President Clinton Redux?

During the presidential campaign, I noticed (and believe I remarked in a post about it) that Barack Obama reminded me an awful lot of President Clinton.  Like Clinton, Obama is a very talented speech maker (probably better than Clinton). As with Clinton, while watching an Obama speech, I find myself wanting to believe him, hoping he’s right, and thinking he’s sincere.  And, just like with Clinton, upon further analysis, I find Obama’s speeches to be empty of anything meaningful, coming down on both sides of the same issue, and full of contradiction.  The other similarity, which I first noticed during the debates, and which has become blatantly obvious lately, is that Obama will say, shamelessly, the exact opposite of what is the obvious truth.

For example, during his address to Congress the other night, he said that there were “no earmarks” in the stimulus bill.  But, if you go by the general understanding of earmarks, you really can’t say that the stimulus bill contained none.  I heard many examples within that bill of dollars directed at very specific spending projects, benefiting a particular state or congressional district.  He also stood there and, with a straight face, said that he did not like big government.  But he’s using big (HUGE) government spending in an effort to revive the economy.  So, obviously he believes in it — but he doesn’t “like” it?  (I made fun of Bush for doing pretty much the same thing, when he claimed to be a “free market guy.”)  And now he’s saying he’s ending the war in Iraq by 2010, even though he plans to leave 35-50k troops beyond his deadline, in part for “conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions.”  Um… yeah.  Maybe President Bush should just have said, “Uh, the war is over.  Yeah.  Uh, just leaving the troops there to fight the terrorists,” and everything would have been OK?

It goes on and on like this.  I wonder how long he’ll be able to keep it up.  I’ve said before that a lot of people who thought they knew what they were voting for when they voted for Obama would eventually be disappointed.  That’s because he cannot possibly be all the different things he made different people believe he was.  And I think it’s only a matter of time before people realize that just because he keeps promising that 3 is 4, it doesn’t mean 3 is 4.  This is the same problem Clinton created for himself.  It got to the point where nobody really believed what he would say.  Sure, people still liked him — he happened to be in office in pretty fat times.  Unfortunately for Obama, with things being as they are, once people begin to not trust him, I can’t see him getting the same kind of pass.

Wow, Mr. Jindal, What Was That?

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has received a lot of attention, over the past few years, first as the first Indian-American elected to the US Congress, then as the first Indian-American (and youngest) Governor of Louisiana, then for his success in tackling corruption in the Louisiana government, and finally for being considered as a possible VP candidate by John McCain.  Because of his youth, rapid rise, and personal history, he’s been compared to Barack Obama — a potential savior of his party.  Because of all this, and because he’s a likely contender for the GOP presidential nomination next time around, he was given the job of responding to the president’s economic address to Congress, last night.  I have to admit, his story is interesting, and offers an opportunity to showcase the ideas of the political right, without much of the image-related baggage that the GOP carries, these days.  I was looking forward to what he had to say.

But what the heck was that?  I know these “responses” are really nothing of the sort.  The remarks are prepared well before the first speech is given, and are really just seen as an opportunity for the “responding” side to lay out it’s own vision, rather than to level criticism at their opponents’ plan.  So, I expected that.  But what I didn’t expect was for the response to be delivered as if the person doing so was reading a book he’d never read before to a group of children.  From the goofy, uncomfortable entrance, to the unnatural-looking smile, to the extremely poor phrasing, the delivery of the message was a disaster. I realize this was probably the first time Jindal has had the national spotlight on him, and I’m sure he was coached like crazy to strike the right tone (positive, patriotic), and to come across as a regular guy.  But if he is to have any hope of getting anywhere in the nominating process, he’s going to have to figure out how to deliver a big-time speech.

The content was OK, but nothing Earth-shattering.  I’ve come to expect great-sounding, but fairly empty, speeches from President Obama.  And Jindal needs to understand (as do Republicans, in general) that he will likely not be able to compete with Obama giving such speeches.  Jindal is a “policy wonk.”  He’s purportedly very intelligent, understands policy details and implications, and his image is that of someone who cuts through the garbage to get the job done.  His repsonse should have been fashioned to take advantage of his strengths.  Obama was expected to be vague on the details of his approach, Jindal should have laid out the details of his (or the Republicans’) own.  Knowing Obama would speak in grand terms about things getting better, Jindal should have explained what will make them better.  And it’s fine to have a theme: “Americans can do anything!”  But rather than focusing the rest of the remarks on setting up repetitions of that line, Jindal should have focused more on making the content meaningful.

Now, the guy is young.  He’s younger than I am, and I don’t think I’m prepared for a presidential campaign.  I think he made the right move in letting McCain know that he was not interested in the VP job.  He knows he needs time to develop his skills and some kind of record of achievement — the press will not be as casual about the inexperience of a Republican presidential candidate as they were about Obama’s very thin record.  And I’m sure that, between now and Campaign 2012, he’ll work on developing his style for national television appearances, campaign speaches, and the like.  So, I haven’t lost all faith in him.  But a good first step would be to make sure your remarks are well-written — and then read them a few times before delivering them.

UPDATE: Just after posting this, I heard Governor Jindal on a radio show, talking about President Obama’s speech and what the Republican approach should be to the economy.  He sounded much more like I was expecting him to sound last night.  Sure a discussion isn’t the same thing as a speech, but the ideas and explanations he was offering on the radio show should have been in his remarks last night.  Time to find a good speechwriter, Bobby.

UPDATE 2: The real Mr. Jindal stands up?

Life, Liberty, And A Subsidized Mortgage

Something tells me this is not what the founders had in mind.  President Obama has announced his plans to help people “struggling” to make their mortgage payments, with the goal being to “keep people in their homes.”  Sounds so nice, doesn’t it?  But what does it actually mean?  Well, it means that those of us who pay taxes will now be paying someone else’s mortgage, on top of the mortgage or rent we already pay.  That seems fair.  It also means that the market will not be allowed to readjust home prices (by forcing people to sell while prices are down, and by adding many more forclosed properties to the pool), which in turn means many of those same “struggling” people will not have cheaper housing options to which to turn.  Makes a lot of sense, right?  Let’s artificially prop up home prices so that people will need assistance in order to afford a home.  Brilliant!

Some people, like my wife and I, thought ahead, when we bought our last home.  We put 20% down, and made sure we’d be able to keep paying our mortgage, should one of us lose our income.  As careful as we were, circumstances lead to us selling our home in this down market, and taking a hit for it — which we did in order to avoid taking a bigger hit should the market continue to decline (which I believe it will), and to bring down our monthly expenses.  Little did we know that, if we just waited long enough, until we really started to struggle, the government would come along and give us other people’s money, so that we would not have to sacrifice our way of life.  And now that we have made sacrifices, our president is trying to prop up housing prices (for those who have not made the same sacrifices), which will wind up hurting us even more.

How can this supposedly brilliant man think this is a good idea?  Seriously, what are the arguments?  We’re not keeping these people in their homes so that they can borrow against them and spend money (economic activity) — there’s no value to borrow against.  Keeping them in their homes does not relieve the financial burden they’re under, as being forced to find a cheaper alternative would.  So what’s the deal?  Is this about propping up the value of mortgage-backed securities?  Is this about saving investment firms?  Are the hundreds of billions we’re throwing at them not enough?  Or is it about winning the next election (by buying votes)?  And what about simple fairness?  Why should those of us who were careful to stay within our means now be forced to subsidize those who were not?

What has happened to our country?

Chimp Business

Al Sharpton’s got a new crusade.  A New York Post political cartoon drawing from the story of the chimp that almost killed its owner’s friend, and controversy over the mess that is the “stimulus package,” recently passed by Congress and signed by the president.  For those who haven’t seen it, after shooting the chimp (the chimp that attacked the woman was killed), one cop says, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”  There’s no mention of Obama, no attempt to make the chimp resemble a politician, let alone the president — and Obama didn’t even write the bill.  But, of course, Sharpton and his ilk are up in arms about the comic, because to them, it’s obvious that the chimp was supposed to be a racial reference to Obama.

OK, let’s stipulate that the Post’s editors probably should have realized that the race warriors would see this connection, and thus should have known this would happen.  So?  Are any references to primates to be avoided now, if there’s some way to trace the subject matter back to the president?  Or maybe, now that we actually have a black president, people can try to keep this kind of thing in perspective.  I heard one complaining comment go something like: It’s too bad, you racists at the Post, we’re already “through the door.”  Um, exactly.  The president of the United States is a black man.  Even if the comic *was* intended to equate Obama with a chimp, hasn’t he already risen above the stereotypes?  There are people who protest about the portayal in TV shows and movies of Italians as mobsters.  But no one else — Italian or otherwise — pays any attention to them.  Why?  Because the impact of the “stereotype” is insignificant — the Italians are already “through the door.”  So, even if racial harm was intended here, which seems unlikely, it is completely insignificant.  But I guess admitting that would mean Sharpton & Co. would have to find a new game.

Restraint, Huh?

Right around the time of the election, I was discussing, with a friend, the fears I had laid out in a few blog posts about having Obama as president with a Democrat-dominated Congress.  Before the election, he was a bit back and forth about whom to support — though it always seemed to me the he leaned toward Obama, and as far as I know, that’s how he voted.  Several of my fears about Obama as president stemmed from the fact that I believed that the Democrats in Congress would now be essentially unchecked, as I did not believe there was any way that Obama would reject any bill his party sent to him.  On top of that, I believed that, now that they could basically run right over any Republican opposition, the Democrats would pass anything and everything that some part of the party has been wanting for years.  My friend, who is very, very intelligent, but perhaps a bit too trusting, told me that he believed that now that they had full control, the Democrats would act in a measured and responsible way, and would be very careful not to overreach.  He was not the only one to say this — many people seemed to believe it, and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said pretty much the same thing, claiming that Congress would now be “more bipartisan.”  I think he also he also trusted that Obama would not let his party run wild.  Basically, he was saying he expected restraint, even though, as I pointed out, there is nothing in our political history on which to base such a hope.

So, now,  with the “stimulus” bill about to pass, directing more than 3/4 of a trillion dollars mostly toward a laundry list of democrat/liberal-favored programs and projects, I have to ask:  Does my friend (or anyone) still think this government is going to exercise restraint?  Remember, this package has nothing whatsoever to do with the regular budget process, which will happen later in the year.  The stimulus is supposed to be about “getting the economy moving again” — not just about spending as much money as possible on pet causes.

There are obvious ways for the government to help spur economic activity by improving the environment in which businesses operate, some of which would require some government spending.  But instead of even considering doing any such things, the Democrats in Congress have instead taken advantage of a desperate situation to ram through hundreds of billions of dollars of defecit spending on just about every government-bloating and left-wing special interest project they could think of.  So much for the “timely,” “targeted” and “temporary” requirements Pelosi once touted.

On the “Republican” side, we have Senator Arlen Specter sounding like a complete moron, when he says he’s voting for the bill because we “cannot afford not to take action.”  Does he honestly think that if this bill didn’t pass, that would be the end of it?  No action would be taken at all?  Knock this pile of crap down, and force the Democrats to come up with a more responsible bill!

And what about President Obama?  He’s doing exactly what I was afraid he’d do.  He left it to Congress to come up with the stimulus plan, and he’s said barely a word about its excesses.  You can be sure that if Republicans still held Congress and put together a big fat lard of a bill spending nearly a trillion dollars on their priorities, he’d be all over the place talking about responsibility.  But maybe he’s too busy “oozing change.”

Stimulus Or Just Spending? That’s The Wrong Question

I can’t say that I usually find myself agreeing with an opinion piece in the Washington Post, but I was happy to see someone point out some of the silliness in the debate about the economic stimulus bill making its way through Congress.  The author shoots some holes through some of the primary arguments being used by Republicans in Congress against the Democrat-drafted bill(s).  And he’s right — it’s silly to say that one kind of spending is stimulative while another is not.  It doesn’t matter where you spend the money, because it will wind up in the economy (someone will get paid for a product or service, and will then spend that money on something else, thus boosting economic activity — or so the thinking goes).

The author then touches on a more relevant point about what kind of value different types of spending will yield for the country.  For example (mine, not his), updating highways and communications infrastructure will result in jobs and extra money in the economy in the near term, and potentially higher productivity in the longer term, while pumping more money into NEA grants or fixing trails in national parks will inject the money and potentially employ some more people now, but will be of little value to the economy later.  The problem is that he then pretty much abandons this point in favor of simply ridiculing Republican opponents of the bill.  His mockery of Senator Tom Coburn and the Wall Street Journal, for complaining about so much of the job creation being in the public sector, is ridiculous.  Of course that type of job growth is “inherently inferior” to private sector growth.  For several reasons:  1) the government is never a model of efficiency, so many of those jobs will be created just for the sake of creating jobs; 2) unlike in the private sector, where jobs follow the need for manpower, when a government job is created, it is very rarely eliminated when the need goes away; 3) an ecomony in which more and more people are employed by the government is not free — the market does not determine what type of labor is valuable, a political agenda does.  All of these things mean that the overall value of many government jobs to the economy could be completely marginal.

That said, I still think questioning the stimulative-ness of different types of spending is silly.  And it’s the wrong question.  Sure, if you’re going to do stimulus spending, you should attempt to get the best return on investment that you possibly can.  But the more important question is:  should our government be attempting a stimulus, through spending, at all?  That’s where the philosophical debate needs to happen.  In my opinion, the answer is no.  The federal government should not be looking to spend a TON of money that it does not have in an attempt to stimulate the economy.  Now, that doesn’t mean that I think the government should be doing nothing at all to try to improve the current situation.  But just spending a lot of money is not the answer — especially when it puts the government (and thus the taxpayer) in an overwhelmingly bad situation, by decreasing the value of the dollar and possibly destroying our ability to get credit.

So, what can and should be done?  Anything that helps to increase the productivity of American workers and producers.  Sure, there can be some government spending (where it’s really the government’s responsibility) on infrastructure projects, but mainly the government should seek to remove barriers to increased productivity, wherever it can.  For example, relax some of the regulation that’s made it nearly impossible to build a refinery or nuclear plant in the US for so many years.  This would result in the immediate benefit of new jobs for US workers (without having to hand out cash), plus reduced energy costs (which would boost every part of the economy) in the future.  Seek to lower the cost of conducting business, especially for small businesses, to allow them to spend more of their revenue on growth.  Simplify the tax code wherever possible, to allow less money to be spent on compliance, and more to be invested in businesses.

There are no doubt many other ways the government can help increase productivity, which is what will truly help lift the economy, as opposed to doing what amounts to making a loan to the economy to foster the appearance of improved activity.  Come on now, be creative.  Change we can believe in, right?

Things Just Ain’t What They Used To Be

“Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these courageous couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.”

... well, maybe snow.

Got this notice in the mail, the other day.  I thought it was kind of funny.  Though I just learned that “Neither snow, nor rain…” is not actually the US Postal Service’s official motto, I do think most people expect their mail to be delivered, even in bad weather.  I’m guessing that 20 or 30 years ago, you’d never see a notice like this.  But I’m sure the USPS can’t risk being sued by the letter carriers.