About Me

Name: Kenneth Hanson
Location: Atlanta, GA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Obama White House Consolidating Power Over Economy

It has been widely reported for some time that Goldman Sachs has been ‘negotiating’ with the Obama administration to give back the TARP money they don’t need and don’t want.  The Democrat’s interference in Goldman Sach's business is killing their ability to compete.  I couldn’t figure out what needed to be negotiated.  Just write Obama a check.  Writing in the Wall Stree Journal, Stuart Varney discussed a "prominent bank" that I assume is Goldman Sachs, which was trying to give the TARP money back but the Obama administration is refusing to take it.  

Now it is clear what "negotiate" means.  Obama, Rahmbo and his band of liberal thugs are threatening Goldman in not too subtle ways that they better keep the TARP money, “or else”.  It seems entirely plausible that Obama wants to control the banks as long as possible to turn them into the vehicles of Democrat political patronage like Freddie and Fannie have been for decades – rewarding their supporters and punishing the non-believers.  The House last week passed a bill that will regulate not just the top bank executives but every single bank employee.  Paul Krugman seems to believe that anyone making more than $75,000 should be in jail.

At the end of December there were about 250 banks on the FDIC’s list of “troubled” banks that are significantly undercapitalized.  Most of these are smaller, community banks that will have to be closed and absorbed by stronger regional banks.  This is relatively small number out of the almost 10,000 U.S. banks.  But these banks are not the ones holding TARP funds.  Most of the banks receiving TARP funds were given the money because they were healthy enough to use the money to increase lending.  But while the Bush administration injected this capital for legitimate economic reasons, Obama is wielding the TARP like a cudgel to control every aspects of the banks business.

On auto front, Obama says he has no intention of running the auto companies, but then fires Rick Wagner, and mandates that most of the board of directors be replaced with a slate approved by the Obama administration.  Obama is now effectively GM’s CEO and has packed the board with the President’s loyalists.  He is dictating which brands will be retained and which ones must be killed.  How is all this not “running the auto companies”?  Obama and Pelosi’s House Politburo have no intention of getting rid of the two fleet mandate that forces GM and the other Detroit 3 to lose money building small cars in expensive UAW plants.  For all the posturing by President Obama about forcing GM into a controlled bankruptcy, I’ll believe it when I see it.  In the name of fairness why not fire Gettelfinger too?  How does serial wealth destroyer Bob Nardelli arbitrarily escape vengeance?

In a bankruptcy, a judge who is an expert in restructuring would make objective decisions based on the business and economics.  This is the last thing Obama wants.  It is about protecting the union at all costs and retaining political control of the company in order to dictate which products it will make.  The bondholders clearly don’t believe that Obama will allow GM to go into bankruptcy.  The bond bullies are refusing to take additional equity in exchange for debt.  Why should they?  A bankruptcy judge would cram the bondholders down and the union too.  But the bondholders are betting that won’t happen since the UAW loses leverage in a bankruptcy – which Obama won’t allow.  So they’re holding tough.

In an editorial last Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal opined:

Even if Chrysler merges and GM restructures, Mr. Obama wants the companies to make the kind of cars the political class favors, whether or not consumers want to by them.  “The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars,” the President said yesterday.  He didn’t mention profitability.  To that end, Treasury tapped Fiat’s know-how in small vehicles for Chrysler and wants to move in this direction.

It seems entirely plausible that President Obama will find a way to keep the U.S. auto companies in a Democrat purgatory just above insolvency in order to enact a leftist industrial policy.  All of this is about driving a leftist political agenda, not what is best economically.

I saw Bill Gross on CNBC last Friday.  He is the head of the world’s largest bond fund company, Pimco.  He has always struck me as apolitical.  He is a guy who wins or loses making enormous bets in the fixed income market, and he is one of the best.  I guess what I’m saying is he has to figure out what the truth is in terms of the economy to properly invest – irrespective of personal political beliefs.  He said that his believes that we are headed to a “new normal”.  This new normal will be one of extreme regulation and aggressive redistributionist policies.  He believes that although in the past our economy has been able to grow at a rate of 3-4%, this new normal will only permit growth of 1-2%.  That is a discouraging new reality.

Last year Charlie Gibson challenged then candidate Obama with the fact that his plan to raise capital gains taxes and top marginal rates would hurt economic growth and would lower tax revenues to the government?  Candidate Obama acknowledged that that was true, but answered that he would still enact those policies in the name of “fairness”.  This deep seated belief of Barack Obama that everyone should receive the same rewards without regard to an individual’s contribution is a fundamental Marxist tenant.  “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” said Marx.  Marxism severs any connection between contribution and reward.  

The socialist economies of Europe have not created new net jobs in a generation.  With apologies to Marx, in the real world people allowed to reap the rewards from risk taking is a powerful enabler of economic growth that benefits the greatest number of people through creating jobs and creating capital that can be reinvested in the economy.  Pro-growth policies in America created 40M new jobs in the last 25 years.  Government spending a dollar only takes a dollar away from private enterprise, through higher taxes or increased borrowing that has to be paid back, with interest.  It is a zero sum game.  Worse actually, because the dollar spent by the government is spent in a woefully inefficient way.  Only through rewarding risk-taking is new wealth and capital created.  But with Barack Obama and one-party Democrat rule we are headed to a world that many in Europe are now trying desperately to back away from.

The conservative President Sarkozy is now in power in France, attempting to stop the downward cycle of socicalist negative reinforcement.  Numerous British politicians are imploring the U.S. to learn from their mistakes and avoid the trap of nationalized, rationed health care.  Chancellor Merkle told Obama he was crazy if he thought she was going to spend stupid money on “stimulus” (“Stupid is as stupid does.”).  The Obama deficits surge to levels that are unprecedented and unsustainable.  From a historical 2% of GDP, Obama’s budget proposes deficits of up to 5% of GDP.  The majority of economists agree that deficits at 4% of GDP are economically unsustainable.  5% will be catastrophic.  All of this is even more disastrous if Bill Gross’ prediction of GDP growth of only 1-2% is correct.

Testifying before Congress, London School of Economics trained White House Budget Director Peter Ozag (who Obama promised was going to go through the federal budget line by line with a scalpel) admitted that spending and deficits at the levels proposed by the Obama administration are unsustainable.  But last week the House and Senate both passed bills that are more or less consistent with Obama’s “ask”.  Even more troubling, budget allocations for items like nationalized health care are acknowledged to be only a “down-payment”.  The real cost will be vastly higher.  But the Democrats are hurtling ahead, without time to even read their massive spending bills as they race to enact their final solution in the creation of the American welfare state. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Early In Term, Obama Most Polarizing President Of Modern Area

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic

In a newly released Pew Research poll, Obama is now the most polarizing early term president of the modern era.  While Obama continues to be personally popular, there is also growing unrest with his radical policies.  In Europe, he was treated like a rock star, but got absolutely nothing that he sought from the G-20 leaders – a total strike out.

Polls show that in this country an overwhelming majority of Americans are concerned or downright in opposition to Obama’s policies such as growing government, increasing spending, etc. with overwhelming opposition in some areas.  There is a striking disconnect between Obama’s personal popularity and agreement with his policy proposals and actions to date.

Not helping Obama’s cause is that Nancy Pelosi’s unfavorable rating has skyrocketed to 60%, with 42% rating her “very unfavorable”.  That is an astonishingly high unfavorable rating.

To bolster his cause, the Obama administration has resurrected the Clinton White House’s approach of polling and focus group testing every phrase and message.  To this day I firmly believe that Bill Clinton had no strongly held beliefs or principles from which he governed.  He just wanted to be popular and to be a two term president.  Bush got rid of all this nonsense.  He didn’t need it since he believed in what he was doing and governed from a strong set of principles and did not govern according to popularity polls.  With Obama, he also has deeply held principles and beliefs.  But since his agenda is largely disconcerting to the center-right majority, he needs to focus group test and poll test the semantics in order to obfuscate his true intent.

Tags: obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »