Obama Budget: Sleeveless, Clueless, Truthless, Hopeless, Penniless

Update: New York Times is catching up to our analysis:

The economy is spiraling down at an accelerating pace, threatening to undermine the Obama administration’s spending plans, which anticipate vigorous rates of growth in years to come.

A sense of disconnect between the projections by the White House and the grim realities of everyday American life was enhanced on Friday, as the Commerce Department gave a harsher assessment for the last three months of 2008. In place of an initial estimate that the economy contracted at an annualized rate of 3.8 percent — already abysmal — the government said that the pace of decline was actually 6.2 percent, making it the worst quarter since 1982.


We thought there was a financial crisis. We heard something about a near depression or a bad recession or something like that. You would never know there is an economic crisis by the latest Obama publication.

We do know Obama released an 134 page “budget overview” yesterday which experience tells us will differ from the actual submitted budget to be published in April. But there has been so much hubbub about the Obama “budget overview” we decided to provide a brief “budget overview” overview.

Before proceeding with our “budget overview” overview, today is Chelsea Clinton’s 29th Birthday – here is a lovely picture of a Chelsea’s lovely presidential mother, taken this past Tuesday.

Hillary Laughs

* * *

One of our criticisms of Obama’s economic “plans” which is shared by many is that the “plans” are really an uncoordinated mess which do not relate to other Obama “plans” and certainly have not been explained fully.

We, thus far, do know that Obama’s “budget overview” unfortunately maintains the practice of offsetting the deficit with money reserved for future retirees. As a result, its estimates for future revenue and deficits are optimistic, even quixotic. We also know that the deficit is projected to rise steadily as the economy grows, instead of shrinking as it did in the 1990s.

To understand what an intelligent explanation of economic plans looks like we need look no further than Bill Clinton’s Address Before A Joint Session Of Congress in February 1993 (the equivalent of this past Tuesday’s Obama prattle) and Franklin Roosevelt’s First Fireside Chat on “The Banking Crisis”.

Both Clinton and Roosevelt were inspirational as well as detailed and explained how the solutions to the complex pieces of the economic puzzle were related. After listening to either discourse the American people knew where they were headed under the leadership of these respective presidents.

With Obama all we hear is lots of hopey words, a lot of “fill in the blank slate”, but little explanation of what all the plans for the economy actually are. This past week we were subjected to a four hour “fiscal responsibility summit” which left more questions than answers and next week we will be subjected to a “health care summit”. This week we were additionally subjected to a prime time speech and the “budget overview” release along with several other big speeches which lead to more confusion instead of enlightenment. We suspect the confusion is intentionally generated.

One word we have heard repeatedly from the Obama press corps is how “honest” he is in the budget overview. “Honest” was the word drummed into the willing White House press corps by Obama flacks apparently. Obama boasts that he includes items such as the Iraq war in the budget that Bush dumped into “emergency” appropriations and thus he is “honest”. It is true that Obama is budgeting war costs, but how “honest” is the Obama budget overview? Are the Obama projections realistic?

Some gimmicks in the Obama budget are thoroughly familiar. The administration assumes the economy will rebound faster than most other economists. But maybe these White House projections are more optimistic, you say, because they account for the effects of the recently passed stimulus bill. No dice: When I asked an administration aide if any forecasters had updated their economic outlook based on the stimulus bill, I was told that private-sector forecasts had already anticipated the stimulus’s effects.

Assuming a growing economy allows administration number crunchers to assume more tax revenues, which means a smaller deficit. This helps Obama make the bold claim that he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. Proving that he’s fiscally serious helps the president counter worries about the billions and billions that are going out the door to bail out homeowners, bankers, automakers, insurers and anyone else I may have overlooked.

Obama claims that he’s found $2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years. To achieve some of that savings, he inflates what’s known as the baseline—the metric against which the costs of policy changes are measured. [snip]

In this manner, the Obama administration pretends that some of the Bush tax cuts are going to affect the budget years after they are set to expire. It also assumes higher Medicare physician payments than projected under current law requirements. The same is true with the accounting for the Iraq war. The baseline assumes the war will be funded at high levels for the next 10 years, even though Obama is planning to bring 100,000 troops home in the next 19 months.

By tweaking the baseline, an administration gets credit for deficit reduction without having to make the hard choices necessary to really tame the budget—which Obama says is a key goal of his administration.

Are the Obama projections realistic?

President Barack Obama’s ambitious goal of cutting the federal deficit in half relies on a perfect – some might say improbable – convergence of factors: a recovered economy, a tax boost for the rich and success in easing foreign entanglements.

In calling for a deficit of about $530 billion in four years, Obama has established a marker by which to measure his first-term performance as president. The dollar figure could be his albatross or his badge of success. [snip]

For Obama, the challenge is clear: He will have to increase spending on health care and energy if he wants to accomplish the policy overhaul he promised during his campaign, yet he also needs to cut spending elsewhere and increase revenue to meet his deficit goal. [snip]

For him to succeed, the economy will have to meet current forecasts that it will begin to turn around gradually during the second half of the year. Even so, Obama might still have to seek billions more to help rescue the beleaguered financial sector.

Administration officials say Obama will also achieve budget reductions through lower spending on the war in Iraq. However, it is unclear how much of those savings he will then devote to Afghanistan, where he already has agreed to boost troop strength. [snip]

“A lot of things have to go right between now and then,” Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, said in an interview before he addressed the White House summit. “The policy response to the crisis has to work for the budget to stick to the script.”

Barack Obama in his budget overview exhumes the cadaver of Rosie Scenario. The Obama “budget overview” is a mirror of the old “trickle down economics” of Ronald Reagan. In the Obama version of “trickle down” the American government can spend more on more things and yet reduce the deficit. Many Dimocrats deride those who care about deficits and debt as “deficit hawks”. The derided “deficit hawks” have been proven right about the dangers of debt in the private sector – but of course there is still mockery associated with showing concern about public, government, debt.

Obama says he’s concerned about deficits:

Obama’s target would place the deficit at about 3 percent of gross domestic product. The GDP is a measure of a country’s economic activity and many economists say deficits during a stable economy should amount to no more than 2 to 2.5 percent. At $1.5 trillion, the deficit would hit a whopping 10.6 percent of GDP this year.[snip]

Obama’s 3 percent goal would still only lower deficits to ranges similar to those under Bush.

The Economist thinks Obama should also worry about the debt, deficits, and a longer than Obama anticipates recession:

A longer recession or long-term stagnation pose two distinct fiscal risks. First, Mr Obama will be (rightly) reluctant to raise taxes and tempted to extend parts of the stimulus package if unemployment is not dropping by 2010. Premature fiscal tightening, after all, could lengthen the recession, as Japan learned in the 1990s.

Second, a longer recession makes it harder for America to grow out of its debt burden as it, and other countries, have done at previous debt peaks. Because of stagnating output and declining prices, Japan’s nominal GDP in 2005 was smaller than in 1996, contributing mightily to a climb in that country’s net debt from 29% of GDP to 85% (it will reach 98% this year). One worrying parallel for America is that its nominal GDP will probably decline this year for the first time since 1949 (the administration optimistically sees it creeping up by 0.1%)

So Mr Obama’s 3% deficit target may be much harder to reach than he thinks; and it may not be tough enough anyway. Using reasonable policy assumptions, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley, and William Gale of the Brookings Institution, think the deficit will bottom out near 5% of GDP in 2013 then climb to almost 6% by 2019, while debt continues to rise as a share of GDP. That is before the government has to deal with the full impact of the surge in health and pension entitlement costs. The academics reckon higher taxes or lower spending equal to a staggering 8% of GDP a year are necessary to contain those costs and stabilise the long-run debt.

An L.A. Times editorial adds, If not for $1.5 trillion in projected savings on the wars and nearly $650 billion in new levies on emissions, Obama’s proposal wouldn’t make a dent in the deficit. And even with those controversial elements, his budget still leaves half of the deficit-cutting job undone.

Americans need to know what Obama plans in regards to stabilizing banks and restructuring the finance system BEFORE considering budgets or taxes or new or better programs. Was it our imagination that there was a major economic crisis that needed to be addressed immediately?

Americans via their government need to address growing income inequality and act to achieve Universal health care – but first we need to know if there will be banks or financial institutions and/or what kind of financial institutions – and what the price will be to the depleted national treasury.

For months CitiGroup has been mocked as CitiMorgue – today that once robust bank is dependent on even more government money for its continued existence. Where is the always promised, never delivered, Obama economic plan? Has anyone see Tim Geithner lately?

Americans who say “Show me the money plan” are not unreasonable. This morning the still leaderless Commerce Department released a report stating The economy contracted at a staggering 6.2 percent pace at the end of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, as consumers and businesses ratcheted back spending, plunging the country deeper into recession. This 6.2 percent decline was much worse than the estimated 3.8 percent drop which had earlier been estimated.

Even with the benefit of hindsight the government is surprised at how bad the economic drop was, yet Obama wants Americans to believe in fairy tale future numbers. What happens if Obama is wrong and the turnaround does not start in the middle of this year? What happens if the the economy gets worse?

Looking ahead, economists predict consumers and businesses will keep cutting back spending, making the first six months of this year especially rocky. [snip]

The faster downhill slide in the final quarter of last year came as the financial crisis — the worst since the 1930s — intensified. [snip]

Fallout from the housing collapse spread to other areas. Builders cut spending on commercial construction projects by 21.1 percent, the most since the first quarter of 1975. Home builders slashed spending at a 22.2 percent pace, the most since the start of 2008.

A sharper drop in U.S. exports also factored into the weaker fourth-quarter performance. Economic troubles overseas are sapping demand for domestic goods and services. [snip]

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke earlier this week told Congress that the economy is suffering a “severe contraction” and is likely to keep shrinking in the fix six months of this year. But he planted a seed of hope that the recession might end his year if the government managed to prop up the shaky banking system.

Even in the best-case scenario that the recession ends this year and an economic recovery happens next year, unemployment is likely to keep rising.

After all the bailouts (which we wisely opposed) and all the Federal Reserve transfers the finance sector as well as car manufacturers are still asking for more money. Bloomberg News outlined the yelps for money and the “budget overview”:

President Barack Obama’s first budget request would provide as much as $750 billion in new aid to the financial industry, as well as overhaul the U.S. health-care system and launch a program to cut carbon-dioxide emissions. [snip]

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House hasn’t decided whether the $750 billion in additional aid to the financial industry will be needed. He said it will be put in the budget as a “placeholder.”

The official said the aid would appear in the budget as about $250 billion because the rules require policy makers to record the plan’s net cost to taxpayers. The government anticipates it would eventually recoup some, though not all, of the money expended to help financial companies.

The funds would come on top of the $700 billion rescue package approved last October by Congress.

The biggest deficit since World War II and we wonder why we might not even have banks!

A very big deficit to add to an already huge debt.

That is equal to 12.3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product — the largest share since 1945 when the country ran a shortfall of 21.5 percent of GDP.

Dimocrats and even some real Democrats are happy that the latest travesty from Obama is a mirror image of the Bush budgets. These Dimocrats are happy because now it is “our side” that is getting the goods. It is “our side” that gets the loot. It is our side acting irresponsibly and depending on money from a possibly hostile but surely a competitor, China.

Democrats must know that there are negative effects to even well intentioned initiatives. For instance “tax the rich” ignores the negative effects on charitable tax deductions. Taxes on businesses, particularly “carbon” taxes dubbed “cap-and-trade” designed to “slow” global warming will be passed on to consumers. The stated goal is for “low-income” customers of utility companies to get some of the money raised from the “carbon” revenue raiser but the middle class will be left in the cold. The “carbon” tax will raise hundreds of billions a year from businesses and those hundreds of billions are sure to be passed on to bitter Americans.

In the heartland of America—places where they cling to their guns and their religion—they burn coal. Lots of coal. If Obama and the Democrats push this plan, a regional war will erupt. It will be ugly and it won’t shape up along party lines.

Farm subsidies will be protected no matter what Obama dreams. “Tax the rich” schemes on upper income deductions for home mortgage interest as well as caps on itemized deductions for state and local taxes will be opposed too – by Democrats. “A dagger aimed right at the heart of New York” is how Senator Schumer characterized a similar proposal by George W. Bush.

Plans to do away with or limit the deductibility of state taxes have been proposed—and rejected—under the last three Republican presidents. [snip]

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush proposed capping the deduction for state and local taxes at $10,000, an initiative similar to Obama’s plan. School boards and business warned of “devastating consequences for state and local governments throughout the Northeast,” according to a New York Times article from that year. Local officials said their ability to raise revenue through property taxes would be hurt, and the plan died.

Clueless Obama should call Chuck (on Wednesday Schumer left the White House unhappy) and ask him about the Reagan years:

Schumer used apocalyptic terms to describe the consequences of killing the deduction. “This is a dagger aimed right at the heart of New York,” he warned. “We have to stop it dead in its tracks, with no compromises…. We should be against all forms of double taxation.”

Inceased rates of income inequality must be addressed. But “tax the rich” is not the home run some Dimocrats think it is.

And just as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tax increases on the wealthy followed a stock market crash, which had already depressed their incomes, Mr. Obama’s proposals — if they become law — would too. The combination has the potential to reverse a significant portion of the inequality trends of the last few decades.

But for the country to repeat the post-World War II pattern, the incomes of most families would also have to begin rising at a faster rate than they have since the 1970s. That outcome remains deeply uncertain. Economists who study economic growth say the American economy is unlikely to grow nearly as fast in coming years as in the 1950s and ’60s.

Americans need answers to how Obama “plans” relate one to the other.

We will have to wait and see if Obama keeps to his promise to finally return to pay-as-you-go rules which require tax cuts or increases in federal beneifts to programs such as Medicare be paid for with tax increases or spending reductions.

The stimulus law includes language preventing the alternative minimum tax from raising levies on millions of middle-class families this year. If the pay-as-you-go rules were applied to that tax provision, it would have forced Obama and Congress to find $70 billion in savings to pay for it – an exercise none of them would have enjoyed.

The Times of London editorialized on the latest from inexperienced Obama:

It is a political commonplace that you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. But the sound of Mr Obama’s prose has begun to jangle. “Now is the time,” he said lulling his congressional audience, “to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.” The trouble is that this wasn’t the first time that Mr Obama told Americans that “it’s time to act”. Nobody doubts that now, in the teeth of the cruellest economic crisis in decades, it is time to act. But the world is still not clear what actions Mr Obama plans to take. What unnerves it even more is that when he has acted, his judgment has not always matched the sturdiness of his campaign rhetoric, let alone its slick, skilful execution. He has been ambushed in traps too often of his own making. [snip]

Mr Obama’s has also been bruised by his inexperience with the ways of Wall Street. The President assiduously, and unwisely, stoked expectations for his Treasury Secretary’s bank rescue plan. When the plan that Tim Geithner eventually unveiled turned out to be so lacking in details that, in Wall Street’s eyes, it had as much substance as fog, stock markets duly plunged.

* * *

We’ll comment on the Obama health care plans after Monday’s “health care summit”. Health care advocates will surely watchdog the fine print on the final Obama budget. It is always wise to wait and see what Obama actually does rather than what he says.

We will comment on the health care component later but it does not bode well that there is no Health and Human Services Secretary, Ted Kennedy on his death beach, and the money supposedly for health care reform will come from a dagger aimed at high tax states.

Today the stock market has capped another horrible month and is apparently about to drop below 7,000. In a recession higher costs will be imposed on businesses which will then impose those costs on consumers.

There are many worthy items we all have wish lists about. But right now the economy has a wish list too: a plan for rescue.

The economy needs a clearly explained and accepted practical plan for economic recovery and sustained growth.

This past Tuesday the nation, wrapped in sweaters, listened to Obama give a speech. Mary Todd Michelle Obama had no sweater on. Indeed Mary Todd Michelle adorned herself in a sleeveless dress. A sleeveless dress – in February. Americans are turning down the thermostats because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly – yet on TV they see the Obama’s – one sleeveless and both clueless.


Our Obama National Nightmare Has Begun

SleevelessMary Todd Michelle Obama was clueless in her choice of winter apparel last night. Even more clueless was TelePrompter Obama and his lackluster, non-specific, Favreau speech. Jumping for joy Dimocrats were the most clueless of all.

A nation in desperate need of action, not words, confidence building, not chest thumping, specificity, not platitudes, found another pail full of Obama words, words, words.

One disappointment in Mr. Obama’s speech was his failure to deliver any more clarity on his plan to rescue the nation’s banking system. He said he would not provide bailouts “with no strings attached.” But he offered even less specificity than the administration has in recent weeks. The choices are indisputably difficult, and Mr. Obama may be trying to keep his options open. His team has seemed skittish about the increasingly obvious need for some form of government takeover of some of the biggest banks. If Mr. Obama has a better plan, the nation needs to hear it soon.

The New York Times, the cathedral of the High Church of Obama, BEFORE the speech laid down some markers for a successful or failed speech:

His aides say this is no moment for the lofty idealism of the inaugural address, 35 long days and roughly a thousand Dow Jones points ago. His task is to be at once reassuring and realistic, or, as one of Mr. Obama’s economic advisers said over the weekend, “to convince the country we’ve finally pulled the ripcord on the parachute, even if we can’t tell you how long we fall or where we land.”

The hardest part will be convincing his countrymen that they cannot save themselves without first saving the banks that let greed blot out prudence, the carmakers who ignored competitive reality for a quarter-century, and the homeowners who somehow persuaded themselves that housing prices only move up.

Yet here is the paradox the president faces: The same New York Times/CBS News poll that found that Mr. Obama instills a remarkable sense of confidence — 76 percent of Americans say they think he will make the right economic decisions — also found that Americans dislike many of the choices he has made thus far.

Fifty-nine percent said that the bank bailout would help bankers far more than it would help the country. More than two-thirds had no stomach for bailing out G.M. and Chrysler, even if the alternative is liquidating the companies.

BEFORE the speech the New York Times was declaring lack of specificity to be a “failure”. AFTER the no specifics speech, it was merely a New York Times “disappointment”.

So here is a guide to what to look for in the speech to Congress, as the new president tries to emit the reassuring warble of an F.D.R. New Dealer while convincing the country he will soon fly like a deficit hawk. [snip]

So in Mr. Obama’s speech, look for the code words that open the way to brief nationalization — he’ll steer clear of that term — on the way to cleaning up balance sheets and putting the banks back in private hands. Also look for any signs that Mr. Obama might decide to wipe out the current shareholders’ stakes — not that those holdings are worth very much anymore — and dump current bank managements.

His argument will probably come down to this: We’re not bailing out a bunch of clueless bankers, we’re making sure that the world’s biggest economy has a viable banking system. [snip]

On this subject, listen for the national security argument: That Americans cannot live without a vibrant industrial base that makes the country’s own wheels, in America. Mr. Obama’s case will be that the network of suppliers surrounding America’s auto makers cannot be destroyed. Don’t expect to hear much about the “transplants,” the subsidiaries of Japanese, German, Korean and other companies that, until the bottom fell out of the new-car market, were actually building new auto plants in the United States while the Big Three were closing old ones. Those carmakers think of themselves as American. Congress doesn’t. [snip]

It was a little mystifying why the White House chose, late last week, to get into a direct shouting match with Rick Santelli, a CNBC reporter and former derivatives trader whose on-air tirade against Mr. Obama’s plan to stop foreclosures went viral on the Web. “The government is promoting bad behavior,” Mr. Santelli said. The White House press secretary shot back that “Mr. Santelli doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn’t, but he tapped into genuine anger. Mr. Obama is likely to nod to the fact that many people who pay their mortgages are rightly upset that the government is rewarding some of those who overextended themselves. But he’ll argue that until the foreclosures stop, the downward cycle — ever more houses on the market, ever lower market values — cannot be stopped. On this point, the White House knows he has to sound more convincing than he did last week. [snip]

The White House is acutely aware that its entire plan hinges on the willingness of other nations to keep lending to the United States, and that means he must make a convincing case that he’s seen the path out of deficits.

Americans and foreigners alike have heard that before; George W. Bush spent eight years churning out projections of how he would move the United States back toward balanced budgets. The financial responsibility summit on Monday at the White House — if you can call a four-hour meeting a “summit” — was supposed to signal that Mr. Obama has a plan of his own. But he has been a little vague about how he would square the goal with everything in the offing — or how he would address the toughest long-term problem, fixing Social Security and Medicare.

Look for any sign that he is now willing to kick those cans down the road, maybe by creating a commission to study the problem. [snip]

But mostly, look for whether Mr. Obama puts together that elusive combination of inspiration and specificity that creates confidence. That’s what’s been lacking in the markets, and in the country. And until it is restored — until Americans have as much faith in the message as in the messenger — it’s going to be hard to break the cycle.

No specificity, no inspiration, no confidence. Obama’s economic “plans” are as sleeveless as Mary Todd Michelle in the February cold.

MSNBC, the Vatican of the High Church of Obama, published an Associated Press fact check of Obama’s glossies:

President Barack Obama’s assurance Tuesday that his mortgage-relief plan will only benefit deserving homeowners appears to be a stretch.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who should have known better than to buy that huge house.

The Associated Press “fact check” quotes Obama and then cites the truth of the matter:

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

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money does not go to home buyers who used bad judgment, it hasn’t announced it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the obligatory Clinton-bashing the Associated Press notes Obama’s promises and states “his budget does not accomplish any of that”. The “that” is “end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.”

The Associated Press mocks Obama by reciting history: waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums.

Also mocked by the facts are Obama claims on the number of uninsured, and promises regarding the “supply of renewable energy”.


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

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

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

Obama gets an “F” in history and an “A+++” in lies and distortion:

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

THE FACTS: According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany’s Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline, in 1885 or 1886. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

Investors? Where they impressed? No, Investors put the bottles of Hopium aside.

Investors unimpressed by Obama speech

Earlier this morning, investors seemed undecided about the credibility of government bailout programs — despite the theme of hope in President Barack Obama’s first address to Congress since becoming president.

The markets may rise today instead of the droop thus far, but whatever happens it will not be due to celestial choirs singing nor Obama words, words, words.

* * *

If there were celestial choirs last night, paradoxically, it was the Republicans of all stripes that should be singing happily. We have never ever been impressed with Bobby Jindal. Jindal has been a Big Media creation. Last night, the Jindal balloon went flat. To his credit Jindal did apologize for Republican irresponsibility and lack of accountability. However, Republicans should rejoice. Now they know Jindal is not the future, now that Jindal is out of the way, Republicans can organize themselves realistically.

* * *

Republicans might be happy knowing they have a patsy boob to roast and dumped their own boob, but real Democrats must know the nightmare we are in.

Remember all the attacks on Hillary even as she promised to pare back the dictatorial powers accrued by the Executive Branch and the Presidency? Obama supporter Robert Byrd is now, too late, worried:

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.” [snip]

Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he’s not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that the White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.

“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

Big Blogs and PINO Dimocrats will remain silent about the Obama imperial presidency.

Guantanamo? Abuse of prisoners? The very sources Big Media and PINO Dimocrats relied on to attack the reprehensible George W. Bush say Obama is worse:

Abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has worsened sharply since President Barack Obama took office as prison guards “get their kicks in” before the camp is closed, according to a lawyer who represents detainees.

Abuses began to pick up in December after Obama was elected, human rights lawyer Ahmed Ghappour told Reuters. He cited beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-forcefeeding detainees who are on hunger strike.

The Pentagon said on Monday that it had received renewed reports of prisoner abuse during a recent review of conditions at Guantanamo, but had concluded that all prisoners were being kept in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

“According to my clients, there has been a ramping up in abuse since President Obama was inaugurated,” said Ghappour, a British-American lawyer with Reprieve, a legal charity that represents 31 detainees at Guantanamo.

Under George W. Bush PINO Big Blogs and Dimocrats thought and railed that forced-feeding was torture. Torture has now been redefined in the new celestial era (just like “bonuses” for business executives – they now get “retention incentives”):

In one of the six main camps at Guantanamo, the lawyer said all the detainees he knew were on hunger strike and subject to force-feeding, including with laxatives that induced chronic diarrhea while they were strapped in their feeding chairs.

“Several of my clients have had toilet paper pepper-sprayed while they have had hemorrhoids,” Ghappour said.

Silence on torture from the once garrulous PINO Big Blogs. The PINO Big Blogs will not defy their diety. The PINO Big Blogs are the Hopium dispensing monasteries in the High Church of Obama.

The High Church of Obama is increasingly opposed by the Catholic Church. Although we pro-choice real Democrats disagree with other real Democrats who oppose abortion rights we do respect the warnings about Obama by Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput (who traveled to Canada to speak in freedom):

Canadians packed St. Basil’s Church in Toronto on Monday evening to hear Archbishop Charles Chaput speak about how Catholics should live out their faith in the public square. He warned that in the U.S., Catholics need to act on their faith and be on guard against “a spirit of adulation bordering on servility” that exists towards the Obama administration.

The public lecture by Archbishop Chaput took place on the campus of the University of Toronto at St. Basil’s Church and was attended by an overflow crowd of more than 700 people.

After giving a sketch of the basic principles in his New York Times Bestseller “Render Unto Caesar,” the archbishop offered his insights on the need for an honest assessment of the situation of the Church in the public square.

“I like clarity, and there’s a reason why,” began the archbishop. “I think modern life, including life in the Church, suffers from a phony unwillingness to offend that poses as prudence and good manners, but too often turns out to be cowardice. Human beings owe each other respect and appropriate courtesy. But we also owe each other the truth — which means candor.”

Hooray for clarity and specificity from the Archbishop.

The Denver prelate then provided his critique of President Obama.

“President Obama is a man of intelligence and some remarkable gifts. He has a great ability to inspire, as we saw from his very popular visit to Canada just this past week. But whatever his strengths, there’s no way to reinvent his record on abortion and related issues with rosy marketing about unity, hope and change. Of course, that can change. Some things really do change when a person reaches the White House. Power ennobles some men. It diminishes others. Bad policy ideas can be improved. Good policy ideas can find a way to flourish. But as Catholics, we at least need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the political facts we start with.”

Yet this will be “very hard for Catholics in the United States,” Chaput warned.

According to the archbishop, the political situation for Catholics is difficult to discern because a “spirit of adulation bordering on servility already exists among some of the same Democratic-friendly Catholic writers, scholars, editors and activists who once accused pro-lifers of being too cozy with Republicans. It turns out that Caesar is an equal opportunity employer.”

Archbishop Chaput’s great warning about the false prophet: “in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs.”

“For Christians,” he explained, “hope is a virtue, not an emotional crutch or a political slogan. Virtus, the Latin root of virtue, means strength or courage. Real hope is unsentimental. It has nothing to do with the cheesy optimism of election campaigns. Hope assumes and demands a spine in believers. And that’s why – at least for a Christian — hope sustains us when the real answer to the problems or hard choices in life is ‘no, we can’t,’ instead of ‘yes, we can.’

We real Democrats opposed and mocked Republicans who worshipped George W. Bush. We real Democrats oppose and mock Democrats turned Dimocrats, PINO Big Blogs, who are mirror images of hypocrite Republicans.

We real Democrats will continue to offend Dimocrats by rejection of a “phony unwillingness to offend”. We real Democrats will not pose with “prudence and good manners” which is hidden cowardice.

We real Democrats will continue to offend Dimocrats and shake them and berate them until they wake up and take responsiblity for the national nightmare they are responsible for.


Obama Speaks – And Goes Back To The Fifties

Pay no attention to the flood of words from Obama tonight. Obama words are meaningless. There will be tons of excuses and blaming of George W. Bush. Obama will pretend to dislike his rich banker pals and pretend to defend “the people”.

Antoin “Tony” Rezko will listen and smile from his cell then remember the good old days with Barack and the freezing tenants.

John “Are you my daddy?” Edwards will fume in exile as he recalls Obama voting against already high interest rate caps of 30% while pretending to be a champion of the poor and middle class against banks and credit card companies (Obama’s 2nd largest donor bloc).

Big Media, as usual, will sanctify Obama’s words like holy relics.

Mary Todd Michelle Obama will primp herself in some sort of outfit and scowl at anyone who gets more attention than herself.

Airline Pilot Chesley B. Sullenberger will by his very presence remind the nation of the value of experience. When a craft is in trouble, whether it is the ship of state or an airline plane, an experienced hand at the wheel is not only desired – it is desperately needed.

TelePrompters will televise Obama’s need for coaching and crutches.

Senator Roland Burris will remind the nation of the corrupt Chicago air in which Obama thrived.

* * *

Big Media will (we write this in advance of the speech) think Obama is a “real cool Clyde”. The speech will be praised one of the best, a “home run”, “inspirational”, absolutely “astonishing”, “pitch perfect”. Big Media will say Obama is “in command”. Big Media will say Obama is [insert superlative, superlative].

The American people, those watching the show anyway, will be entertained but hardly convinced.

There are a couple of data points worth keeping in mind as we await President Obama’s address to the nation tonight – and as we digest an aide’s claim today, as Jake Tapper reports, that his strong approval rating is “earned.” One, while his rating is high, it’s also dead average for a new president. The other is the impressive partisanship beneath it.

We have approval ratings for each of the last nine elected presidents after their first month in office, back to Dwight Eisenhower. (We’re leaving Johnson and Ford aside.) There’s been a healthy range, from a low of 55 percent for George W. Bush after the disputed election of 2000 to a high of 76 percent for his father 12 years earlier. (I’m using ABC/Post polls since Reagan, Gallup previously).

But the average? Sixty-seven percent. And Obama’s? Sixty-eight percent, as we reported in our new poll yesterday. His initial rating, then, is strong – but it’s also generally typical for a new guy.

All the Big Media hype, all the magazine covers, all the hoop-te-do and the results are merely average. As reality bites, Republicans and Democrats will return to their partisan corners on the boxing stage and independents will cast the deciding votes.

An increasing factor, though, is partisanship. [snip]

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were the last two presidents of the less-partisan era. Reagan started with 89 percent approval among Republicans, 71 percent among independents and 56 percent among Democrats. Bush’s first-month approval ratings from these groups were 90, 74 and 64 percent, respectively. Those are 18- and 33-point gaps for Reagan, 16- and 26-point gaps for Bush.

That changed with Bill Clinton: He started with 86 percent approval from Democrats, but just 59 percent from independents and 40 percent from Republicans – gaps of 27 and 46 points, respectively. Then George W. Bush – 86 percent in his party, but dropping to 54 percent among independents (-32 points) and 37 percent among Democrats, 49 points lower than in his political base.

And now there’s Obama, who’s made reaching across party lines a point of principle in his presidency, with little to show for it so far. After a month in the hot seat, 90 percent of Democrats approve of his work, dropping to 67 percent of independents and 37 percent of Republicans.

Gallup, does not show Obama is the future either. In fact, Gallup has Obama going back to the doowop age: the Fifties.

For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama’s presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. In Feb. 21-23 polling, 59% of Americans give Obama a positive review, while 25% say they disapprove, and 16% have no opinion.

To date, Obama has averaged 64% approval, but, as the graph shows, there has been a slight but perceptible decline in his approval rating since he took office. This decline has largely occurred among Republicans.

The drop below 60% approval within the past week — from 63% in Feb. 18-20 polling to 59% in Feb. 21-23 polling — has mostly come among independents. Late last week, 62% of independents approved of Obama, compared with 54% in the last three days. His approval rating among Democrats has dipped slightly (but not to a statistically significant degree), while approval among Republicans has not changed.

Republicans already can’t stand him, independents are getting on the life rafts. Soon the grassroots Democrats will wake up to what Dimocrat Obama is really like. Obama better enjoy the fifties, it’s way cooler than the 20s.


Barack Obama’s Sound Economic Plan

Barack Obama has a “sound” economic plan.

Barack Obama’s economic plan is all “sound”.

Barack Obama’s economic “plan” is, to borrow from Bill Shakespeare, “a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

* * *

Once again, today, Obama presented a “words, words, words” extravaganza which rivals the Academy Awards in hype – and the stock market dropped even further in value.

We have seen this before. When Obama or his team stink up the national discourse with their “plans” the markets plunge and the public grows distraught.

Why the markets plunge when the B.O. administration speaks is fairly easy to understand. If we employ the standard “Ship of State” analogy, the United States is a great ship with a great history in great shape. The “ship of state” however is currently in very choppy and dangerous waters with lots of wind and rain and towering high waves which threaten destruction. All the passengers on the great ship of state, whether in fabulous state rooms or in the deepest parts of the ship, are aware of the battering waves.

Passengers or crew on the great ship of state who look into the “bridge”, which commands the ship, get nausea. What we see when we peer into the “bridge” is a lot of men in lovely to look at uniforms. More disturbing, we see a captain, who was never even in charge of a row boat, strutting about, with a hat ever so jauntily perched atop his head, flapping his arms, perfecting his imitation of someone in charge, but completely lost as to what to do.

The captain of the ship of state, bedecked in gold trim and shiny objects straight from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, enjoys his host duties at the captains table too. To the captains table many are invited. Rich dinners are served and many fancy desserts are displayed and consumed along with the best wines and liquors.

Meanwhile, in the engine room, the only fully functioning part of the great ship of state, working diligently and employing all her experience to keep the great ship from sinking, is a blond lady.

* * *

In the next few days we will continue with our analysis of the Obama Systemic Failure and Moral Hazard along with nationalization and other such issues.

Today we witnessed the first step in Obama’s Social Security Treachery which he himself outlined long ago:

The Stock Market reacted to Obama’s Circus Big Top today:

Wall Street has turned the clock back to 1997. Investors unable to extinguish their worries about a recession that has no end in sight dumped stocks again Monday. The Dow Jones industrial average tumbled 251 points to its lowest close since Oct. 28, 1997, while the Standard & Poor’s 500 index logged its lowest finish since April 11, 1997.

All the major indexes slid more than 3 percent. The Dow is just over 100 points from 7,000.

“People left and right are throwing in the towel,” said Keith Springer, president of Capital Financial Advisory Services. [snip]

The biggest thing I see here is the incredible pessimism,” Springer said. “The government is doing a lousy job of alleviating fears.”

If Obama thought he would remove Hillary Clinton from politics he was wrong. Hillary is busy saving the world, Bill is busy too, shoring up allies:

Bill Clinton will host a March 11th fundraiser in Manhattan for his wife’s successor Kirsten Gillibrand — the first indication that the Clintons are explicitly supporting the rookie senator, according to an E-mail sent to Gillibrand donors.

The invite — with location TBD here

Tomorrow, Obama will bamboozle yet again. After wasting almost a trillion dollars on an uncoordinated “stimulus” scam designed more with the 2010 elections in mind that the economy, Obama says he will cut the deficit in half at some future date.

Obama will try to razzle dazzle with bread and circuses but the stink will continue to rise:

“The budget news is very bad in the short, and the long run,” said Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton’s budget director.

Obama’s team has settled on a three-part plan to deliver the bad news to America, aides and experts say. First, they will begin the week with a “fiscal summit” Monday designed to stress that the president cares about the deficit and plans to reduce it, by raising taxes on the wealthy, drawing down in Iraq and reining in Medicare and other entitlement costs.

Second, the president will explain the widening gap in an address to Congress Tuesday in positive, hopeful terms. He’ll say a brief bulge in government spending is needed to stimulate the economy, and to reform health care, education, and energy policy – key campaign promises that he’ll flesh out as he releases his first budget outline on Thursday.

And third, the current White House will take advantage of a ripe but waning opportunity: to blame it all on President George W. Bush.

Obama will bore the nation tomorrow with more words, but the reality will come in April when we see the actual numbers.

The only sweet sounds Obama could emit that would make the markets and the world rejoice is that Hillary will continue to Save the World and Bill Clinton will run the economy and all domestic programs.

Obama could, if he so wished, continue to be the buffo captain in an operetta no one is watching except the Hopium addled, transfixed in their seats, hearing celestial choirs.

Get out of the way – that would be Barack Obama’s Soundest Economic Plan.


Bush Frying Pan, Meet The Obama Fire

We are such optimists. We always try see things through Pink colored glasses.

We flagrantly displayed our optimism with our assessments of Barack Obama. We knew Obama would be a disaster but such a megatonage of disaster our optimistic eyes refused to see.

No, no, no, don’t try to justify our misplaced optimism. We have been too too kind. We plead guilty. Misericordia.

* * *

That scamp Bill Clinton was asked by ABC News to judge the first month of the new celestial age. Bill as usual was generous, or was he? We’ll discuss Bill’s generous grading, but one month into the new celestial age here is a mild assessment:

Both Democrats and Republicans have spurned Obama’s leadership. The free-for-all over the stimulus bill portrayed Congress in the worst possible light — no surprise there — and led Americans to view not only the process but the bill with utter skepticism. Delivering a 1000-page bill to our legislators just two hours before the signing deadline (and then going on a long-weekend holiday before signing it) was outrageous. The mortgage relief plan hasn’t been received much better. Most Americans (ninety two percent, by some estimates) pay their mortgages on time; they’re darned if they know why they should bail out their neighbors. [snip]

The White House scramble has led to creeping fear that we’re dealing with the Junior Varsity. I’ve even heard people pining for former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson — hard to imagine, right? (No one quite misses Bush yet; let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.) [snip]

My concern is that recent events have squelched that optimism among consumers, and that the nation’s mood is even darker than it was a few months ago. Remember how Obama derided the “politics of fear?” He’s become its greatest champion.

The Junior Varsity would do better than what is going on these days. One month into the new celestial age and the stock market is down about 10%.

One month into the new celestial age:

There are many ways to assess his first month in office. And here are some numbers – in no particular order – from the CBS News database.

Days in Office: 32

Oaths of Office Taken: 2
(One at the Inauguration, and a re-do the next day because Chief Justice Roberts misplaced the word “faithfully.”)

States Visited: 7
(Maryland, Virginia, Indiana, Florida, Illinois, Colorado, Arizona)

Flights on Marine One: 16

Flights on Air Force One: 16

Bill-signing Ceremonies: 3
(Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorzation Act, or S-CHIP; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the stimulus bill)

Increase in the National Debt: $163-billion
(to $10.789-trillion)

Cabinet Nominees Withdrawn: 3
(Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle and Judd Gregg)

Cabinet Posts Unfilled: 2
(Commerce and HHS)

Visits to Camp David: 1

Foreign Nations Visited: 1

News Conferences: 2
(One primetime at the White House; one joint session yesterday with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper)

Nights Out: 7
(Including a visit to the Kennedy Center for the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater)

Visits to Schools: 4
(Sidwell Friends, Bethesda, MD – which daughter Sasha attends; Capital City Public Charter School, D.C.; Concord Community H.S., Elkhart, IN.; Dobson H.S., Mesa, AZ.)

Executive Orders: 12
(The last one was yesterday, establishing White House Office of Urban Affairs)

White House Briefings by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: 13
(Plus 8 “gaggles” on Air Force One)

Obama Visits to the White House Press Room: 1
(That we know of)

Visits to the Pentagon: 1
(Jan. 27)

Big Media CBS is being generous (Obama jumped the gun on the oath and is wasting much more money than CBS tallies).

Associated Press is closer to the facts:

Rather than the bipartisan support Obama first sought, Republicans remain in near unanimous opposition. They contend that the stimulus package is tainted by wasteful spending and that the mortgage-foreclosure plan leaves out many struggling homeowners while rewarding lenders and borrowers who made bad decisions. Some Republican governors from the South even talk of spurning the new federal money.

Even while supporting the initiatives, some Democrats suggest the efforts won’t deliver enough quick help to make a difference, despite the eye-popping price tags.

Joblessness keeps rising. Consumers and businesses are cutting back. Bank lending remains down. And auto demand keeps falling, with two Detroit automakers saying this week that they may need up to $21.6 billion more in U.S. loans beyond what they received in January.

Rutgers University political science professor Ross Baker said, “There is a degree of skepticism involved. Not surprisingly, people are wary of some very expensive proposals with no guarantee of success or even a high probability of how well they’ll work.”

Even Joe Biden doesn’t believe in the Obama turkeys. Republicans and their allies are already unified and organized.

* * *

One month into the celestial age the race-baiting continues. Cartoonists are afraid to ply their trade. Cartoonists you see, in the new celestial age, are racists.

Cartoonist Lalo Alcaraz was in front of a classroom full of black and Latino kids, drawing presidents. He sketched Bush, then Clinton. Next came his favorite, the man he voted for: Obama. “Hey, those lips are big,” Alcaraz heard a black girl say from the back of the room.

Alcaraz was disturbed. “I try to bend over backwards not to make him look like a cartoon stereotype,” and certainly not a racial stereotype, he said.

Editorial cartoonists are bending over backwards a lot these days, as they try to satirize the nation’s first black president. And when they don’t, the result is the kind of outcry that erupted this week after a New York Post cartoon featured a bloody chimpanzee—intentionally or unintentionally evoking racist images of the past.

The problem is, cartoonists make their living by making fun of people—especially presidents—and exaggerating their features and foibles.

The best political cartoons are “like an X-ray machine,” said Amelia Rauser, an art history professor at Franklin & Marshall College and author of “Caricature Unmasked,” which examines the art form’s historical role in political discourse.

You have to deform someone facially in order to make a larger point about their character,” Rauser said. “But that deformity reveals their inner truth and makes them look more like themselves.”

Cartoonists, racist by definition in the new celestial age, will soon be unemployed in this new celestial age.

Poor cartoonists! We’ve always thought there is something drag-queenish about Obama’s looks. It’s almost as if some cosmetic down-low of gray hairs on the head and cosmetic enhancement of brows and lashes – which exudes a bluish tint around the eyes. Then there are the lips (we dare not say purple-ish as in the video below) which cartoonists/racists portray at their risk:

Michael Cavna, who blogs about comics for The Washington Post, wrote that “an unnerving number of North America’s political cartoonists are bizarrely obsessed with President Obama’s lips.” He followed with a detailed analysis of several cartoons where Obama’s lips were large, some shade of blue, or both.

Mocking Obama will not be tolerated in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

“Being the typical American editorial cartoonist—doughy, white, middle-aged—I’m more than willing to accept that I don’t know what may or may not be offensive,” he said. “But editorial cartoons are supposed to be offensive, and provocative. We’re entering new waters here. What can you use or not use?” [snip]

Ted Rall, president of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists, said that Obama’s race has affected how his colleagues do their jobs: “Without a doubt, people are stepping more gingerly. People are tiptoeing their way through this.”

The cartoonists/racists also better not draw Mary Todd Michelle Obama.

Short 18 second mild spoofs of despondent elfs (such as this timid use of Eric Carmen’s All By Myself) is all that will be tolerated in the new celestial age.

* * *

Bill Clinton drove Republicans and Big Media crazy. In his State of the Union speech in 1996 Bill Clinton not only outlined all the great news,

[The state of the Union is strong. Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades. We have the lowest combined rates of unemployment and inflation in 27 years. We have created nearly 8 million new jobs, over a million of them in basic industries, like construction and automobiles. America is selling more cars than Japan for the first time since the 1970s. And for three years in a row, we have had a record number of new businesses started in our country.

Our leadership in the world is also strong, bringing hope for new peace. And perhaps most important, we are gaining ground in restoring our fundamental values. The crime rate, the welfare and food stamp rolls, the poverty rate and the teen pregnancy rate are all down. And as they go down, prospects for America’s future go up. ]

but Bill Clinton also declared “The era of big government is over” even as he listed new programs after new programs that would help the American people. Bill Clinton drove Republicans and Big Media crazy with his speeches which were wildly popular with Americans. They never understood Bill Clinton’s post-modernist English speeches. Bill Clinton spoke at the same time to many audiences in one speech and did it with such skill Big Media and the Republicans never really understood what he was saying.

Now, we have the Hopium addled addicts added to the list of the confounded. The Hopium addled think Bill is saying nice things about Obama, but the critique is deadly. The grade might be “A” in order to appease the rich endowment fund parent, but teacher knows the kid is just plain dumb.

“I personally believe, based on my experience over the years with the economy, that if we moved aggressively on this home problem a year and a half ago, even a year ago, as much as 90 percent of the current crisis could have been avoided,” he said.

A year ago experience was not a treasured commodity in the Hopium dens. A year ago, a year and a half ago, Hillary was proposing solutions and Obama was still mouthing flowery words. It was last year that Bill was talking about Obama Iraq “fairy tales” and Hillary was laughing (“cackling” in Big Media/Obama-speak) at Obama cupping his radar ears to hear celestial choirs.

Bill Clinton is a scamp. He wants Obama to do what Obama is incapable of doing. Bill Clinton wants Obama “to educate the American people about the dimensions and scope of this economic crisis”. But how can Obama teach what he doesn’t know? Obama doesn’t have Hillary answering questions first for him to crib from. Obama can only do pep rallies he does not know what needs to be done so therefore he sends nervous tax cheats to speak on economic issues.

In all the Bill Clinton faint praise did he ever mention the magic word “jobs”?

“I think you will see some good economic news from the stimulus fairly soon,” Clinton said. “I think you’ll start to see people express gratitude for getting the unemployment benefits, the tax cuts and the food stamps. And you’ll see the money flowing through the economy. Then I think you’ll see every state be able to quantify how much better shape they’re in, because of the education and health money.”

Damning with faint praise, no mention of “jobs” which is supposed to be what “stimulus” is about, while touting his own brilliant economic record, is repeated by the dim witted Hopium addled as “praise“.

“I think it’s absolutely the right thing to do,” he said. “And I’m a fiscal conservative. You know, I balanced the budget. I paid $600 billion down on the debt to the American people. I don’t like deficit spending. He has no choice. The economy is contracting. He has to prop it up.”

No mention of jobs created by an alleged “stimulus” scam, and then with a smile Bill calls “their” stimulus ragged “They’ve gotten their stimulus through in record time, and I think in pretty good shape. Like I said, it may be a little ragged around the edges, but they’ll be able to continue. Teacher thinks the dumb as rocks kid with the rich parents who might give an endowment, should keep trying.

Keep trying but don’t expect much.

We’ll have to remove our Pink colored glasses soon.

America is going from the frying pan and into the fire.

Things are going from bad to worse – and it’s only been one month.


Barack Obama, Chimps, Racism, Sharpton, Pigs, Cowardice, and Lipstick

Before Part II of Guns And Butter: Barack Obama’s Moral Hazard And Systemic Failure we are once again forced to comment on race and race-baiting coming from the Obama crowd.

We always try to note in our discussions of race that African-Americans were some of the most attacked yet firmest of Hillary Clinton supporters during the primaries. We make this recognition to give credit where credit is due but also to try and penetrate the thick skulls and small minds of the Obama Hopium addled addicts who are so prejudiced they think all black people think alike, act alike, talk alike, drink alike, eat alike.

We are much more sophisticated in our consideration of African-Americans and people of all races. We recognize that some African-Americans are horrible people, scoundrels, the lowest of the low – the same can be said of people from all races. We also recognize that some African-Americans are wonderful people, honorable, the best of the best – the same can be said of people from all races.

We saw and bravely said – we are not cowards – that many white people supported Barack Obama during the primaries in order to somehow feel “cool” or “non-prejudiced” or “hip” or “advanced” or somehow “better” than those that did not support Obama. These white Obama supporters, we observed, think of black people like chia pets. They pat black people, oops, African-Americans on the head and admire themselves for being so “wonderful” and cool” and “with it” and “hip”.

During the campaign Obama and his supporters race-baited constantly. Big Media not only protected Obama in his race-baiting, Big Media advanced Obama’s race-baiting. Princeton historian Sean Wilentz wrote Race Man – How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton. Sean Wilentz was one of the most respected historians by progressives until he dared tell the truth.

This website, Sean Wilentz, and Hillary supporters were smeared as racists for calling Obama out on his race-baiting. Shouting “racist” became a fun pasttime for Obama supporters during the primary and general election campaigns -and even now. Uncovering “coded racist language” became a fun pasttime for Obama supporters. The “coded” hunt became so ridiculous that discussions of Bill The Bomber Ayres was deemed “racist” even though Bill The Bomber Ayres was and is white.

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder called Americans a “nation of cowards” on matters of race.

Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues.

In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,” said Holder, nation’s first black attorney general.

Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, Holder said, but “we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”

He urged people of all races to use Black History Month as a chance for frank talk about racial matters.

“It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation’s history, this is in some ways understandable,” Holder said. “If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.”

He told Justice Department employees they have a special responsibility to advance racial understanding.

Attorney General Holder is the cowardhe should discuss Barack Obama’s race-baiting during the primaries and general election. Attorney General Holder is a coward – he should discuss Al Sharpton’s current race-baiting.

Attorney General Holder does not really want an honest discussion on racial matters – he wants acquiesence to his opinions. Attorney General Holder wants Americans to discuss what he wants to discuss and for us to kow tow to his opinions. We doubt Attorney General Holder wants a discussion on race-baiting politicians from Chicago.

We doubt Attorney General Holder has said anything about Senator Roland Burris and the race-baiting his supporters engaged in. We doubt Attorney General Holder, who is African-American has ever discussed race-baiting by African-Americans, particularly race-baiting by African-American politicians and their supporters.

If Attorney General Eric Holder wants to stop being a coward he can begin immediately to discuss Barack Obama’s race-baiting and Al Sharpton’s race-baiting.

If Attorney General Eric Holder wants to stop being a coward he should denounce Obama supporters like Andrew Sullivan and John Kerry (and other Dumb White People) who supported Barack Obama because he was black not, as Dr. King said, because of the content of his character.

If Attorney General Holder wants to stop being a coward he should discuss the history of race-baiting in the primaries and explain why he himself was silent. As we wrote:

Obama, yelps “racism” or “bigotry” if any one mentions his middle name. Bill Clinton was accused of being a “racist!” for calling Obama’s Iraq history a “fairy tale”. Bill Clinton was called a “racist!” for pointing out the fact that Reverend Jesse Jackson had also won the South Carolina primary. Geraldine Ferraro? “Racist!” When Republicans poked fun at Obama’s claims to being a “community organizer” Big Media and Obama types said it was a “dog whistle” and, yup, “racist”.

Attorney General Eric Holder is a coward.

* * *

Obama enabler Al Sharpton is on the attack because of a cartoon mocking the Obama “stimulus” scam. Sharpton wildly interprets the cartoon as a slur on an African-American president.

The Rev. Al Sharpton and community activists say the image lampooning President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan is racist. [snip]

The editorial cartoon in question shows a police officer shooting a chimpanzee to death while his partner says, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” [snip]

“Here, you have someone using race-tinged cartoons to racially offend the president,” The Rev. Al Sharpton said.

Sharpton said it’s worse than Don Imus’ derogatory comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. The Post, Sharpton said, seems to play into the old stereotype of African Americans being monkeys.

“This inference is something that is divisive, something that is offensive and something that should not be quietly accepted,” Sharpton said. [snip]

Post Editor in Chief Col Allan issued a statement on Wednesday saying, “The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy.”

We do not think the cartoon has anything to do with Obama but it is ironic to hear “it’s appalling that in America someone could, you know, write something that terrible about the president and have it published” – the whole point is that this is America and we are free to criticize the president. Bush was constantly called a “chimp”, there was/is a website about Bush called “smirking chimp”, Bill Clinton was constantly insulted in lurid ways, as was Lincoln, and every other president.

* * *

During the general election campaign Obama made a remark about “lipstick on a pig”. Many, especially Obama’s audience, believed Obama was making a not very veiled attack against Governor Sarah Palin who was successful in knocking Obama off the headlines.

“You know, you can put lipstick on a pig,” Obama said, “but it’s still a pig.”

The crowd rose and applauded, some of them no doubt thinking he may have been alluding to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s ad lib during her vice presidential nomination acceptance speech last week, “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”

Obama has a history of misogyny during the campaign which Big Media protected him from. Obama and his friends like Roland Burris and Al Sharpton consistently engaged in race-baiting and have not been called on it.

Those who do not denounce race-baiting are the cowards. Those who do not denounce misogyny are cowards.

Attorney General Eric Holder is, by his own definition, a coward.


Guns And Butter: Barack Obama’s Moral Hazard And Systemic Failure, Part I

Last night’s Frontline documentary Inside The Meltdown was a dud. It was mostly a series of headlines we have already read as well as some very scarey, after the fact, rationalizations for actions taken by government/political and business leaders.

Nothing in last night’s presentation was a surprise to us. Indeed, what we saw last night reinforced our opposition to the dissolute practices we now witness daily. We have been a voice crying out in the wilderness since April 2007 warning of calamities to come. Many listened to us, but many more were bamboozled. One person who possibly sympathizes with us is Scott B. MacDonald.

* * *

Regular Big Pink readers know we are resolute in our opposition to the piecemeal, uncoordinated flim-flammery which masquerades as Obama economic plans. We insist that without a coordinated and comprehensive economic plan, and a grasp of history, the “stimulus” and its corollaries are doomed to not only failure but likely to make things much worse. Larry Summers on temporary, targeted and timely:

First, to be effective, fiscal stimulus must be timely. To be worth undertaking, it must be […] based on changes in taxes and benefits that can be implemented almost immediately.

Second, fiscal stimulus only works if it is spent so it must be targeted. Targeting should favour those with low incomes and those whose incomes have recently fallen for whom spending is most urgent.

Third, fiscal stimulus, to be maximally effective, must be clearly and credibly temporary – with no significant adverse impact on the deficit for more than a year or so after implementation. Otherwise it risks being counterproductive by raising the spectre of enlarged future deficits pushing up longer-term interest rates and undermining confidence and longer-term growth prospects.

In short, the “stimulus” money spent will not accomplish what it is supposed to do and instead will lead to backbreaking deficits and debt and the horrors thereof. The horrors might be worse than any imagined, especially by spend-happy Dimocrats not cognizant of the differences between the economy of FDR’s time and the economy in this debt ridden age.

This is a debt ridden age. In late October 2007 Scott B. MacDonald, a financial analyst and advisor wrote about the recent past and of things to come. From 2007 – Globalization and the End of the Guns and Butter Economy

Over the past 30 years, the United States has sought and to some extent achieved a guns and butter economy; that is the pursuit of both political-military objectives and an affluent lifestyle. [snip]

But in July, the US financial system signaled that the era of cheap money and lax standards was over. Two Bear Stearns hedge funds collapsed and panic hit credit markets, pounding the stock and bond values of any company associated with mortgage lending and housing. By August the rout filtered into the derivatives market (especially those structured financial products that contained exposure to US subprime debt), negatively impacting European and Asian bank and insurance investment portfolios.

The contagion eventually rippled into London’s inter-bank market, forcing central banks to inject considerable amounts of liquidity to keep the system running. Even then, nervousness about the standing of banks, especially those dependent on short-term commercial paper for mortgage lending, forced Britain’s Northern Rock into a government rescue. This was the downside of globalization.

MacDonald wrote the above in 2007, well before the calamitous financial blows hit one year later. Frontline did not mention the political three ring circus taking place at the time of the “meltdown” nor the lessons history teaches about “guns and butter” economies.

Nouriel Roubini saw the future financial crisis back in late 2006. However MacDonald, along with others, saw what was coming and provided a larger canvass of the economic challenges ahead. McDonald first documented what the big financial players were doing at the time:

The housing sector is hitting depths associated with the 1930s. The Federal Reserve’s September 18 cuts in the discount window and in Fed Funds gave markets a temporary relief, a situation helped along by private sector actions to consolidate the financial sector. This is reflected in Bank of America’s purchase of Countrywide Financial shares and Citigroup’s stepping up with credit lines for GMAC. But there remains a long distance to the shore of economic safety.

A shadow is being cast by a deficit of unresolved problems in an economy overloaded with debt, a retreating federal responsibility for national infrastructure, and large (and seemingly unending) overseas burdens. In the short term, the problem that looms is that the housing meltdown is finally chipping away at the consumer, who in the butter part of the US economy accounts for about 70% of gross domestic product.

MacDonald pitches the problems: Housing problems, home equity problems, savings problems, large inventory problems, adjustable rate mortgage problems, Why save when you are penalized (taxed) on savings amid an unrelenting society-wide pitch to consume?

And then the other big problem:

On the longer-term side of the equation, the economic landscape is chilling, considering the massive structural problems. The guns part of the economy is a concern – the war in Iraq and other missions (Afghanistan and Africa) cost somewhere between US$3-5 billion a day.

In August, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated as of June 2007 up to $500 billion has been spent on combat operations in Iraq. The CBO also noted that if the United States were to maintain 75,000 troops in Iraq over the next five years, the nation would have to pay an additional $900 billion. Moreover, there are further costs attached to training police and ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as long-term health costs associated with wounded personnel.

There are other structural problems – a long-term imbalance between government expenditures and revenues (related to ongoing pressure for tax cuts). There is a massive problem with national infrastructure – it is aging rapidly and needs to be upgraded with a price tag of $1.6 trillion. That includes roads, bridges, ports and other public utilities.

After indulging in a bit of Social Security bashing MacDonald makes a great understatement, American politics have reached a very dysfunctional stage…. That was 2007. By 2008 American politics, controlled by Big Media, became even more dysfunctional.

MacDonald follows that on-target understatement with another direct hit understatement:

The plunging value of the US dollar and the huge sell-off in US securities by foreigners in August ($163 billion) should convey the message that not all is well and that unless there is an effort to start living more within one’s means, the rest of the world is going to stop financing the North American credit glutton.

The lesson is: The days of guns and butter for the US economy are over; what is going to replace it is a much more volatile world, with substantial questions over the US dollar as the major international currency and the ability of the US consumer to absorb the world’s exports.

Someone tell Obama.

Butter, meet guns:

The Obama administration is expected to announce on Tuesday that it will send one additional Army brigade and an unknown number of Marines to Afghanistan this spring and summer. Officials spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the official announcement.

About 8,000 Marines are expected to go in first, followed by about 9,000 Army troops.

Guns, meet Butter:

The price tag for bailing out General Motors and Chrysler jumped by another $14 billion Tuesday, to $39 billion, with the two automakers saying they would need the additional aid from the federal government to remain solvent. [snip]

G.M., for example, said it would cut 47,000 more of its 244,000 workers worldwide; close five more plants in North America, leaving it with 33; and cut its lineup of brands in half, to just four: Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC and Buick.

Guns and Butter, meet Barack Obama.

* * *

Obama is on the flim-flam road again today.

Today it’s Phoenix. Phoenix, Arizona – not the sacred mythical firebird Phoenix which burns and then rises from the ashes -although that is a long-term description of the American economy which will burn before rising. And burn it will as “Obama – The Incendiary” imitates Nero and continues to light matches.

There are reports today, [HERE and especially HERE] sure to conflict with what Obama actually says and what Obama eventually does or does not do. In either case the reports will be accurate in that more money will be spent.

Already the pesky analysts ask questions:

The number of them doomed to foreclosure is growing so fast that Credit Suisse had to revise its projections twice in 2008. Its analysts now predict that some 8.1 million homes will meet that fate by 2012—an astounding one in six of all households with mortgages. [snip]

What most loan mods have done so far is dig homeowners even deeper into debt. Alan White of Valparaiso Law School, who reviewed data reflecting several million recent loan mods on high-risk mortgages, estimates that they’ve been adding $1 billion more every month to the already high total of what the nation’s borrowers owe. [snip]

Instead, the Obama homeowner bailout is expected to use government funds to supplement homeowners’ monthly payments—in the short term, a lifeline not only for homeowners, but for financial institutions, pension funds, and other stakeholders facing insolvency because their mortgage-related holdings have plummeted in value.

Then what? That’s where the picture gets gloomier. The tricks loan mods have been using to keep borrowers out of foreclosure are variations on the acrobatics lenders used during the bubble to shove customers into unpayable mortgages. A loan mod might forestall payments for a few months, then add the amount that didn’t get paid to the final years of the mortgage. Or it could reduce interest rates by a few points temporarily—but sooner or later, that interest rate must rise back up and the borrower must pay off the remaining balance as if he or she had been paying the full interest rate all along. If that sounds like an Option ARM to you, you’re catching on—many of these loans are in a state of “negative amortization,” in which the total amount owed grows instead of shrinking over time. Sooner or later—sooner, if one hopes to be able to sell the house—the total comes due. The bailout will undoubtedly lower that shocker of a final bill, but the government’s funds can only stretch so far.

Shorter: another scam gussied up.

We’ll have more on this latest Obama scheme once the actual details are published, if they ever are. But this does not look good:

The volume of anticipated foreclosures would be reduced only by half.

And realistically the number of borrowers likely to qualify for the new aid will be far lower. Millions of speculators lied on their mortgage paperwork in order to get the cheaper and looser mortgages available to homeowners, and it’s doubtful most will want to hang on to their property even if the feds are willing to help them. Among actual homeowners, spiking unemployment—some of the worst of it in the same bubble areas, like inland California, where homebuyers borrowed most excessively—will make it impossible for them to afford even the most creatively modified mortgage.

Where is Antoin “Tony” Rezko when you need him? If only bitter Americans had a Rezko to smooth the way.

Instead of liberating borrowers from the burdens of the real estate bubble, most loan mods assure them a future indentured to lenders.

Bitter Americans, meet indenturehood.

* * *

In Part II we’ll discuss Rahm Emanuel saying the “F” word, nationalization, underwater houses, the end of the world as we know it, maybe Roland Burris?, Dean/Brazile/Pelosi/Kennedy/Kerry and the moral hazard and systemic failure of the Democratic Party, and much more.


Why We Trust Clinton Economics, Why We Distrust Obama

Hillary Clinton is not only trying to Save The World, Hillary Clinton is also trying to save the American and World economies.

Meanwhile Barack Obama is dead set on destructive flim-flam economic policies announced at circus rallies.

The financial markets are responding to Barack Obama’s flim-flam scams:

Financial gloom was everywhere on Tuesday.

Markets from Hong Kong to Stockholm to London staggered lower. On Wall Street, the Dow came within sight of its lowest levels in more than a decade. Financial shares were battered. And rattled investors clamored to buy rainy-day investments like gold and Treasury debt. [snip]

The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index slid 4 percent to drop below 800, which analysts said was an important trading threshold.

“If we get substantially below 800 then look out below,” said Marc Groz, chief investment officer at Topos, a hedge fund in Greenwich, Conn. [snip]

“Robust export demand had been the main support for U.S. manufacturing for many months,” Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist at MFR, wrote in a note. “Now, with economic activity weakening sharply around the world, exports are dropping like a stone, with the pace of decline set to accelerate significantly in the months ahead.”

In Europe, attention turned to the plight of lenders active in Eastern Europe after Moody’s Investors Service said it might downgrade banks with units in the region. Investors are worried about the debts owed by banks in Eastern Europe to financial institutions in West European countries, especially Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece and Italy.

* * *

In 2008 Hillary Clinton made the connection between the United States economy and the Japanese economy.

“We might be drifting into a Japanese-like situation,” Hillary Clinton told the Wall Street Journal earlier this week. “I don’t think we can work our way out of the problems we’re in, in the broad-based economy, with monetary policy alone. I think the Japanese tried that and tried that and tried that…. I don’t think we’ll have the strong growing economy we need until we have the strong energy policy, for example.” [snip]

Blame an interconnected bad banking system and deflating real estate bubble (sound familiar?) for the start of the downturn. But Japan’s policy response didn’t help matters. Clinton mentions that monetary policy didn’t work. Neither did infrastructure spending packages, something Clinton did not note in the interview. One reason those efforts did not pay off, the IIE concludes, is that they were offset by higher taxes.

Ya gotta have a policy – says Hillary. That’s right a policy on the full range of issues which mesh and coordinate with other policies.

Hopium addicts and the dullest of dim Dimocrats sell Bill Clinton’s latest bit of damning Obama with faint praise as a sign of approval. Bill Clinton’s is not a fan of rush-rush “had to do it in a hurry” policy on the run. Let the desperate Hopium addled, who trashed Bill and Hillary Clinton, fool themselves as to what Bill Clinton meant. We know a Bill Clinton slap when we see and hear one.

What’s the big difference? Why trust Bill and Hillary Clinton on economics and distrust Obama? Marc Ambinder, in an attack on Bill Clinton and protection of Barack Obama accidentally tripped on the truth:

Remember how bad that Clinton transition was? All the nominee juggling. The stronger-than-expected prerogatives of Congress? Early White House chaos? Communications problems? The point is: transitions are very hard. Maybe it’s not fair to compare them. Depending upon your point of view, Obama’s transition was stunningly efficient (thanks in large part to the Bush White House) or it vindicated the decisions that Clinton’s planners made. In late 1992, Clinton decided to focus on cabinet nominees and POLICY FIRST, and put off the organization of the White House staff until later. Some of Obama’s policy reviews, by contrast, still haven’t been completed. The White House staff had weeks to prepare, but in retrospect, the building is like a gravity field operating on energy: everything slows down, regardless of input. Metrics don’t tells us everything either; by this point in 1993, every cabinet member sans one — the Attorney General — was confirmed. [emphasis added and block letters added]

Ambinder’s protection of Obama actually highlights that Obama’s much ballyhooed “greatest transition ever” focused on the White House staff which still managed to bungle. Ambinder’s protection of Obama highlights that Bill Clinton cared and focused on POLICY. That is the difference – POLICY. Hillary Clinton cares and focuses on POLICY.

We have opposed the Obama flim-flam “stimulus” scam as well as the Bush/Obama TARP crap. Our central objection has been that the so-called “stimulus” is not SMART. None of what Obama is doing is well thought out or coordinated with economic reality. What Obama is doing makes little economic sense but only political life-saving sense for Dimocrats in 2010 and 2012.

Dimocrats on Big Blogs and in Congress are ignoring economic reality (and the Japanese lessons). To these Dimocrats huge spending is the solution no matter how wasteful the spending is, no matter how precarious the American economic house is. These Dimocrats will not discuss how there will be any sources of credit for the private sector as the government sucks up with massive deficits whatever credit sources are available.

Bill Clinton in in his first address before a joint session of Congress focused on the economy and economic policy. Bill Clinton focused on “four fundamental components” in his comprehensive economic plan.

Bill Clinton had a comprehensive economic plan, stupid. It was the economy, stupid.

We have noted that an uncoordinated not comprehensive economic plan will amount to a waste of money. We have noted that even if the federal government cuts taxes and increases “investment” spending it won’t matter a whit because the state governments will raise taxes and cut services and so counter whatever measures the federal government initiates.

Our “notes” have come to pass. California is on the Brink. Kansas, and its Obama enabler Kathleen Sebelius, is a mess. New financial scams, the latest an $8 billion scam, are unearthed with regularity. Neither government nor private observers can place a value on the biggest financial institutions nor value holdings. Yet, Dimocrats and Obama (in the most recent past it was now hypocrticial Republicans) pump trillions into a hole whose depth is not even measured yet.

Obama signed his Dimocrat enabled flim-flam “stimulus” scam today and the markets gave it the reception the scam deserved – down 298 as Obama scribbled his signature scam.

As the financial markets reject the Obama scams, in the smokiest of Hopium dens the recognition finally arises that Bill Clinton’s focus on policy was a positive change for Americans.

Take, for instance, Sirota’s oft-voiced disdain for Clintonism and neo-liberal economics. If your concern is for the economic well-being of the working class, than attacking Clinton is a strange place to start. Under his presidency, real household incomes for the bottom 10th percentile — a pretty good Rawlsian metric for economic well-being — increased by 17.3 percent, the largest increase of any president since the Census Bureau began compiling numbers (.pdf) on this statistic.

One can certainly raise various critiques of Clinton’s presidency, many of which I’d wholeheartedly agree with, but in broad strokes his economic program would seem to have been a tremendous success, particularly for the working poor. (Although the wealthy certianly also fared well under his presidency; growth in income was remarkably evenly distributed between all income classes under Clinton).

Too late the Hopium dens stumble from their smoky Clinton hate fog (because now they realize they need Bill and Hill to get their Mess-iah out of the mess).

The Hopium addled fools (and flim-flam man Obama himself) who trashed Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are now forced to face the historical truth from one of their Hopium pushing own:

Under Clinton, by contrast, the economy was a rising tide that lifted all boats. The poor, finally, did quite well for themselves, their incomes appreciating at about 2.5 percent annually, but the rich did just about as well — in fact, the rich did better under Clinton than they had under Reagan and Bush. The rich/poor gap, if measured as a ratio, did not increase appreciably under Clinton. The 10th percentile saw their incomes increase by about 17 percent during his tenure, and so did the 90th percentile. [snip]

For my money, the Clintonan idea of “aggressive” pro-growth policies coupled with a relatively high tax rate on the rich is an attractive one. Let the rich make their money and then tax them (and/or improve social welfare programs for the poor). But don’t do things that inhibit economic growth because you’re afraid of the redistributive effects. A good example is something like free trade. The emerging consensus among both liberal and conservative economists appears to be that while free trade does increase GDP (as has long been believed), it also has some redistributive effects; the “consensus” solution to this is to have free trade coupled with a more robust safety net. [snip]

The other potential lesson from the Clinton record, which I’ve argued may also be observable in the response of the economy to the housing crisis, is that the presence of a robust middle class in fact strongly related to the health of the economy as a whole. Note, again, that the wealthy actually did better under Clinton than they did under Reagan/Bush, even though Reagan/Bush were trying to stack the deck in favor of the wealthy.

We trust Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton because they fought against Big Media and for the economic well being of Americans with intelligence and a well thought out set of policies and plans.

We do not trust Barack Obama and his Corrupt Chicago Crime Circus because they only care about their own financial and political well being and to hell with Americans – let them freeze in the economic winter.

We have said it before and we will say it again –

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.


Job Opening: President; Experience Required

The United States needs a president. Experience is absolutely required. Experience of the right kind is absolutely required.

What is not needed is the experience of another buffoon and more crony capitalism. Eight years of an economy looted by Republican Bush cronies followed by an economy looted by Dimocratic Obama cronies is not what is needed. The United States needs a president.

* * *

The Wall Street Journal pines for Hillary – a Hillary administration. The editorial page says “No, No” but the news pages say “Yes, Yes”:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, en route to Japan, said she will seek to develop a strong coordinated response to the global financial crisis between the U.S. and Asia’s economic powers during her four-nation regional tour.

Mrs. Clinton cited, in particular, China’s “robust stimulus plan” as the type of action the Obama administration is hoping to see from Asian nations in an effort to reenergize the global financial system.

“I will be discussing with [Asian countries] the approaches that they’ll be taking” to stimulate their economies “and seeking greater cooperation,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters aboard en route to Alaska from Washington. “The Chinese have a very robust stimulus plan…They are taking internal steps.”

Mrs. Clinton arrived in Tokyo Monday evening and will then travel to Indonesia, South Korea and China.

Mrs. Clinton is using her first overseas trip as secretary of state to press her administration’s message of cooperation and engagement as the necessary tools to tackle mounting international challenges like climate change and nuclear proliferation.

The former first lady held out the hope of closer U.S. interaction with Russia and North Korea after years of sometimes open tension. Mrs. Clinton said Washington stands ready to normalize relations with Pyongyang if its leadership makes good on its pledge to verifiably dismantle North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

It’s not “her” administration, but we understand the goo-goo eyes and wishful “what might have been” from the Journal after the first few whiffs of the B.O. administration.

* * *

On this President’s Day we find Obama at the scene of the crime. Obama is vacationing in the house that Rezko enabled.

On this President’s Day we find even more Big Media “stars” that “reported” on the election campaigns – joining the B.O. stink. Today the revolving door revolves around Jill Zuckman:

Jill Zuckman, a Chicago Tribune Washington correspondent and frequent guest on political talk shows such as MSNBC’s “Hardball” and Fox Broadcasting’s “Fox News Sunday,” is leaving to join President Barack Obama’s administration in the Department of Transportation.

On this President’s Day we find those that turned over, willingly, our national elections to Big Media, the “vote for Obama because Big Media likes him” shills, still worming for Obama.

These Obama dead enders dare compare Obama to a great president like Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The Obama dead enders get their shill points for Big Media tool Barack Obama directly from Big Media today. E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post ignores Obama’s history and how Obama’s inexperience has played out these past few weeks. E.J. Dionne does not recognize that in this moment the United States is in need of a real president.

Barack Obama senses that he’s in the middle of a hurricane whose gale-force winds could blow history his way.

He doesn’t mind acknowledging that he is learning as he goes, and he is not bitter about how little help he is getting from Republicans. But he will never again let bipartisanship become the defining test of his success.

And, yes, he is aware that the passage of his stimulus package, though a big deal three weeks into a presidency, is only a prelude to the “really tough” part. The next step, “getting credit flowing again” and averting “potential catastrophe in the banking system,” may make the stimulus fight look like a friendly warm-up game.

Obama Big Media shills and Big Blog enablers still try to sell Obama as FDR. But Obama is the anti-FDR. Obama specifically rejected the FDR coalition during the election campaign. Now Obama wants to soil the crown jewel of the FDR New Deal.

And where might Republicans fit into all this? Obama still thinks he’ll win their support someday on some issues. Because the stimulus envisioned a large government role in rescuing the economy, he said, it may have “exaggerated” the partisan divide because it played on “the core differences between Democrats and Republicans.”

Obama sucked up to Republicans on the flim-flam “stimulus” scam in order to get their votes on Obama’s plan to loot Social Security. Destruction of Social Security is the issue on which Obama wants Republican votes.

Dionne and the Obama enablers are deluded and don’t understand the “me, me, me” at the center of Obama’s entire history. Dionne writes:

Maybe that mysterious calm people talk about reflects the temperament of a man who can live with his mistakes as long as he doesn’t repeat them.

We know that calm is really “I got mine, and my friends got theirs, screw you.”

Kathleen Parker, also of the Washington Post was much closer to the Obama reality. The United States needs a president, experience required:

The first however-many days of Barack Obama’s presidency have been a study in amateurism.

Many suspected that Obama wasn’t quite ready, but kept their fingers crossed. Optimistic disappointment is the new holding pattern.

What’s missing from Obama’s performance isn’t the intelligence that voters acknowledged in electing him. It’s the experience they tried to pretend didn’t really matter. Experienced politicians, after all, got us into this mess.

Absent is maturity — that grown-up quality of leadership that is palpable when the real deal enters a room. There’s a reason why elders are respected. They have something the rest of us don’t have — yet — because we haven’t lived long enough. We haven’t made the really tough decisions, the ones that are often unpopular.

This week Obama will continue to vacation and bamboozle and go to fancy restaurants. Hillary Clinton will continue to try to Save The World.

The United States needs a president. The United States needs a full-time, experienced president who puts the interests and needs of the entire nation before the interests of career and friends.

After eight years of an exercise junkie, vacation happy, spend happy, crony assisting, stumbling, bumbling, crumbling boob, – the United States needs a president.


Our Valentine Is Hillary Clinton

Our Valentine is Hillary Clinton. As always today Hillary Clinton is not vacationing, nor taking time off. Hillary is hard at work Saving The World.

When the world needs help, when the world sends a call for help like a mythical Batsignal in the night, that S.O.S. morse code message is answered by S.O.S. herself – Hillary Clinton.

Have we told you lately Hillary, how we feel?

* * *

Today Hillary sets out to save the world:

In her first trip abroad since taking office, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Asia, departing Washington, DC on February 15. Secretary Clinton will visit Japan (February 16-18), Indonesia (February 18-19), the Republic of Korea (February 19-20), and China (February 20-22).

In all capitals, Secretary Clinton will be discussing common approaches to the challenges facing the international community, including the financial markets turmoil, humanitarian issues, security and climate change.

In Tokyo, Secretary Clinton will meet with senior Japanese officials for discussions on the strategic bilateral alliance and cooperation with Japan on regional and global issues. The Secretary then will travel to Jakarta to hold consultations will senior Indonesian officials to discuss the close and growing partnership with Indonesia and perspectives on common interests in Southeast Asia.

In Seoul, Secretary Clinton will meet with senior leaders to discuss our expanding global cooperative partnership with our ally, the Republic of Korea.

The Secretary will conclude her trip in China where she will meet with senior officials in Beijing to further develop a positive, cooperative relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.

We have posted, on the right hand side column, news about Hillary Clinton. The main item of interest which we have highlighted thus far is the creation of “NO Limits”. Thus far NO Limits is a B.O. free site. NO Limits serves, for now, as the induction point for the Army of the Potomac. When called to service we will all respond and join the Grand Army of the Republic – ready to throw out the rapscallions, scallywags, flim-flammers, and Ne’er-do-wells who currently occupy the nation’s capital.

But that is preparation for a later day. On this Valentine’s Day our Pink website turns a bright Valentine’s Day Red.

Like latter day Robin’s of Locksley or Ivanhoe’s waiting for their true lion-hearted liege to return – we today tip our jousting lances in tribute and admiration.

Our admiration goes out not to a mythical or fictional noble, but rather to a true, hardworking, most amazing, Wonder Woman – Hillary Clinton.