Who does Obama think he's fooling by ludicrously claiming that his deft handling of the economy prevented a second Great Depression and a nearly $1T so-called stimulus plan is stabilizing the economy? Hasn't his credibility on the stimulus plan already been settled when official unemployment eclipsed 8% months ago, a cap that was used to rationalize a spending spree that our grandchildren will have to pay off (never mind cover their own national budget)?
Never mind the fact that Bernanke (see my recent critical posts on Fed Reserve Chairman Bernanke), who Obama has previously (and dubiously) credited with saving the country from a second Depression, was a Bush appointee back in 2006; Obama's renomination of him is for a term starting next year. When Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner keep griping about the poor hand they were dealt by the Bush Administration, the biggest appointment a President makes relevant to economic policy is the choice of Fed Reserve chairman. So if Obama truly believes that Bush's economic policies are responsible for the bubble and Bernanke was asleep at the switch, why in the world is he renominating the man? Even if we grant for the sake of argument (and I think the jury is still out on that point) that Bernanke has been effective during and after last year's economic tsunami, what about all the rhetoric that Obama has been hyping in the health care "reform" about the wisdom of preventive policies? Doesn't it also apply in the economic arena? The best way to control fires is to ensure they don't happen in the first place; hiring the best firefighters is important, but if you don't address the root causes of the fires, you are always going to putting out fires by the seat of your pants.
When the Democrats hype the Keynesian elixir of infrastructure multipliers (and I've made my position on infrastructure very clear--I support a broad-based, long-term investment, but I distinguish legitimate economic investment from political pork-barrel projects), there's a huge difference between, say, building the Hoover Dam, which is yielding cheap, green electrical power decades after its construction, and Senator Reid's passionate embrace of a multi-billion dollar high-speed train link between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. I mean, really; if you need to get faster access to gambling with the nation's future, why not install moving walkways to Congressional Democratic back offices?
Obama's Government Motors job engine just keeps stalling out, and despite Obama's efforts to field the best economists he could find to diagnose and fix the problems (Larry Summers, Geithner, etc.), he just can't keep his economy vehicle out of the shop; it only seems to get as far as the nearest unemployment office.
The Congress Continues to Play Trivial Pursuit
Ever since Obama found himself behind the curve in discovering preexisting executive retention bonuses intact after last fall's economic bailouts, he is determined not to let anyone question his commitment to the Politics of Envy again; so what if hiring better managers, at a market-competitive salary, can pay for themselves many times over and get these companies off the federal teat sooner rather than later?
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), facing an unnecessary $1T health care initiative in the US Senate, certainly knows how to pick her moments: while paying lip service to a commitment to private-sector solutions, what better way to undermine the private sector than to scapegoat health insurer executives and target their salaries, leaving only mediocre talent to fend off a growing government monopoly? Never mind the fact that executive pay is an issue which should be addressed by a company's stakeholders, not an obtrusive federal bureaucracy. I wish Mike Huckabee or other viable Republican candidate will run against her next fall; I even have a winning slogan for them: "I'm not Blanche Lincoln".
And just to prove I'm a bipartisan critic, my home state Democratic US Senator Barbara Mikulski joined with Republican Senator Vitter in an amendment setting aside recently revised mammography guidelines for 40-year-old women, despite compelling evidence that mammograms, over the general (versus at-risk) population of women, results in a significant relative number of false positives, the expensive, devastating treatment of which does more harm to women than saving lives.
If, indeed, we are going to debate health care reform, let's have meaningful debate over conservative proposals to strengthen state/regional risk pools, provide medical malpractice tort reform, open up the health insurance market across state lines, or provide equal protection of tax savings for those whom purchase health insurance on their own...not these trivial sideshows and soap operas.
Political Cartoon
Cartoonist Nate Beeler takes a well-grounded look at the Fools on the (Capitol) Hill.
Christmas Musical Interlude: "The Chipmunk Song"
This brings back fond memories of my childhood and our often-played red Christmas album...
