Abe Greenwald quotes President Obama as saying this morning that science ”is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”
But as Peter Wehner points out today, the distinguished economic columnist Robert Samuelson accuses the president, in his proposed budget, precisely of distorting and concealing economic data to serve a political agenda and making economic decisions based on ideology, not facts.
So I guess economics isn’t a science, at least in Washington, D.C.
“But once Obama got into the White House, I think some people actually thought it would be different. He cares, after all, and he has such a high IQ. Krugman is going to have to come to grips with the possibility that maybe it wasn’t Bush that made government so incompetent. It was government.”
There’s a big truth in that little statement.
Conservatives are often blamed for being anti-government when that’s not true. By and large, we’re for *limited government*.
For too long, Americans have asked their federal government to do what their states could not do, their counties could not do, their cities and towns could not do. The ultimate result of this willing session of power is a federal government that has been asked to do too much for too many. A federal government asked by its people to worry about school uniforms in Topeka, light rail projects in Seattle, and prescription drugs in Los Angeles is a federal government unable to focus on defending this nation’s borders, defeating its enemies, and looking after the *general* welfare of ALL Americans.
A federal government asked to do everything for everyone will do nothing well for ANYONE. A federal government asked to do too much is a federal government that bungles Katrina, botches regulation of the financial sector, and loses sight of the proper division of labor between the levels of government in the federal republic.
People, if your town can’t afford to do it, don’t ask the state to bail you out– fix your town, or adjust your priorities. If your state can’t seem to manage it, elect new legislators or find a new governor– don’t run to Washington to ask people in Maine pay for mistakes made in Montana.
This attitude of passing the buck is now sadly engrained in the American consciousness. We pass the buck to the state which passes the buck to Washington, which passes the buck to the future generations of Americans who will pay off the debt we incurred today.
Stop passing the buck. Government CAN be effective when we ask it to do what government does best– limited functions.
So, which is it? Do we want liberty and effective government, or do we want comfort and omnipresent government?
“Cession”. Dang, my spelling sucks. No edit button, Commentary?
Really, Buffet’s comments seem to have hit home. Obama is at a critical juncture, this early into his administration. You never know when the 3AM call is going to come, but it is here. This isn’t Bush’s economy, it is Obama’s. He must prove he is an adult, and competent. Right now, there are questions on both. I don’t mean to utilize a 9/11 reference out of hand, but when 9/11 occurred, GWB had a choice. We can argue it forever, but it certainly drove his administration in a direction I don’t think anyone figured was in his orginal plans. I think he did mostly right, and I realize others will disagree.
This same moment is here for Obama.
I’m enjoying this:
“Among those shocked by President Obama’s 2010 budget, the most surprising are the true-blue liberals who run most of America’s nonprofits, universities and charities. How dare he limit tax deductions for charitable giving! They’re afraid they’ll get fewer donations, but they should be more concerned that Mr. Obama’s policies will shove them aside in favor of the New Charity State.
. . . . . This is how Europe’s welfare state works: Taxes are so high that private citizens have come to believe it is only the state’s duty to support cultural institutions and public welfare. The ambit for private giving shrinks.”
Pissed at the fools who’ve saddled you with Barack Obumbles and his merry band of socialists? Hit em back, cut your charitable giving.
good comment by Dave
We know the moment is here — actually it was here when Obama was inaugurated. But I fear that the public does not. First, the MSM still stridently refuses to hold Obama accountable for anything. In its Pavlovian way, the MSM goes to whatever dog-and-pony show Obama puts on — look at the 25 nice policemen in Ohio! How about that federally-funded (as though Harvard, MIT and CalTech couldn’t afford a few grants) stem-cell research! — and says, “nice.”
Second, the public is confused about the economy (and aren’t we all, to some extent). The public dislikes, but recognizes the inevitability, of some economic downturn. It understands that, even if Obama had a focused stimulus plan, it wouldn’t kick in for several months. And it realizes that any solution to/control of the financial sector is difficult and expensive.
Third, the opposition to Obama economics is confusing to the public. The opposition does not, naturally, speak with one voice. Indeed, there is no one right answer and the real task of the opposition now is to persuade the public that Obama economics — unfocused spending on government programs, combined with raising taxes and using government funds as venture capital money for bogus environmental projects — is exacerbating the economic downturn, rather than relieving it. Further, the opposition’s economic observations get no traction with the MSM. Instead, any opposition is tarred as being no more than “they’re opposed to extending unemployment benefits.”
A depression is simply an extended recession. That’s what Obama’s policies will create. And I see little likelihood that the public will realize that in time for there to be enough political heat to force Obama and the D’s to reverse policies.
An interesting article from Cato Journal by economist David Beckworth that provides some insights on the current situation: /tmp/cj28n3-1-1.pdf
sister maria bartiromo is absolutely right. and fire brownie I mean geitner
GYL:
There is some reason for optimism. CK wondered a week or so ago whether the Obama presidential support level on Rasmussen would crack the “support level” of 8 and argued that would be significant. It’s now been at 6 for two days. A new support level, or a pause on the way down? I think the latter. Someone earlier described his popularity as falling “like a rock through a viscous fluid.” That’s a pretty good simile for the current state of affairs.
I inhabit what is supposed to be a bastion of the most intelligent people. I am shocked at how few of these “most intelligent” people have been following the market closely enough to know they have been hosed, or to have the slightest inkling how directly it affects them. These are Obama voters, and I think they are in simple denial. Sooner or later they, and the rest of the country, will have to wake up to the truth. I suspect “the best and the brightest” may be the very last to do that.
“… and he has such a high IQ.” Really? What is his IQ? Does anybody know? My impression <130.
Now the question is can anyone stop the admin from talking about stuff the market hates. Citi had some good news as did many financial stocks, the budget spending is under some assault with hope it might be limited somewhat, Bernanke made some comments that sound prudent. The market, starved for good news, reacted favorably. Can we keep this going on?
From the linked WSJ article on the “Charity Revolt”:
“In defense, White House budget chief Peter Orszag wrote on his blog: ‘If you’re a teacher making $50,000 a year and decide to donate $1,000 to the Red Cross or United Way, you enjoy a tax break of $150. If you are Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and you make that same donation, you get a $350 deduction — more than twice the break as the teacher.’ This Administration wants to turn even philanthropy into a class issue.”
The White House certainly is attacking the wealthy class, but they also got their argument all wrong. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett would get no tax benefit from any charitable contribution. The charitable contribution is limited to 50% of taxable income, and the excess contribution is carried over to future years. Several years ago, both men gave some $30B to Bill Gates’ foundation. And a $30B charitable contribution means, practically, that both men will be deducting that carryover for the rest of their lives so any current year donation would have no additional tax savings. Even Secretary Geitner with Turbo Tax could have detected this situation.