As you know, I like Obama. I think he's done his best. A reasonably good job in trying circumstances. None of which sounds like a rousing endorsement. But he's miles above his opponents, in my opinion.
Anyway, I watched him on Jon Stewart last night, and the thing I came away with was -- he really, really thinks that things have stabilized and that things will get better from here. He admits the politically correct, "Things could be better..." but you can tell he thinks things are getting better already.
So is he in some sort of adviser cocoon ?-- "Things are improving Mr.President!" Or is he just an incorrigible optimist? Or could he actually be right?
I still feel he's our best chance of navigating a course through all the extremism and dire problems we have, but I fear that -- just as not enough has changed in two years for an impatient public, not enough will change in four years....
This isn't just a normal recession -- and I thought going in that it would take many years to dig ourselves out of this, if we took our medicine -- which I still don't think we have.
But I don't see anyone on the horizon who I don't think would make things worse -- possibly much worse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
My sentiments exactly. I do tend to think though that the past couple bubbles have created some false expectations for what real, healthy economic growth looks like, so even with moderate success, there is going to be a long, long hangover....
Uh, He represents one of the extreme views. That being one of larger government, reallocation of wealth, etc. He has only been limited by how far he could get his own party to go along with him and this election will show that that even that was a substantial over reach.
The current weakness is not going away until deliveraging is complete. However, as much as debt has been reduced in the private sector, it has grown by more in the public sector so overall debt has increased since the downturn started. Problems have not been solved. The can has just been kicked down the road.
For growth to resume you have to clear out the debt, let the dead wood companies fail, let housing prices fail to their sustainable levels. You do not get growth by government spending that increases debt, nor by creating artifical bubbles. They just create more areas for future correction.
If you really want to create an environment for growth you need to go in a direction that is foreign to some degree to both parties. You need to:
1. Encourage labor force mobility. That means to eliminate those things that are keeping people tied to high unemployment areas or create the mindset of I will just hang on here and see if this improve. The current items which do that are unemployment insurance and housing. In most cases you can continue to receive unemployment if you relocate and continue to look. However, most tend to hang on in their current location while they are able to collect benefits and then only consider relocating when those benefits are exhausted. There is also a lot of confusion about these benefits. An effort should be made to make the transportability of this benefits clear and potential to provide a one time benefit to someone collecting that moves from a high unemployment area to a low unemployment area.
The current housing mess is keeping people from being mobile. Government efforts are making it worse by trying to "help" keep people is houses they cannot afford and are under water. Instead the government should be making it easier for those that have no equity in their houses and cannot afford then to get out and relocate. Instead of paying to get finance companies to refinace and kick the can down the road they should take those some dollars and get the companies to more easily accept short sales which get those out of the houses that they cannot afford and enables them to be more mobile to find a job.
The biggest differences between this and past recessions are 1. debt levels and 2. lack of work force mobility.
The comment section seems to be acting up today. It is generating error messages when trying save. Not sure if you got a number of copies of the one I was trying to save or not. Please delete and duplicates if they exist as well as this message if you receive it
"Uh, He represents one of the extreme views."
Uh, no.
Other areas that must be addressed:
Let failing companies fail. Let the dead wood die. That creates space for new companies to start and grow. It is also the reason why the US has tended to have robust growth periods after down turns.
Make it easy for new small business start ups. The maze of paperwork and fees has greatly raised the hurdle for someone trying to start a small business. Clear out that morass of paperwork.
Enforce current regulation. Not increase the number of regulations that also fail to be enforced. We having an increasing number of regulations that are never enforced or if they are enforced only selectly. Then when problems come up in areas that they cover the knee jerk reaction is that more regulation is need. Resulting in more regulations that are also not effectively enforced. All when the original regulations, if properly enforced, are sufficient.
Encourage manufacturing. The best way to do that is to cut taxes on manufacturing. Make them competitive with the competing areas. China has a tax rate of 15%, Ireland 20%. The way current US tax laws are set up it is adventageous for companies to manufacturer outside the US. Pay those taxes and to only locate expenses inside the US to the degree that it is necessary to offset their US based revenue. If you lower the taxes on manufacturing you provide the same tax benefti as locating the plants outside of the US, without lowering the overall corporate tax rate (which if lowered would have some unintended consequences of its own resulting from current tax laws and companies keeping some expenses in the US to offset the higher US corporate taxes.). To offset the lower manufacturing rate I would put in place a VAT which excludes exports but is applied to imports and well as to locally manufactured products which are consumed in the US. Start it at 3% with increments every couple of years (the how to boil a frog approach). We need to get ourselves out of this over consumption mode while kick starting manufacturing growth.
There should be sufficient reduction is currency risk and inflation risk compared to manufacturing overseas to counteract higher labor, regulation and environmental costs.
Duncan,
Kindly explain where his views differ from the more extreme left?
I am not saying his actions (which have been limited by what he could get through his own party and by political reality) but his views. Noting that the election is likely to point out those political realities.
Please list those items on the extreme left that you think he does not personally believe in?
The myopia of the right is that they don't know where the middle is anymore.
I can't always tell if it's political posturing, or they are really that deluded.
You haven't answered the question. If he he really centric then list some areas where he clearly is not in agreement with the far left.
I can generate such a list on the right. For that matter I can list where laws he has signed has less then 50% support. Clearly if he is the moderate you indicate he is such a list should be quite easy.
What you just said is just as easily stated:
The myopia of the left is that they don't know where the middle is anymore.
I can't always tell if it's political posturing, or they are really that deluded.
Of course one could point out that your views (as you have indicated in the past on the blog) tend to be a bit left of center and as such might also impact what you view to be moderate.
Just As I tend to be a bit right of center when it comes to issues such as size of government, personal responsibility, wealth transfer, etc.
My view can be summerized is a few paragraphs:
The goal of government is to equalize opportunity, not necessarily outcomes. That is to say that one has access to education, the ability to create business is an open competitive environment, fair competition for work, etc. What one does in that environment is up to them.
The goal of government should be to make people less dependant upon the government, not more so.
The goal of government is to establish an environment where people can be successful by their own merits.
The goal of government is to provide a safety net such that no one starves or is unsheltered, but it does not guarentee someone a standard of living beyond that.
The goal of government is create the laws necessary to provide for public safety, property rights and other protections that are necessary to support society and to then enforce those laws. If a law is not enforced then it should be revoked.
It is not the goal of government to protect individuals or for that matter companies from the consequences of their own decisions, however stupid they might be.
Kindly explain where his views differ from the more extreme left?
I'll take this one up:
1. Obama has pretty much, minus torture, embraced the whole Bush era anti-terrorism, national security policy. From wiretapping to state secrets privileges to detainment of people overseas, his admin is little different from the last and a lot of folks on the left are livid about it.
2. On health care, the left's wet dream is a centralized single payer system, but Obama never went there and explicitly said that it would never be a good fit for the US.
3. The hard left wanted to see the banks nationalized and all the executives drawn & quartered, but under the advise of that paragon of liberalism, Larry Summers, Obama chose not to. The financial regulation package is a lot lighter than most liberals wanted on top of that.
4. On gay issues, the man is positively schizophrenic, much to the consternation of the left. He supports repeal of DADT, but his justice department is fighting tooth & nail to keep it in place until the repeal passes.
5. The Pacifists in the Left think Obama is absolutely looney to double and triple down in Afghanistan even though Obama explicitly campaigned on doing just that.
So, if you think Obama is a hard left raving liberal socialist, you have a pretty poor idea of what exactly such people actually believe.
I said where do Obama's views differ, as in his personal view as represented by his campaigns, past writings, etc.
I also indicated that clearly reality and political limitations have forced differences between what he has done and what his personal views were.
So lets take each of the ones you point out.
1. Obama has pretty much, minus torture, embraced the whole Bush era anti-terrorism, national security policy. From wiretapping to state secrets privileges to detainment of people overseas, his admin is little different from the last and a lot of folks on the left are livid about it.
Now I believe this falls into the reality camp. He clearly has indicated different views prior to becoming President. He has even indicated wanting to do something different since he has been President. But clearly between reality (what one actuals sees when they get access to the intelligence information and the corresponding limits on choices) and political reality has limited his actions and apparently those choices he criticized Bush for must have not been so bad since he has basically followed the same course of action.
2. This one he is clearly on the record as supporting a single payor government system. He only came up with the not being a good fit when he saw that it would not gain support from even his own party, even with a veto proof majority in the Senate at that time.
3. On the Banks again his action was limited to political reality. He seems to make it quite clear what his own views are concerning the banks. Part of that is quite clear in the fact that he has appointed someone to set up the consumer agency that would never pass appointment as the Agencies head. Not exactly the actions of a moderate.
4. Again he has publicly indicated that his own views differ from the action his administration is taking. So again this goes into the political reality camp on how far he can push an issue.
5. This is the same as item 1.
Amazing how his actions changed once his views were faiced with actually having responsibility and the limitations of having to convince others, even members of his own party to act.
So how do you think each of those would differ if he did not have to get something through a vote or face the consequences at the ballot box (for either him or his party)?
As you answer that look at each of the people that he has named to the CZAR posts and where he has granted them unprecidented authority and where the positions do not have to get Senate confirmation. A few examples, with a few stand outs such as Van Jones.
Auto Recovery - Ed Montgomery
California Water - David J. Hayes
Border - Alan Bersin
Car - Ron Bloom
Climate - Todd Stern
Drug - Gil Kerlikowske
Energy and Environment - Carol Browner
Green Jobs - Van Jones
Science - John Holdren
Okay, you are splitting hairs a bit too fine here. What you are basically saying is, Obama is an extreme liberal ideologue at heart, but when it comes to actual governing, he conforms his policy preferences and actions to what is pragmatically possible. Isn't this what we generally want politicians to do? Have general principles and views, and then adapt them to what reality will permit them to do? Is your complaint that Obama isn't the neat and tidy, easily caricatured ideologue that you want him to be?
As for Elizabeth Warren's new job, it remains to be seen whether she will actually have any real authority or if her position is more of cheap bone being thrown to the left.
Also, when it comes to the "Czars" you are mentioning, these people have no independent authority of their own, other than the ability to give extra special advice to the executive. These types of folks have been in administrations for a very long time under presidents of both parties, and your touting of this "issue" says more about your news media preferences than it says about the president.
Clearly he is constrained in political action by Congress. I don't think it is splitting hairs to point out that in his writings, speechs, and campaigns he has advocated actions considerably left of those his administration has been able to accomplish.
My position is that that difference is not by intent or a decision of his to moderate, but instead represent a limitation forced by what he could get congress to agree to (even though he had a dominant majority in Congress and at key times 60 votes in the Senate).
Post a Comment