March 28, 2009
Obamanomics is not economics, it's ideology
Robert Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley and the former Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor thinks we are all idiots. In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Obamanomics Isn't About Big Government," Mr. Reich tells us that catastrophic government spending, un-constitutional legislation, uncontrolled earmarks, corruption, cronyism-bloated bureaucracies, class warfare, and social engineering are "trickle-up economics." ...
Robert Reich is a radical fellow traveler, whom we foolishly let teach our children as he helps Obama steal their future. His ideology makes him a popular guy around campus and in the fever swamps of the far left, but as the Obama-effect wears off, as it increasingly will, he will need the solace of those quiet halls.
When the full realization of what Obama and his minions are doing to the country hits the average citizen, there will be anger and outrage and revolt. It is already growing. It is hard to believe that we are just a few months into this administration. What will it look like in 2010 for the mid-term elections? One can only hope, for the good of the nation, it will be very bad indeed for Reich, the US Congress and Obama. (more)
March 28, 2009
Are the blinders beginning to fall off?
The left leaning Economist magazine may be having second thoughts of its endorsement of the messiah:
After highlighting some of the problems Obama is having and declaring him "curiously feeble," the magazine tries to analyze what's wrong...
... Mr Obama’s failure to grapple as fast and as single-mindedly with the economy as he should have done. His stimulus package, though huge, was subcontracted to Congress, which did a mediocre job: too much of the money will arrive too late to be of help in the current crisis. His budget, though in some ways more honest than his predecessor’s, is wildly optimistic. ...
... failure to staff the Treasury is a shocking illustration of administrative drift. There are 23 slots at the department that need confirmation by the Senate, and only two have been filled. This is not the Senate’s fault. Mr Obama has made a series of bad picks ...
... Mr Obama has mishandled his relations with both sides in Congress. Though he campaigned as a centrist and promised an era of post-partisan government, that’s not how he has behaved.
... there is an element of managerial incompetence, but the real issue is that the Right was correct about Obama: he’s an ultra-liberal at least on domestic policy, not a pragmatic centrist either on policy or in style. His mode of governance — denigrate the opposition, engage in ad hominem attacks, refuse to compromise on substantive policy, disguise radical policy intentions with a haze of meaningless rhetoric — bespeaks someone supremely confident in his ideological views and undaunted by fears (which are slowly creeping up on his Red state colleagues) of having overshot his mandate.
... it appears we are in for more of the same for the remainder of his term. It’s not what the Economist expected, but it is pretty much what most conservatives did. (more)
AAR
.jpg)
There are several basic problems with "trickle-up economics: very few at the bottom, regardless of how much of other people's money is redistributed to them, ever employ anyone; jobs created through government spending tend to be short-term; and subsidizing people riding in the wagon at the expense of those pulling the wagon destroys wealth instead of creating it. When wealth is destroyed and government controls a disproportionate amount of available capital, there can be no sustainable economic growth. As was noted in a previous post, there may be the short-term appearance of growth or a perception of a return to prosperity, but it will only be a perception. The only notable exception to this during my lifetime was the Interstate Highway System. It paved the way for an explosion of interstate commerce, and, I'm sure, paid for itself many times over. One would be hard-pressed to name anything comparable since. The only possible contemporary parallel would be Renewable energy, but I don't see this administration exploiting that to the benefit of anyone but themselves and special interests. Hundreds of massive wind farms scattered across the landscape is most certainly not the answer, but I'm afraid that's what we're going to get. Ironically, there is an Interstate Highway of energy ready to go in the form of Generation 3 (and beyond) nuclear power plants. In the last few years, both the cost and the lead time for construction have dropped dramatically. If I were a gambling man (which I'm not), I wouldn't bet two bits that this administration will hop on the nuclear energy train. They owe too much to the environmental lobby.
ReplyDeleteRS,
ReplyDeleteA March 20, 2009 Gallup poll shows that more Americans than ever support nuclear power.
Support for Nuclear Energy Inches Up to New High
PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of Americans have been supportive of the use of nuclear energy in the United States in recent years, but this year's Gallup Environment Poll finds new high levels of support, with 59% favoring its use, including 27% who strongly favor it.
Gallup has always found consistent and large gender differences in Americans' views of nuclear power, and the same applies this year -- 71% of men favor the use of nuclear energy, compared with only 47% of women. Both groups show their highest level of support for nuclear power to date.
In spite of this, I don't hear Republicans really pushing nuclear energy.
AAR