Seven Stories Obama Doesn't Want Told
A John F. Harris piece on Politico. Here's one:
He thinks he's playing with Monopoly moneyEconomists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more than a trillion in stimulus spending and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many, though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe.
Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were necessary.
The flight of independents away from Democrats last summer -- the trend that recently hammered Democrats in off-year elections in Virginia -- coincided with what polls show was alarm among these voters about undisciplined big government and runaway spending. The likely passage of a health care reform package criticized as weak on cost-control will compound the problem.
Obama understands the political peril, and his team is signaling that he will use the 2010 State of the Union address to emphasize fiscal discipline. The political challenge, however, is an even bigger substantive challenge--since the most convincing way to project fiscal discipline would be actually to impose spending reductions that would cramp his own agenda and that of congressional Democrats.
The biggest problem is acting like the country has big pots of money on every corner to spend on increasing the political capital of its elected officials...I mean, on very, very valid social programs like ACORN, which help women running international prostitution rings get their business going.
Here's a bit of another:
People used to make fun of Bill Clinton's misty-eyed, raspy-voiced claims that, "I feel your pain."The reality, however, is that Clinton's dozen years as governor before becoming president really did leave him with a vivid sense of the concrete human dimensions of policy. He did not view programs as abstractions -- he viewed them in terms of actual people he knew by name.
Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles.
And like too many university professors, it seems he's good in lecturing on problems, but if his Senate record tells us anything, he's not so hot at actually doing anything about him.
Hey, most of you in this country voted for the best rock star running. Thanks so much.
Yes, well. I don't live there and didn't have to make that decision. But what was the alternative?
GMan at December 1, 2009 7:43 AM
The terms "line" and "staff" are sometimes used to describe jobs which have actual decision-making authority and accountability versus jobs which are limited to doing analyses and giving advice.
Most organizations have known that it is unwise to take someone who has spent his entire career in staff jobs and promote him to a major line job.
By the way, I do not think it is correct to describe Obama as an "intellectual", as so many academics are eager to do. He is good with the facile manipulation of words: that doesn't make someone a deep thinker or a possessor of broad knowlege.
david foster at December 1, 2009 7:51 AM
You may hate Obama's policies. They may be wrong-headed. But in doing what he ran on, so far been modestly successful. It's highly likely that a sweeping healthcare bill is passed this year, which has been at or near the top of Democrats' wish lists since Truman. He's sending more troops to Afghanistan, which is what he considered the focus of the war on terror. He's bringing terrorists to trial in the U.S. According to McCain's economic advisor, Mark Zandi, the stimulus bill has helped America from being in an even deeper economic hole than it otherwise would have been.
The fundamental long-term problem for Obama and the Democrats is that nothing they do or could have done will bring most of the recently-lost jobs back. Manufacturing is not coming back any time soon, and increasingly, lower-tier white collar and clerical jobs are being outsourced, too. These job losses are structural in nature, and we will have another so-called "jobless recovery" (evidence is we're in the beginning of one now). When new employment comes, a lot of it is likely to be in the form of low-paid service sector jobs. People vote their economic insecurities, and as a result the Democrats are quite likely to lose the House in 2010. But I think that was the likely outcome regardless of their policies.
Whatever at December 1, 2009 8:35 AM
> He thinks he's playing with
> Monopoly money
These buffoons have no understanding of wealth whatsoever. Of course they don't. Whenever Obama or anyone on his team has needed money for something, they've called someone on the phone and asked them to send it over... The college dean, the local congressman, or David Geffen.
> so far been modestly successful.
Are you fuckin' kidding me? Ten trillion dollars of debt? For WHAT? Even if we hadn't been already been knocked to the ground by this recession, this man's a walking, talking Great Depression of his own, now fatally choking the angel he's spent his life working to shoot out of the sky.
Your grandchildren, certain to toil under the constricting debt he's so proudly struggled to burden them with, will curse the name Obama with a ferocity that ennobles Pol Pot.
That he (thinks he) means well is irrelevant. The man's a monster.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2009 10:45 AM
I don't like most academics because they live in the textbook world and not the real world like the rest of us.
I also won't vote for most lawyers. They come from an environment where to win you have to mislead, misrepresent, and manipulate to get your way. No thanks.
David M. at December 1, 2009 11:03 AM
There most certainly is something they could do. But they lack the political will power to do it.
Break the stranglehold of the unions on the majority of manufacturing jobs in this country and you'll see them return.
Outdated work rules (e.g., 100 mile limits for train conductor shifts and mandating a fireman be on duty on a diesel locomotive), outrageous compensation demands (e.g., $18/hour for a grocery store cashier), and cushy early retirement benefits are the main things that have driven heavy industry out of the US.
Manufacturing jobs are being created in this country. They're being created in non-union right-to-work states. And these jobs pay well.
Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mercedes, BMW, and Kia all profitably build automobiles in the United States. It can be done.
Conan the Grammarian at December 1, 2009 11:07 AM
And the other thing that the administration can do to bring back jobs is to help dissipate the cloud of uncertainty that many of the businesses in this country have been functioning under. This administration has been villifying whole industries at a time since it took power -- autos, pharmaceuticals, financial institutions, insurance companies, etc., and it makes everyone nervous.
I've been observing business leadership for a long time, and businesses are willing to make the decision to invest in capital and human resources, only if they think they know what the rules will be going forward. The constant criticisms and express as well as implied threats of increased taxes and regulation issuing from Obama and his minions have shaken business leaders' confidence that they know the rules. So they've retrenched, and they're not likely to loosen the reins until and unless the environment for doing business in this country becomes a little more predictable. The government has shown no signs yet that they're much interested in that, though.
cpabroker at December 1, 2009 11:28 AM
Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mercedes, BMW, and Kia all profitably build automobiles in the United States. It can be done.
Aren't they just assembling cars here from parts made in Japan to avoid tariffs?
You're right about the unions, though. It pretty much follows these days that the health of an economic sector is inversely correlated with unionization of that sector. Even without them, we'll never be the place that smaller lower margin things get made again.
Are you fuckin' kidding me? Ten trillion dollars of debt...
As some who no doubt voted for Bush twice, it's amusing you now care about someone running big deficits. "Deficits don't matter." - Richard Cheney.
This administration has been villifying whole industries at a time since it took power -- autos, pharmaceuticals, financial institutions, insurance companies, etc., and it makes everyone nervous.
Not vilifying financial institutions enough! We're still handling the big Wall Street firms with kid gloves when we need to be acting to prevent them from ruining the financial system again. Not that the Obama team will never really re-regulate the banks as needed (i.e., a modern Glass-Steagall); they're entirely too cozy with the financial industry.
Whatever at December 1, 2009 12:26 PM
Whatever asks: "Aren't they just assembling cars here from parts made in Japan to avoid tariffs?"
The parts come from all over. My stepson works in a plant that makes parts for Toyota. Actually, I'm pretty sure that few of the parts these days come from Japan -- they've got a lot of structural inefficiencies in their economy that they have not been able to overcome in the past two decades. They'd import American-built (Japanese brand) cars if their government would let them.
As you might guess, an increasing source of parts is Mexico and Central America. However, they probably won't get as big in that sector as they have in the garment trade, because auto parts manufacture requires a higher percentage of skill positions.
Cousin Dave at December 1, 2009 3:35 PM
Crid: ...now fatally choking the angel he's spent his life working to shoot out of the sky.
That metaphor is asinine.
Crid: That he (thinks he) means well is irrelevant. The man's a monster.
Who isn't doing anything that Bush wasn't already doing when it comes to amassing debt. The only difference is Obama doesn't seem to think several 1.6 trillion dollar tax cuts is any way to increase revenue.
Patrick at December 1, 2009 5:00 PM
> That metaphor is asinine.
You pout whenever anyone draws blood.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 1, 2009 5:06 PM
By the way, how old are you?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 1, 2009 5:10 PM
Crid: You pout whenever anyone draws blood.
If it makes you feel better...
Crid: By the way, how old are you?
None of your business.
Patrick at December 1, 2009 5:13 PM
18! You were 13 when you started commenting here, and much is explained!
Get a learner's permit, ya little punk! Cut your hair, pull your pants up, turn the bill of your cap to the front and get a job!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 1, 2009 5:17 PM
In 2012, you will have a choice. I think Sarah Palin will team up with Terry Schiavo, and dominate the R-Party. Prezzy-Veep.
A dream R-Party ticket--and an all-female team, proving something, I don't know what.
Or, you could vote for Ron Paul. I kinda like Ron Paul. I am not sure about condos lining the Grand Canyon, or legalized polygamy, sex industries and opium dens, but hey libertarians have their strong points too.
Gay casino-bingo parlors with 18-year-old tail as the prize! Publicly awarded and taken! In huge neon lights.
TV shows of state executions.
Hookers in plate glass windows at the airport.
Oh, what happened, is Amy Alkon no longer a libertarian? Oh, why not?
Go Ron Paul!
Mr Big Sphincter in the Sky at December 1, 2009 5:17 PM
Mr. Big Go Ron Paul!
Yeah. Far, far away.
While I admire his stance of returning part of his Senatorial salary, and not availing himself to the obscene health insurance policy extended to Senators, the man is unelectable.
All you have to do is look at the rampant bigotry that drips from his newsletter, and find that that his voting base will consist of no one but the Aryan Nation. Who doesn't he hate?
Patrick at December 1, 2009 5:25 PM
So, this is the new cover argument for the Obama spending spree. Blame Bush 'cause he cut taxes, not Obama for spending money like a drunken sailor. Blame Bush because Obama would not be increasing the deficit if Bush hadn't wasted the same amount (or more) of the government's money.
(Silly rabbits, it wasn't the government's money. The money was ours to begin with.)
Calculations of revenue lost due to tax cuts have always been problematic because taxes are a percentage of income from non-government economic activity, so lowering tax rates can, under the right circumstances, actually generate more overall revenue. But the calculations of the impact of tax cuts are usually done on a static or semi-static basis (especially if the other party is doing the tax cutting).
That means a projection of revenue expected to be lost to a tax cut accounts for the lower tax rate, but rarely for any additional economic activity that might result due to having more liquidity in the economy and, as a result, would generate additional tax revenue.
Compare that to projections of spending, which are generally done in dollars that are actually expected to be spent (and often low-balled to make the spending politically palatable).
====================
Here's a fun little read for the economist in you. This site attempts to compare the scope and impact of the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html
The explanations of the math used are a little dry, but give a good accounting of the difficulty in making the comparison.
Conan the Grammarian at December 1, 2009 5:46 PM
The parts come from all over.
With a stepson in the industry, maybe you'd know. It's fuzzy now - I don't follow the car industry like I used to - but my recollection is that one of the big motivators behind foreign companies opening plants in the U.S. was tax or tariff implications, i.e., that they paid a substantially higher rate on vehicles built elsewhere and shipped here than if they assembled them here from parts coming from elsewhere.
Regardless, they did do the sensible thing and go where land was cheap and labor was non-union. I have family in the rural South and it has been a huge boom to their otherwise ghastly economy. Amazing to see a place in the U.S. so entirely untouched by either the the 90s or 00s boom economies.
Whatever at December 1, 2009 6:12 PM
> Who doesn't he hate?
Who don't *you* hate? Any comment of yours likely to be about someone who's "vicious" or "vile". Patrickland is a world of violence and bitterness. Why are you eager to share?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 2, 2009 2:04 AM
Whatever writes: "It's fuzzy now - I don't follow the car industry like I used to - but my recollection is that one of the big motivators behind foreign companies opening plants in the U.S. was tax or tariff implications, i.e., that they paid a substantially higher rate on vehicles built elsewhere and shipped here than if they assembled them here from parts coming from elsewhere."
It was originally. There are still tariffs on imported cars, but not like it was back in the '70s and '80s. What they eventually found, though, was that once the Japanese principles in manufacturing were implemented here, they could build the cars here at a cost that was lower even without taking the tariffs into account. Once the plants started opening, a bunch of start-up companies sprang up around them, offering them parts at less cost than what it cost to make them in Japan and ship them in. And it went from there. Most of Toyota's engineering for its U.S. models is done in the U.S. now; they cream-skimmed the Big Three (particularly Chrysler during its Mercedes ownership period).
"Regardless, they did do the sensible thing and go where land was cheap and labor was non-union. I have family in the rural South and it has been a huge boom to their otherwise ghastly economy."
That's funny, because it's not nearly as bad now as it was 40 years ago. But yes, auto manufacturing is a big deal here now. I live in north Alabama, and there's five major plants within about a 100-mile radius: the Toyota engine plant here, the now-ex-Saturn factory in Spring Hill, the Nissan plant in Smyrna, the Mercedes factory in Tuscaloosa, and the Huyandi plant in Montgomery. And Volkswagen is about to build a factory in Chattanooga.
Cousin Dave at December 2, 2009 6:59 AM
That's funny, because it's not nearly as bad now as it was 40 years ago. But yes, auto manufacturing is a big deal here now. I live in north Alabama, and there's five major plants within about a 100-mile radius
My family is in eastern Alabama. I don't know how things were 40 years ago, but over the last 20 or so that I've visited, it seemed that the collapse of the textile industry turned a lot of their area into a ghost town. I recall it being a big story when the last carpet mill closed maybe half a dozen years back. Shuttered business after shuttered business on the old town square, lots of people leaving for Birmingham or Atlanta where there were jobs, etc. The Honda plant has helped reverse some of that decline.
Whatever at December 2, 2009 10:19 AM
Leave a comment