One CEO told me, “Almost every agency we deal with has announced some expansion of its authority, which naturally makes me concerned about what’s in store for us for the future.” Another pointed out that between the health-care bill, financial reform and possibly cap-and-trade, his company had lawyers working day and night to figure out the implications of all these new regulations. Lobbyists have been delighted by all this activity. “[Obama] exaggerates our power, but he increases demand for our services,” superlobbyist Tony Podesta told the New York Times.
Most of the business leaders I spoke to had voted for Barack Obama. They still admire him. Those who had met him thought he was unusually smart. But all think he is, at his core, anti-business. When I asked for specifics, they pointed to the fact that Obama has no business executives in his Cabinet, that he rarely consults with CEOs (except for photo ops), that he has almost no private-sector experience, that he’s made clear he thinks government and nonprofit work are superior to the private sector. It all added up to a profound sense of distrust.
Some of this is a product of chance. The economic crisis forced the government to expand its authority in dozens of areas, from finance to automobiles. But precisely because of these circumstances, Obama needs to outline a growth and competitiveness agenda that is compelling to the business community. This might sound like psychology more than economics, and the populist left will surely scream that the last thing we need to do is pander to business. But the first thing we need is for these people to start spending their money — soon. As a leading New York businessman who publicly supported Obama during the campaign told me, “their perception is our reality.”
RE: “But the first thing we need is for these people to start spending their money — soon. . . . ”
Man — that is just so blind and ignorant.
The money is already spent. It is spent on 1) tax increases for next year, 2) the health [sic] care [sic] reform [sic] costs, 3) cap and trade future costs, and the new 4) financial reform [sic] costs.
“Most of the business leaders I spoke to had voted for Obama.”
This quote simply amazes. If these “leaders” had done even the most rudimentary research on Barry before they had voted, they would have known exactly what he was, and could have absolutely predicted his socialist, anti-business mentality. What it says about these leaders is a lot….and it isn’t good. For all you leaders that voted for him, pardon my lack of sympathy, and thanks for sticking the rest of us with this disaster.
Our CEO problem has one of two, and only two, roots:
1. Obama is grossly incompetent in fulfilling his promises made during the campaign and since.
or
2. Obama is horribly malevolent and is intentionally trying to destroy the economy of our nation.
For either of these reasons Obama should be removed from office immediately.
And then we’ll have President ‘Bite Me’.
Oh, joy!
Elections do, indeed, have consequences.
#3 – um , by what criteria is he incompetent? According to CQ his rate of political success is in the high 90%. And I am always amused at the amount of vitriol towards Obama, when it’s the banks who are refusing to open up their books and lend to businesses. That said, Obama could decrease payroll taxes, eliminate all student loans, and fund the state deficits. He could always do better, but such views are a bit utopian.
#2 – heh, I’m amused whenever people call Obama a socialist. Perhaps you might read articles by people who actually call themselves socialist and read what they think of Obama. And I’m usually bewildered that people would call his economic team “socialist.” Obama is to the right of Richard Nixon.
Reply to #4.,
John, President Obama has been, in my opinion. deliberately ‘cryptic’ regarding his core political philosophy both during his election campaign and since then.
But if you evaluate him on the basis of who he has selected for key appointed civilian positions in his government, the actions and inactions of those appointees, what he has said and not said, who he has not associated with or consulted, his focus on the ‘state’ as the source of problem resolution, his imbalanced trust in the ‘wisdom’ and ‘good will’ of labor union leadership in matters of business management, the people with whom he has associated himself (both pre-election and post-election), etc.,
you can draw a pretty good profile of the man.
And that profile is not pro-free-enterprise.
As I am sure you are aware, free enterprise, best practiced ethically and with a conscience for it to work well in ther long-term, has and will be the key to financial growth of America’s economy and the financial betterment/secuirity of the majority of Americans.
Actually, JW, Obama declares his incompetence in his own actions. Back in early January 2009, before he was immaculated, Obama’s economics gurus, Romer and Bernstein, announced on Obama’s behalf that Obama’s stimulus plan to flush $787B down the progressive drain would create (or save – Ha! Ha!) 3.5 million jobs, 90% of which would be in the public sector, and keep the unemployment rate under 8%. Obama thought so highly of the promise they made on his behalf that he made Romer head of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors and Bernstein went on to be Vice President Bite Me’s chief economist and economic-policy adviser. Both continue to serve at Obama’s pleasure in those positions to this day.
Well, VP Bite Me recently gave us that bad news that we are now up to over 8 million jobs lost – and they won’t be back any time soon! Unemployment peaked at a smidge under 10% and is now, temporarily, standing at 9.5% though a bigger number is in the future unless many more unemployed throw in the towel and land in the not-counted-in-the-rate ‘discouraged’ bucket.
Of the jobs created (or saved – Ha! Ha!) 90+% have been government jobs or employment to accompolish short-term projects funded by government payments to states or make-work contracts. Certainly not career positions – more like hiring an illegal day laborer in the Home Depot parking lot to schlep dirt from one pile to another.
Now, Obama, et. al., did in June 2009 do a mea culpa of sorts pleading ignorance of the depth of the problem. Yet the authors of his program that made (and makes) him look so bad continue to serve and speak for him on things economic. In fact, Time was pretty ( and most uncharacteristically) tough on him in their June 14, 2009 issue – “Obama’s Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure.†You can look it up.
If insanity is repeating the same destructive behavior long after one knows there is a better, healthier way, incompetence as President must certainly be defined as continuing the Obama Economic Program with slavish ideological abandon long after the American People have told us all in the polls that it just ain’t cuttin’ it.
If you need more examples of Obama’s lusterously sterling incompetence, just ask the history is replete for any who are willing to see.
But, don’t forget I can go either way. There is very strong case to be made for Obama advancing his ideologically malevolent design for the economic destruction of our nation that is equally persuasive.
Regardless, incompetent or malevolent, Obama (and all he stands for) needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history ASAP.
Sometimes a picture captures it better – http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/archives/2010/07/new_anthem.html
The words of the cartoon (sung to the tune of the National Anthem)
Oh, say can you see,
the gulf’s a toxic waste site.
All our efforts have failed
to stop the oil leak from streaming
Our lawmakers’ main goal
is to win their re-election fight.
Spending billions on health care
and on stimulus scheming.
And while jobs become rare,
and more go on welfare.
it gave proof that our economy
has not been repaired.
Oh, say how our big-spending politicians yet rave,
O’er the land that was once free,
and now is financially enslaved.
I’m not going to sing Obama’s praises, but I do have to say that the socialism cant is completely delusional, and that people who expected anything besides a not especially radical Democrat needed to listen to a wider selection of political commentators. It is perhaps the case that Obama needed to cut a more radical-sounding line to get the nomination; all he had to do to win the election was not be Bush, er, McCain.
If you read the rest of the article, you can see that companies are doing the classic depression-enabling behavior of accumulating cash rather than investing in anything. The increasing issue, it seems to me, is that the various partisans and dogmatists on the right are engaged in mutually reinforcing behavior to keep the economy in the hole so that they can get control of the white house and congress and try the Misesian experiment that pretty much everyone else agrees will bring the whole financial system down worldwide. Putting the budget in the black by cutting spending drastically is not going to make the economy recover; if you feel it is so necessary to get rid of the deficit, then by all means go back to a 1950s era tax structure and carve the deficit out of the income of the rich. Of course, that won’t happen; the Republicans are the party of budget deficits (at least since 1980) and they can hardly alienate their wealthy backers, and the Democrats have enough problems without being attacked even more for taxes. The way we’re headed, the only solution that is feasible is some sort of crisis to which government an industry cannot resist rising to in force, like a major war. Perhaps we can get the Russians to mount an invasion of Alaska with the understanding that we will pay them back with some sort of Marshall plan arrangement when we drive them back out.
#9 – Please stop repeating the story that taxes were so much more progressive in the 1950s. The actuality was that numerous loopholes allowed wealthy taxpayers to avoid getting socked with the ridiculous marginal rates then in existence. As part of the rationale behind dropping extreme marginal rates, the tax code was changed to get rid of most of these loopholes. The delightful AMT (alternative minimum tax) is just such a change.
Take a look at tax rates throughout the developed world today and you will find that the U.S. income tax rate is high and getting higher while the rest of the world has stopped raising their rates and, in more than a few instances, has cut some of them. I will cede the point that VAT taxes take an obscene amount of money out of the economies in Europe, but I dearly hope we will not implement that solution here. Let the states continue to collect sales taxes on a state by state basis.
For an additional point to ponder, research how well the European carbon taxes and cap and trade mechanism are working. From what I read, it is not working at all as intended; surprise, surprise. For a more chilling view of the future as brought to you by the clowns in Washington, I would point you to Steny Hoyer’s recent remarks that Social Security should be means tested; i.e., if you worked hard, saved for your retirement, and will enjoy an income from this then you don’t deserve the Social Security contributions you made, and your friends in D.C. will give them to someone more deserving (read as – someone who will vote reliably Democratic).
Dilbertnomore,
I’m impressed. I’m not sure how much of the stimulus package has been spent; I don’t even know if I can tell there’s been any impact. I was under the impression that not a lot of money had actually been spent just yet.
It may be true that Obama’s administration underestimated the severity of the economic collapse. He’s been unable to force banks to lend to others. But for some of us, that just proves that the stimulus package was too miserly. In fact, plenty of economists warned Obama that all it would do is stave off the recession a little; it wouldn’t stimulate successfully. That’s exactly what Krugman, for example, predicted. What is likely is that the stimulus package pulled us from the brink of a full fledged depression. Personally, dilbert, I’m just going to wait and see on judging our president on that one. Given the hostility of the opposition, I suspect he could walk on water and Repulicans would complain he couldn’t swim.
Does it show bad leadership? I’m not sure if you’ve been paying attention. You may disagree with his politics, but I suspect that success is about whether or not you get your policies passed. He got health care passed – something that T. Roosevelt, Truman, and Nixon couldn’t do. He’s been pretty effective at truncating Al-Qaeda. Russia and China seem to be softening in promoting sanctions against Iran. In January, Congressional Quarterly reported that Obama was, perhaps, the [url=http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/14/a-modern-day-lbj.html]most successful president[/url] in the first year since they started keeping statistics.
But is expanding high speed internet bad for the economy? Or good?
Imposing stricter rules on usury? Bad? Protecting the wilderness? Paying women fairly? Reducing nuclear warheads? Saving American Car companies? Challenging schools to improve their performance? Allowing families to keep children up to 26 on their health care plan?
What I can understand is that he might be too successful. And that drives the opposition crazy.
JW,
Not sure of your etymology so I’ll refer to you as JW since you refer to me as ‘dilbert’, an identity I escaped from some time ago, thus, Dilbertnomore.
Sorry for the delayed response. Been out of town. Where to begin WRT #11?
Glad you are impressed. Sad you don’t seek more examples of Obama’s incompetence or malfeasance, which I would very easily provide, and instead head off in other directions. I suppose you are fully satisfied with the smattering of evidence I presented and require no more out of fear more information that might affect your comfortable funk in his essence. On to your commentary.
Krugman. Yes, he would be the pettifogger who says from one side of his mouth via his well-consumed economics text, “…public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. Most economically advanced countries provide benefits to laid-off workers as a way to tide them over until they find a new job. In the United States, these benefits typically replace only a small fraction of worker’s income and expire after 26 weeks. In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,†the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European economies.” yet from the other side of his mouth from his commodious dwelling place in the NYT commentary swamp Krugman says, “Do unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work? Yes: workers receiving unemployment benefits aren’t quite as desperate as workers without benefits, and are likely to be slightly more choosy about accepting new jobs. The operative word here is “slightlyâ€: recent economic research suggests that the effect of unemployment benefits on worker behavior is much weaker than was previously believed. Still, it’s a real effect when the economy is doing well. But it’s an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation. When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise.”
So from the distinguished Economist Eurosclerosis results from bad practice in Europe, but Americosclerosis such as we are luxuriating in here is a good thing. So much for the intellectual integrity of this ‘iNobel Laureate’.
Leadership. Absolutely. Straight into the depths of Hell to save us from the grievous sins of our Founding Fathers and their damnably confining Constitution.
Your laundry list of Obama’s intentions. Very noble, but entirely unaccomplished.(Except for nukes, of course – I believe ours are quite good and benevolent. Everyone else’s are bad.) Intentions are his middle name and a middle digit to all of us.
Hi Dilbertnomore,
I don’t think Obama is perfect. By and large he’s extended plenty of Bush policies, selected two moderates to the supreme court, and shown too much of a willingness to believe in compromise, when it’s not in the GOP’s interest to do so. He hasn’t closed Guantanamo, nor has he really pressured the Israelis in any great fashion.
We may have different perspectives about how politics happens. I’m not a perfectionist. Most positive work has to be done locally, with people involved in their communities. It’s enough to have a leader who does his homework and believes that the public sector can actually help people. That’s enough for me.
Honestly, I think you might be misreading the quotes you have read by Krugman. If you read both carefully, it seems that Europe has generally had growing economies. In growing economies, a generous unemployment may discourage people from getting a job. That is not the case here. In our case, unemployment benefits encourage spending and decrease misery. Do you disagree? Perhaps you’ve been unemployed and without benefits, and found it to be edifying. I wouldn’t begrudge you if you had taken benefits. But even European workers would rather have a job.
I have no problem with nuance, or with professors changing their minds when the evidence indicates. If we want to encourage spending and alleviate misery until businesses start hiring, the government can help. The alternative is generations of misery.
As far as being unaccomplished, you have a much higher standard for Obama than I do. He’s been president for 2 years. Just today, Obama changed an administrative detail that will give soldiers immediate help if they’ve suffered PTSD. I’m sure deficit hawks will find this upsetting. Note also that he signed into legislation “pay-go” which will probably upset those who want war, but don’t want to pay for it.
Now if you think he’s got a poor management style, you might want to recall how Republicans thought he handled the McChrystal situation. But your criteria for success remains obscure to me. I never thought he was the messiah. I do think he is, given the circumstances, an effective president, in spite of the opposition. I sometimes wish he were less of a Republican, and channeled LBJ. Who ushered in the Civil Rights act and the Fair Housing Act, against great opposition.
RE: “By and large he’s extended plenty of Bush policies . . . ”
True — many of Bush’s policies were dreadful and Obama has put them on steroids.
RE: “. . . selected two moderates to the supreme court . . . ”
Tee hee — nope. He’ selected two raving loony radicals. But then, as John Wilkins is a raving loony radical but prefers to try on the word “moderate” for the loony radicals who support his views, that’s an understandable spin.
RE: ” . . . and shown too much of a willingness to believe in compromise . . . ”
Nonsense — it’s been scorched earth.
The funny thing is that John Wilkins — Episcopal priest — knows good and well that none of the things he said were true. He just tosses them out there, just to keep saying lies long enough in case someone possibly might believe them.
Dilbertnomore, John Wilkins is Gawain F. de Leeuw, vicar of St. Bartholomew’s in White Plains, New York. He’s a classic deconstructionist — and as a result never believes that people of his ilk are lying when they are — as well as a classic collectivist. Those two things inform his theology — which isn’t remotely Christian — as well as his politics. Much of his time over here over the years has been spent trying to acquire the words that people use to describe ideas and appropriate them for his own ideas, while never informing people of the changed definitions. Thus, “moderate” is actually the word he uses to describe “kooks who agree with my ideas” — because he knows that simply admitting that he’s a revisionist and a liberal doesn’t quite fly.
I’m going to differ with you on one thing, though. I agree with Gawain that Obama has been successful and has been a leader. Obama is a committed idealogue, much like Gawain [only Obama is President and Gawain is . . . frustrated and has only a few people over whom he has power to inflict his ideas] and Obama has done all in his power to seal his ideas into the fabric of the country, in complete opposition to the Constitution that he swore to uphold [but hey — what are lies in the service of a great cause?].
On the other hand, it doesn’t drive me crazy at all that Obama has been successful — he’s done nothing at all that I’ve not expected, given his ideology and commitments and foundational worldview. I’m moderately pleased over the fact that his success at implementing his ideology has gotten far more opposition than I would have thought, and I now have good hopes for the November election. Conservatives may potentially win back the House and be able to block more in the remaining two years of Obama’s presidency.