The Malaise Week

When his son stated that he had the "worst day of his life", that sage of Springfield we know as Homer Simpson replied "worst day of your life so far."  I think history will judge this as the worst week of the Presidency for Barrack Obama (even should he be re-elected which I am skeptical of).  During this week, Obama revealed much without realizing it.

Surrounded by his Council of Economic Advisers on Monday (video linked at The Corner), Obama was asked questions about the stimulus, specifically about "shovel ready" projects.  The questioner pointed out all the regulation that prevents something from being "shovel ready" and then (admittedly snidely) mocks the president by asserting of course the President was aware of these things.

The President responded by saying that "shovel ready was not as..... uh..... shovel ready as we expected."  He was trying to make a joke.  Instead, he revealed a lot more than he realized.  In short, he answered the question that no, he was not aware how much bureaucracy there is.   He just seemed to think that if you threw enough money at a public works project, it would complete itself automatically.  He neglected to remember the zoning approvals, the permit approvals, the environmental impact statements, the frequent "investments" (i.e. bribes) a company has to pay the city council in other public works projects, etc.  Then he failed to remember the inevitable court challenges, appeals, re-zoning, re-acquiring of permits, more environmental impact statements, and more "investments" to the newly elected city councilman to fund a motorized merry-go-round in the local park, which will require even more paperwork.

If it requires this much paperwork to fixed cracked cement, just wait til we see how much paperwork is required when it comes to managing health care!  President Obama has spent 3 years talking about the wonders of government, and how only government control can "win the future."  Yet government control provided the mess we currently see and Obama decries.

In a Tuesday morning Interview with the Today show, President Obama decided it was time to pander to the Luddite constituency:

"There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

We can ignore the fact that both the ATM and kiosk have been used for at least the past two decades, and they didn't seem to hinder unemployment.  In this statement is a weary resignation that the modern world has overtaken America, and there is nothing she can do about it.  Jimmy Carter could not have said it better himself.  Rather than viewing technology as a problem to be avoided, smart economies embrace technology as ways to drive innovation.  For Mr. Hope and Change, innovation (change) is now the enemy.

It also shows how colossally ignorant he is about economics.  He is correct, most of the time you withdraw money, you do so electronically.  This reduces the time tellers spend withdrawing money.  Yet before the recession, there were more bank tellers employed than before ATM's were introduced, and the amount of bank branches exploded.  Why?  If you want an ATM card, you have to sign up with that bank still.  More people signing up for this convenience means you need more banks.  In addition to using the services of ATM's, people also use banks for other purposes.  In order to facilitate those purposes, you need more human tellers.  The same goes for the kiosks at airports.  Instead of waiting in line for hours (outside of security) to check in, now you can simply sign in yourself and be cleared in under 30 seconds as checked in.  This gives us less waiting at the airport, allows enhanced productivity outside of the airport, or allows us to spend absurd amounts in the airport gift shop, whatever.  Since flying was made easier, more people were flying.

You could in theory increase employment in those industries by wishing away these technological advances, just as candle makers would benefit from abolishing the sun and horse drivers would benefit from eliminating the automobile.  Yet this wouldn't cause economic growth.  We would be a lot less efficient.  If ATM's were abolished, consumer spending would plummet and banking enrollment would decline.  Like the shovel ready "joke", it shows a President so out of touch with reality it is painful.  Yet this mindset drives this blatantly anti-market administration.

On Thursday, the members of that market (many of them rich businessmen Obama hopes to court) had a meeting with Chief of Staff William Daley.  Daley was supposed to be the smart businessman who would restore Obama's relationship with the business community after their trial separation in November of 2010.  If Marriage Counselor Daley wants to save this marriage, it will require a lot of work.  After highlighting all of the anti-business regulation the government has, Daley simply threw his hands up and said screw it when he declared "some things you just can't defend."  Not very reassuring to the business community, or anyone else.  The government is hopelessly bloated, and many of the policies (some even championed by his boss) just aren't defensible.  First it was the economy that is out of control.  Then it was technology.  Now it is the federal government itself.  The Obama administration has resigned itself to these three apparent facts.

Which begs the question:  if the President is resigned to these facts, will he please make way for someone who isn't?

Barrack the Invincible?

            When you listen to the political landscape today, you hear about how “unbeatable” Barrack Obama is.  I can understand why the left and Obama are doing this.  They want to make the appearance so terrifying nobody dare oppose him.  What I don’t understand is why anyone else would buy these delusions.

            First, let’s look at the Republican field.  Let us forget about Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, and Ron Paul.  They aren’t going to win, and won’t be around.  So forget about it.  They are either too inexperienced, too gaffe prone, too insane, or a combination of all three.  Sarah Palin isn’t running for President, and I’ve been saying that forever.  Nothing has changed.

            This leaves Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, John Huntsman (an odd pick but I think he will do better than the clowns above), and maybe a spoiler like Rick Perry.  All were (or are) Governors.  All with successful track records in their states.  Two of them have had success in blue states.  Yes, Romney has a problem with Romneycare.  It is for that reason I oppose him.  Yet I’m not going to think that this is the only weapon we have in our arsenal for 2012.  In short, all these candidates could beat Obama, since there is some serious cross-over appeal.

            Then let us look at Obama’s current standing in the polls and influence.  His polling goes back and forth between 45 and 50 percent.  Heading into re-election, you do not want to be lower than 50%. If he wants to reach that vaunted billionaire campaign spot, he had better get moving.  (His current fundraising numbers are way below that clip.) This will be a referendum on Obama, just as the 2010 elections were.  There are only so many voices you can convince.  His numbers amongst those not affiliated with either party (the people he needs), those numbers are downright dreadful.  He faces an extremely energetic Republican Party, especially in states where there are Senate elections.  Republicans are poised to take the Senate.  (Even now it is essentially a fait accompli Republicans will take the Senate.)  In order to win, he will need a united party.

            Yet right now, the Democrats are nowhere close to united.  On the recent call to continue borrowing as usual without thinking about how to manage the debt/pay it off, House Democrats split in voting alongside every Republican in saying no.  Those such as Senator Ben Nelson will almost certainly have leave to prove back home to their red-state citizens that they will “stand up” to Obama.  President Obama has tried three times in rolling out a budget.  His recent attempt at doing so was defeated in the Senate 97-0.  For all the controversy, Paul Ryan’s plan received 40 votes (and several of the no’s would have been a yes had they been required.)

            Harry Reid has literally given up on attempting producing a budget, no matter what.  He understands such a budget debate would showcase how ruptured the party really is.  The wounds that first began surfacing in 2004 would be clear for all to see:  The Democratic Party, when not united by Bush-hatred, is coming apart at the seams.  Bush has been out of office 3 years now.  They are hoping, as the majority party, to be the ones who engage in demonizing the minority and using obstructionist tactics to block votes.  In short, despite having the advantage in the Senate and the Presidency, the Democrats are acting as the minority party.

            If the Senate and White House hope to stay in Democratic hands, they will eventually have to put forth a budget.  Yet given the deep divisions in the Democratic Party right now (witness the spat between normally budget hawkish Kent Conrad and Socialist Bernie Sanders), there can be no budget.  Obama will be the head of the party that by election time has not produced a budget in three out of four years of his presidency.  The campaign ad writes itself.

            Hard reality number two is the debt ceiling.  We aren’t going to default on our debt, and we have to raise the debt ceiling.  Yet we also cannot raise the debt ceiling without having a plan in place to seriously address the out of control spending in Washington.  Just like with the extension of the current tax rates for 100% of Americans during the winter of 2010, Obama is going to have to put through real spending reforms in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.  Reforms his party for the most part still stresses are pointless to do.

             Hard reality number three is on energy policy.  People remember high gas prices more than anything else.  Remember back in 2000 when Republicans were calling for increased oil drilling?  We said that it might not make a difference for 10 years, but once that time came, we would find ourselves in a position to handle then outrageous two dollar a gallon gasoline.  We haven’t done much of anything in regards to oil production.  Indeed, Obama has suspended it in many key areas.  Gas prices are high and will most likely remain over three dollars by the time November 2012 comes.  (This is to say nothing of inflation lurking around the corner.)  People pay attention to gas prices.

            Then there are the economic numbers.  This is the most devastating reality of all for the Obama administration.  The recent numbers are, how do I put this nicely, awful.  We essentially created no new jobs last month, and unemployment rose.  It would have risen even higher, had people not dropped out of the labor force altogether.  (Those numbers are the lowest in 40 years!)  Everyone is beginning to come to a realization:  we aren’t going to experience a “double dip” recession.  We have never really left the recession.  We didn’t create jobs.  We simply slowed the rate at which we lay people off.  The stock markets are high only because of the Fed injecting a massive amount of cash into the economy.  (Which everyone realizes will have to end one day.)  Despite all the manipulation of the housing market by the government, it still looks atrocious.  President Obama was elected to “fix the mess.”  By what empirical standard was anything fixed?

            One looks at all these facts and indicators, and a question comes to mind:  How is Barrack Obama “certain” to win re-election?

Links

Anybody have ideas for links?  Will be adding them regularly.  Let me know.

Why the Establishment Rebel?

Since the election of Barrack Obama, my Facebook friends have been "treated" to me pontificating on political matters.  While I have blogged on various religious items (mainly over at Common Sense Catholicism), I've mainly kept the politics focused on FB.  I've decided this will change for various reasons (the reduced time I spend on FB being one of them.)

So now that I've launched a new blog, I have to think of that all important "theme."  What is the best way to describe my political views?  The theme will be what I believe to be a play on my character and ideology.

While hardly the conformist, it is impossible to doubt the importance of an establishment.  While railing against the establishment is what is cool, the reality is that one establishment seeks to replace another.  It is why I find populism such a fraud whoever may be proclaiming it, be they on the right or left.  You need an organization, you need the mechanics of that organization to work.  Most importantly, you need something to be a check on the wackos, or at least the more passionate devotees of your cause.  A self-righteous man with a cause is the most dangerous thing in the world if left unchecked. 

Yet if something is to be checked, it should not be elimianted.  Pushing to reform the way a party presents itself and handles matters is neccessary.  We conservatives fight for the Republican Party because, in the end, they are the only vehicle for success.  The Libertarian Party?  They are more about the duty of man to get high so he can "express his liberty" than serious governance.  While there was a time that Democrats had a place for conservatives (even if just nominally), that time has been dead for 50 years now.

If we have no other realistic options, we might as well make the most of it, and have some fun along the way.  If we have a seat at the table, why shouldn't we excercise it?  Heck, why shouldn't we try to make the whole damn table ours?  That is the balance we must strike.  We must strike to continually make the Republican Party more conservative, yet accept our limitations.

Those limitations are that the country will at times disagree with us, to say nothing of the establishment in our own party.  We won't win that battle overnight, yet we must make sure an incremental victory actually advances our agenda.  That will be the overarching idea behind this blog.  We can advance by leaps and bounds, or just inches depending on the situation, but we will advance.