first significant act was to blow his political capital to further trash the economy.

Uh Oh, Buck!

Didn't I predict this? Even the New York Times is noticing that the Stimulus Bill is quickly becoming a Trojan Horse for everything the Democrats want to accomplish but wouldn't be able to without a fight. More here, from The Heritage Foundation.

UPDATE: The Wall Stree Journal weighs in with their analysis of the bill. To the Democrats this isn't a recession. This is Christmas.

"Don't Just Do Something, Stand There!"

John Stossel has an article in the Weekly Standard making the case that there is no reason for the panic we're seeing over the economy right now:

But people are losing their jobs! President Obama frets that "the unemployment rate could reach double digits." Yes, that would be bad, but in the recession of '82, it reached 10.8 percent. Yet no one even remembers the "crisis" of '82. Today's 7.2 percent unemployment rate is higher than we've grown used to, but we've experienced that rate 16 times over the past 35 years. And it pales in comparison to the 25 percent rate of the Depression era.

"The bad news is that our economy is broken and there is nothing the government can do to fix it," economist Peter Schiff told the Wall Street Journal. "The free market does have a cure: It's called a recession."

Have we become so fragile that we can't handle any recession? The 11 recessions since World War II are part of the "creative destruction" that ultimately drives our economy, yet today politicians act as if they can insulate us from pain with bailouts and "stimulus packages."

Or, to quote from my favorite quotable movie: "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

I don't want to make light of the problems many people are facing right now. And I say this as someone working in a company that has announced pending lay-offs. But the government has been throwing money at the problem with no visible result so far. I don't think solution at this point is "More cowbell!"

We're in this mess, as someone pointed out, because people have gone havily into debt to make questionable investments and spend as if the bill will never come due. So why would the answer be to go heavily into debt to make questionable investments and spend as if the bill will never come due? I've only got an MBA, mind you, so perhaps I'm just not smart enough to see it.

I don't mind the government putting out a safety net to help those in need. I may be relying on that net myself in the next few months. But as someone who has scrimped, saved, and spent responsibly I'm still waiting to see a reward for positive behavior. And I'm not seeing that much of a punishment for bad behavior, either. In a world of no consequences one should not hope for change.