Unemployment, Obama's rosy outlook--

Barack Obama's has chosen his favorite economists, the ones who unwaveringly support his plans. A number of Obama administration economists have quietly shared their trepidation, and others in the CBO have simply stated that he is wrong. But just as our President has employed selective listening in the past, he has done again. Team Obama believes that unemployment will top out at 9%. The latest jobs report estimates 8.6% unemployment, with no job growth in sight. The problem is that Barack's government heavy team, is filled with cronies in awe of of his persona. Here is a great take from WSJ blogs:

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/04/03/mean-street-the-coming-obama-jobs-disaster/?mod=yahoo_hs

Obama has avoided blame for nearly every one of his other miscues, but if his forcasts are as far off as they have the potential to be, the fallout will be unavoidable.

AIG Bonus Fallout

Congress, the President, the attorney generals of ny and conn, and the media humiliated and disgraced bonus recipients, no matter what their involvement was.

Here is the fallout: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Contracts aren't important in Obamaland

In today's news, Barack Obama threw a hissy fit over the AIG bonuses. We already know that our President is not a big fan of executive compensation and bonuses, but today he flipped his lid. AIG is planning to pay out over 165 million dollars in bonuses, while receiving nearly 150 billion dollars in government funds. AIG is a quasi-private/public institution that only exists in it current form because of bail-out dollars. Our President is upset that this government funded "company" is paying out $165 million dollars in bonuses. In fact, Obama has claimed that he will stop this "reckless and greedy" company from paying out bonuses. There is only one, sorta kinda big problem with Obama's statement. The bonuses are contractually agreed upon. Or in other words, AIG is legally bound to pay out bonuses that were established before financial troubles occurred. Barack is aware of this, but vows to stop them anyways. Realistically, who knows whether the bonuses will help retain the remaining talent at AIG, or simply waste millions of dollars. At the end of the day, contracts are legally binding, and Barack doesn't seem to care.

Barack Obama's blatant disregard for legally binding contracts shouldn't come as a surprise. His 275 billion dollar housing bailout calls for judges to rewrite loans if lenders refuse to rewrite loan terms, clearly ignoring the legal power of contracts. Barack's refusal to respect contractual obligations always stems from the same motive; economic equality. He doesn't care if bonuses are awarded to productive employees, if AIG is contractually bound to pay them, or if a lender believes a loan can be repaid at its agreed upon rate, Barack wants economic equality, and for that he will sacrifice legal equality.

Before the government "invested" billions of our dollars they should have read the fine print. They should have seen the guarantees and obligations. Then again, maybe they did and just didn't care.

Slightly off-subject - great article

Here is an excellent and brief article from The Business Insider on Fed Chairman Bernanke's policy stance:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-bernanke-is-still-stuck-in-the-1930s-2009-3

Who is John Galt?

A brief respite from the traditional critique:

Over the past few months, the government has clearly asserted itself as a tremendous force in the economy. Intervention has risen and our President has advocated various forms of socialism. The response throughout much of the population has been growing frustration and anger. Interestingly, one the most acclaimed and well-written novels of all time has seen a serious up-tick in sales. According to the Ayn Rand Institute, sales of Atlas Shrugged have "almost tripled over the first seven weeks of this year compared with sales for the same period in 2008."

It is an incredible novel, and I highly recommended reading it .

For more information:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/the-atlas-shrugged-index/

For Purchase:

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145

Barack is pro-choice, just not when it comes to schools

Barack Obama recieved much of his education at private schools, which was made possible thorugh generous scholarships. D.C. schools are reknowned for being some of the worst in the country, and the President would not dare to send his children there. However, he and democrats in Congress are pushing to eliminate a successful school voucher program, that has allowed thousands of students an escape.

For more information:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604286020215187.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403815.html

Barack and Brown- an unhappy couple

I believe that our relationship with our neighbors across the pond is important maintain. It has allowed for greater connectivity in financial centers and will help to repair our credibility in world relations.

Our President has promised to repair our image in the world and improve communication with other countries. Recently, British PM Gordon Brown came for his first visit to the United States. Ideologically, Obama and Brown are very similar, and Brown has been supportive and respectful of Obama in a number of ways. However, this respect has certainly not been mutual.

President Obama removed Churchill's bust from the White House and offered it back to the Brits, and even was incredibly insulting during Brown's visit. Obama cancelled Brown's indoor press conference due to snow, and senselessly gave Brown a box of 25 dvds as a gift. Thats right, our president gave a box dvds to another country's leader. To put this in perspective, Brown gave Obama a first edition biography of Winston Churchill and a historicallly valuable artifact from the HMS Gannet, a British sloop.

Pretty sad, and pretty classless on Obama's part. Especially, because this has sent a clear and unfortunate message to the British.

Article on the fiasco in the UK with a little speculation: http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/stor /was_lady_macbeth_behind_barack_obama_s_snub_of_gordon/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/iain_martin/blog/2009/03/04/president_barack_obama_just_plain_rude_to_britain_dont_call_us_in_future

Time for the Times

While meandering the web and world news, I came upon a succinct piece by Fed President William Poole. It is not his most eloquent article, but he hits the nail on the head.

Found in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01poole.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=poole&st=cse

Government is Not the Answer

I woke up in a cold sweat, head pounding, and mind racing. Democrats claim that they felt powerless for the past 8 years, and I often did too. Reckless spending and bureaucratic cronyism were far too abound. However, the majority of the problem stemmed from action abroad and inaction at home. I have learned I can deal with inaction. What stirred my thinking was a fear that I often exaggerated in public, but hadn't truly realized.

I expected President Obama to moderate when elected, I expected troops to be brought home, Guantanamo to close, and international realtions to evolve. Some of those potential changes were encouraging, it was time to reassert dominance through development rather than intrusion. It was time to shed to the strict social code that the neo-conservative movement had encouraged.

What I did not expect from President Obama was his sheer arrogance and ineptitude. But most offensively and concerning, his embrace of altruism. I can deal with his political pandering and rosy "lies" of change. What I cannot deal with is his embrace of sacrificial bull crap.

We are America. We were founded on the ideals of individualism and have succeeded as a meritocracy. We offer freedom to succeed, freedom to fail, and freedom of thought. I will not sacrifice my success for the benefit of another, by demand. I will give to charity, I will give back to the community, but I will not be asked to give back by force, and I expect no one to give to me. What have I done to deserve "benefits" and what has anyone else done to deserve mine. We are a nation that has strayed from the call of accountability and embraced entitlement, but not fully on our own accord. Populism reigns rampant, but our President has sanctioned it. He has made it honorable to beg and dishonorable to produce. He has granted authority to the looters and made wealth the stem of evil.

He wishes to increase taxes on the most productive members of our society, he claims they have enough to spare.

I claim, it is their decision to give.

He wants to tax investment, because the wealthy are benefiting.

I claim its their right.

He claims the poor are powerless.

I say its by choice.

We are threatened by a force that has been enabled. We have have enabled it.
But I tell you this: I will sleep at night, I will live my life, because freedom will prevail. The looters of our world will be dispelled, and success will cease to be condemned. I know this because I will no longer enable.

I ask you this: Will you allow yourself to fall victim to altruism, or will you stand with me?

Reality Check

Well, I have been gone for practically an eternity. Now it is apparent that my previous posts were an unrestrained exercise in futility, Barack Obama is our president. I wish our president the best of luck and sincerely hope that this is a prosperous time for the United States. I haven't given my thoughts on credit failings, financial troubles, economic contraction, or the already enacted stimuli, but now I have been pushed to act.

Currenly, the Senate is debating a 900 billion dollar "stimulus package", backed by the Obama administration. First of all, this 900 billion dollars is NOT a stimulus. The majority of the bill focuses over 600 billion dollars on new spending, and the balance is doled out in poorly structured tax cuts.

The 600 billion dollars in spending includes tremendous amounts of pork, but the stimulus itself comes in the form of infrastructure projects. Hmmm, this sounds eerily familiar. In the 1930's the New Deal was aimed at doing the exact same thing. Ready for this..... It didn't work, not in the least bit. Unemployment stayed at almost exactly the same levels from the passage of the New Deal to start of World War II. Decades of economic trial and error have proven that Keynesian fiscal stimuli are ineffective. Furthermore, the projects proposed in the Obama stimulus, that he touts as so urgent, will not come to fruition or even start for another few years. Friedman, the economist not the populist writer, concluded that government fiscal stimulus," hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government."

So, looking beyond the pork and the waste of the bill, its premise is entirely flawed. Government spending will not create jobs and will not increase consumer spending. Consumers base their spending patterns on long-term income projections. Neither government spending nor the tax rebate checks included within the bill will positively change long-term income projections.

Now, for what truly angers me. I was pleased that House Republicans unanimously opposed this bogus piece of legislation and that ten Democrats also voted against it, but the bil still passed the House and is moving on to the Senate. Today, our President, who did not consult the opposition once in the construction of the bill, encouraged the bill's opponents to put their modest differences aside. Wait, modest differences? The implementation or timing of a small tax cut would be a modest difference, but unified opposition to a bill that doesn't accomplish any real stimulus and costs the American tax payer 900 billion dollars, I would not call that a modest difference.

Cal it arrogance, simple naivete, or even stupidity, but President Obama needs a reality check.