By that measure, my 8-year old son could be a better president -- he's a bright kid, but would likely stammer in front of the cameras to the same degree that Bush did.
What you could count on from him though, is that even if he didn't have sufficient insight and experience to improve the world much, he would at least have the good sense not to screw it up and make it much worse either.
No, I don't think my 8-year old would order invasions of foreign countries, nor condone torture, nor would he tell Americans after 9/11 that the best thing they could to to fight terrorism was to keep shopping, nor would he be inclined to offer tax cuts for the rich while doing nothing for the poor, nor would he continue his vacation while a national emergency was occurring in New Orleans, nor would he undercut the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa by cutting funding for condoms, nor would he allow U.S. veterans returning from Iraq to be deprived of sufficient health care, or of those fighting there to be deprived of adequate equipment, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Anyways, enough rambling, the point is, being better than Bush is child's play. We need a helluva lot more than that right now. And Obama should be measured not against Bush, but against what a real president should do.
And, on that basis, albeit after only a short time in office, he is already falling short, not just of expectations, but of his responsibility.
After 9/11, Bush had a global groundswell of popular support -- he had an incredible mandate and opportunity to do what was necessary and what was right. And Bush squandered that goodwill.
Now, Obama-mania has provided the new president with a similar mandate and opportunity to do what is necessary and what is right. The whole world is eagerly awaiting, not just a lucid speaker, but a new approach, a new direction, a new plan. And, so far, he too is squandering that goodwill.
His honeymoon is certainly not over yet. But if he persists on the course he has charted for himself so far, he will let down many many millions of people who bought into his twin messages of the "audacity of hope" and of "change you can believe in".
Cases in point:
- on the morning that the front page headlines announced Obama's call for a new era of responsibility, President Obama stuck with his appointee for Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, despite clear evidence that Mr. Geithner had deliberately cheated the U.S. of the taxes he owed (See Another Geithner ethics compromise (let them eat cake edition))
- Obama ordered the bombing of two villages in Pakistan, in a move that seems to do little to distance Obama from his predecessor (See Obama's Vietnam?)
- Obama and his economic team decided in its first week of office to stir up protectionist sentiments by having Geithner bash China, accusing them of currency manipulation; this notwithstanding the need to very soon issue a lot of Treasury notes and bonds, of which China is normally a major buyer -- needless to say, a very odd time to choose to piss off one of the most crucial financiers of U.S. deficit spending (See Geithner's China bash)
- despite hope that an Obama administration would employ an effective fiscal stimulus, presumably having learned from the failure of the Bush administration's tax rebates in 2008 to have much effect, its become clear that Obama has negotiated from a position not of strength, given both his popularity and his Democratic majority, but from a position of weakness, allowing the Republicans to water down the stimulus plan, with too much in the form of tax cuts, and way too delayed, as, according to the CBO, only a small portion of the infrastructure planning will be deployed by September
In that vein, Roger Ehrenberg has a great post at his blog Information Arbitrage, I just don't get it:
Why is the market so jazzed by the sketchy details we have over the "new" bailout plan? Buying bad assets, but at what price? Who is bearing the cost, the US taxpayer or the bank's common stockholders and debtholders? Early handicapping is that the taxpayer is going to take it on the chin. This is bad for many, good for a few. Not much of an improvement over TARP: The Horror Movie. I just don't get it.
Corporate earnings across most sectors have been awful with prospects that are not encouraging. Banks, even those that have been "bailed out" one or more times, are still posting stunning losses. The Fed and other central banks are getting cheers for pushing rates progressively closer to zero. Is this really the panacea that the equity markets have indicated over the past several trading days? I just don't get it.
I eagerly await the details of the stimulus plan. $800+ billion is certainly a lot of money. But how much of this monumental sum will be squandered on projects that have little impact on job creation? How much horse-trading will be done on the floor and between President Obama and Congress to get something, anything, done? The stuff I've read so far is not terribly impressive. I am concerned that the incredible momentum of Obama's electoral victory might be wasted if a more transformational plan does not emerge that receives bipartisan support. Yet the equity markets roll on. I just don't get it.
Americans are, by nature, an optimistic people. This is a very fine attribute that has served us well at many points in our history. But there are times when an abundance of realism is called for, and when actions need to be strong, swift and transforming. But few of the steps we've witnessed to date fall into that bucket, except the sheer amount of money spent with little to show for it. I just don't get it.
Many smart people have put forth ideas for dramatically re-shaping the financial sector and for using high-impact, high-ROI fiscal stimulus to get people working and to enhance the infrastructure and competitiveness of our nation. Yet precious few of these idea seem to be getting through. Maybe it is just too early in the new Administration to expect such things in our programs. But when $800 billion stimulus packages are getting approved by the House and there are few bold, sweeping moves contemplated by the legislation, it appears that our voices are falling on deaf ears. I just don't get it.
Just maybe the Fed can push rates to zero and China and Japan will continue buying Treasuries. Just maybe fear will keep the dollar strong while we run multi-trillion dollar deficits and keep rates across the curve low. Just maybe Citigroup and Bank of America can be bailed out without trashing common shareholders and certain debtholders, and cost US taxpayers less than if they were taken over and worked out. Just maybe millions will get back to work because low rates will help banks rebuild their balance sheets, enable businesses to borrow and invest, create a massive mortgage refinancing windfall and get consumers spending again. Just maybe we don't need an upgrading of our physical and technology infrastructures; it's good enough. Just maybe all of our dreams really will come true.
I just don't get it.
Nor do I.
No comments:
Post a Comment