Well worth reading.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Looking Good, Barack!
This has been a good couple of weeks for President Obama.
With just over a year to go to the election, any prediction I make now could well be dead wrong. But for now, the President's prospects are looking good.
The big story, of course, is Thursday's killing of Muammar Qaddafi, Libyan strongman, "mad dog of the Middle East", and one of America's main bogey-men since the Reagan administration. Does Obama get the credit for this? Sure he does; his Administration's plan in Libya was brilliant in its "less-is-more" low-key simplicity-- the polar opposite of his predecessor's big spending, big talking and far less effective efforts in Iraq. Obama spent around $1 billion in Libya (about 0.1% of the Iraq war), and let the allies do most of the heavy lifting and take most of the credit. But does anyone seriously think this could have succeeded without U.S. technological and political backing?
Then, there is yesterday's news that we will be pulling all troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, finally cleaning up Bush's worst foreign-policy mess, just as Obama said he would. Sure, critics warn of a resurgent and dangerous Iran, and the dangers it poses in the region. But if this is the fear, Obama has rapidly proven that he is the best man to deal with the threat -- with his successful targeting of senior al-Qaeda figures (remember Osama Bin-Laden?) and aggressive drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen he has shown that he is no weakling, and Iran discounts him as an adversary at their own risk.
Whether polls show it or not, military and foreign policy is the most important job of any President, and Obama is now second to none on this front. Who can challenge him when it comes to our security and vital interests: Romney? Perry? Cain? Hah!
As far as the economy goes, most say that this will decide the election. But this has been a good week for Obama as well, with the recent signing of free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama (in descending order of economic importance). This won't turn the economy around on a dime, but will increase overall prosperity for years to come, and is an issue that has always had broad bipartisan centrist support. And, as reported in today's Wall Street Journal, it has helped lead to a "thaw" in the Senate, which has allowed the confirmation of several judges and other officials that had been "held" for Senate approval for months.
Speaking of the economy, I think the nation is coming to realize that we are in the midst of a long slog, as Americans become more thrifty and save more, reducing consumption, and thus slowing economic growth (see today's WSJ, Spenders Become Savers, Hurting Recovery, by Jon Hilsenrath and Ruth Simon). I believe this might be the beginning of a more sane, sustainable economy, one that is not based on living in a bigger house than you really need, having more (and bigger) cars and appliances than you can use, and financing them with debt. Yes, commerce and dreaming big are American values, but so are modesty, simplicity, spirituality and sacrifice. The idealist in me thinks that Americans can live happier and better lives without a high economic growth rate fueled by ever-increasing consumption. But one of the keys has to be a more equitable distribution of wealth.
There is a national heritage that we are all part of, and which contributes in large part to our well-being as individuals. In this I would include our roads, our national parks, our education system, our social security system, our system of medical care (which is now close to 50% publicly funded), not to mention our rich history and culture. By concentrating on these things, we build wealth for the entire country that we can all share in, and that cannot be taken away from any American. The days of a consumption-based economy, where the middle class buys more than they need, and the rich make a killing off their unnecessary purchases are over.
I hope that people are coming to realize that Republican policies that aim to take us back to this type of consumption-based economy are not appropriate in today's world. I hope that the widespread public support for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement are a symptom of this realization. So far, Obama is the only candidate who seems to get this, and offer something approaching a reasonable way forward.
With just over a year to go to the election, any prediction I make now could well be dead wrong. But for now, the President's prospects are looking good.
The big story, of course, is Thursday's killing of Muammar Qaddafi, Libyan strongman, "mad dog of the Middle East", and one of America's main bogey-men since the Reagan administration. Does Obama get the credit for this? Sure he does; his Administration's plan in Libya was brilliant in its "less-is-more" low-key simplicity-- the polar opposite of his predecessor's big spending, big talking and far less effective efforts in Iraq. Obama spent around $1 billion in Libya (about 0.1% of the Iraq war), and let the allies do most of the heavy lifting and take most of the credit. But does anyone seriously think this could have succeeded without U.S. technological and political backing?
Then, there is yesterday's news that we will be pulling all troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, finally cleaning up Bush's worst foreign-policy mess, just as Obama said he would. Sure, critics warn of a resurgent and dangerous Iran, and the dangers it poses in the region. But if this is the fear, Obama has rapidly proven that he is the best man to deal with the threat -- with his successful targeting of senior al-Qaeda figures (remember Osama Bin-Laden?) and aggressive drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen he has shown that he is no weakling, and Iran discounts him as an adversary at their own risk.
Whether polls show it or not, military and foreign policy is the most important job of any President, and Obama is now second to none on this front. Who can challenge him when it comes to our security and vital interests: Romney? Perry? Cain? Hah!
As far as the economy goes, most say that this will decide the election. But this has been a good week for Obama as well, with the recent signing of free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama (in descending order of economic importance). This won't turn the economy around on a dime, but will increase overall prosperity for years to come, and is an issue that has always had broad bipartisan centrist support. And, as reported in today's Wall Street Journal, it has helped lead to a "thaw" in the Senate, which has allowed the confirmation of several judges and other officials that had been "held" for Senate approval for months.
Speaking of the economy, I think the nation is coming to realize that we are in the midst of a long slog, as Americans become more thrifty and save more, reducing consumption, and thus slowing economic growth (see today's WSJ, Spenders Become Savers, Hurting Recovery, by Jon Hilsenrath and Ruth Simon). I believe this might be the beginning of a more sane, sustainable economy, one that is not based on living in a bigger house than you really need, having more (and bigger) cars and appliances than you can use, and financing them with debt. Yes, commerce and dreaming big are American values, but so are modesty, simplicity, spirituality and sacrifice. The idealist in me thinks that Americans can live happier and better lives without a high economic growth rate fueled by ever-increasing consumption. But one of the keys has to be a more equitable distribution of wealth.
There is a national heritage that we are all part of, and which contributes in large part to our well-being as individuals. In this I would include our roads, our national parks, our education system, our social security system, our system of medical care (which is now close to 50% publicly funded), not to mention our rich history and culture. By concentrating on these things, we build wealth for the entire country that we can all share in, and that cannot be taken away from any American. The days of a consumption-based economy, where the middle class buys more than they need, and the rich make a killing off their unnecessary purchases are over.
I hope that people are coming to realize that Republican policies that aim to take us back to this type of consumption-based economy are not appropriate in today's world. I hope that the widespread public support for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement are a symptom of this realization. So far, Obama is the only candidate who seems to get this, and offer something approaching a reasonable way forward.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Bashing President Obama and Pushing Dirty Energy
Article: Wall Street Journal, Canada's Oil Sands are a Jobs Gusher, by Mary O'Grady
I'm glad that in his speech on Thursday President Obama didn't say a word about green energy jobs. As I said in a previous post, I'm fairly convinced that subsidies for forms of energy that are not yet economically viable (e.g., solar and wind) are a waste of taxpayer money. (Research, on the other hand, is another story).
It seems like Ms. O'Grady, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal listened to a different speech than I did, or perhaps she didn't listen at all, just trotted out the old cliches one more time. Here is the first paragraph of her article:
For all its soaring rhetoric, President Obama's "jobs speech" last week didn't demonstrate a lick of insight into why economies grow or how wealth is created. It was merely trademark Obamanomics: using government diktat to move money that's over here, over there.
I'm glad that in his speech on Thursday President Obama didn't say a word about green energy jobs. As I said in a previous post, I'm fairly convinced that subsidies for forms of energy that are not yet economically viable (e.g., solar and wind) are a waste of taxpayer money. (Research, on the other hand, is another story).
It seems like Ms. O'Grady, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal listened to a different speech than I did, or perhaps she didn't listen at all, just trotted out the old cliches one more time. Here is the first paragraph of her article:
For all its soaring rhetoric, President Obama's "jobs speech" last week didn't demonstrate a lick of insight into why economies grow or how wealth is created. It was merely trademark Obamanomics: using government diktat to move money that's over here, over there.
What is she referring to, exactly? Cutting payroll taxes? I thought conservatives believed tax cuts were the key to prosperity. Investing in infrastructure projects a la Eisenhower? Investing in education? Cutting government red tape and streamlining regulation? Yes, these were the core elements in the President's speech.
She mentions Alberta's oil sands as an example of the type of exploration that will lead to increased jobs, then blasts Obama for allowing regulators to slow down drilling on Federal lands. My understanding is that the oil sands remained unexploited for years is because the oil that they contain is filthy, expensive to exploit and high in greenhouse gases and replete with negative environmental effects. The only reason Canada has had success with this energy source in the last few years is that the cost of imported oil has gotten so high. But what is the way forward for our energy future? Clean natural gas from the U.S.? Maybe. Dirty tar from Canada? Highly doubtful.
Ms. O'Grady also mentions that the market tanked 300 points the day after Obama's speech. Come on! Anyone following the market that day knows that this move was all about Europe, notably the highly scary resignation of German ECB official Jurgen Stark. As I recall, the market was up on Friday morning (largely on Obama's well-received speech and plan) before this news hit.
Obama's plan is not the be-all end-all, but it is a practical, centrist step in the right direction, which may actually have a chance of passing. Given budgetary constraints and a divided government, this may be the best we can hope for right now.
If Mary O'Grady wants to criticize the speech, perhaps she should start by actually listening to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
