Archive for the ‘Obama Administration’ Category

Alibi Ike … and other great lines from George Will.

June 24, 2010

Conservative columnist George Will offered up his review of Obama’s oval office oil spill speech.

The link is below … here are some of my favorite lines:

  • The news about his speech is that it is no longer news that he often gives bad speeches. This one, however, was almost magnificently awful.
  • There were trite war metaphors about “the battle” against oil “assaulting” our shores, for which “siege” he has a “battle plan.” (Our government declares war promiscuously — on drugs, poverty, cancer, environmental problems, etc. — but never when actually going to war.)
  • As usual, he attacked George W. Bush. (Chicagoan Obama resembles the fictional baseball player invented by Chicago’s Ring Lardner — Alibi Ike.)
  • He introduced a weird lament about a problem he has aggravated: “We’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.” He and his party oppose drilling in the tundra of ANWR and in shallower coastal waters.
  • “The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II.” Was it really? By whom? Most Americans then were too busy producing—and flying and driving—planes and tanks to entertain the thought Obama imagines was prevalent.
  • Advisers should explain to our Demosthenes that the correlation between the quantity of his speaking and the fortunes of the things for which he speaks is inverse.
  • Diminishing returns from his rhetoric may reflect the public’s recoil from wretched excess everywhere. The unceasing torrent of his ill-chosen words is analogous to the unstoppable oil spill, which itself resembles his and his party’s incontinent spending.

Newsweek, Word Spill – Our Demosthenes is also Alibi Ike, June 20, 2010
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/20/word-spill.html

And you thought you had a bad day …

June 23, 2010

This week hasn’t been going well for President Obama.

First, he catches a Tony Hayward ricochet: As the media tries to pillory Hayward for yachting (a dumb act, for sure), Obama gets outted for taking another stroll around the golf links.  His presser says “ Everyone is ok with the President taking some time off to clear his head on Father’s Day.”  Ken asks: why wasn’t he spending Father’s Day with his kids ?

Then, it gets leaked that Rahm Emmanuel is packing his bag.  Why?  Because a “pragmatic” Rahm is getting burned out butting heads with the White House ideologues.  Ouch.

Then, budget master Peter “Bend the Cost Curve” Orzag announces that he’s outta there in July.  Let somebody else tally the healthcare savings and cut the deficit.  Ouch, again.

Then, a Federal judge in LA rules that the arbitrary and capricious moratorium on off-shore oil drilling is, well, arbitrary and capricious.  Seems he didn’t think the 40 year record of non-spills from thousands of wells should be simply dismissed as an inconvenient fact – and he did have sympathy with the 90,000 workers who were losing their livelihoods.  Hmmm.

Then Gen McChrystal goes off in Rolling Stone – yakking about incompetency, disorganization, and lack of commitment in the administration – at a time that our military heroes are in harm’s way.  Most interesting point: nobody’s disputing the facts, just lamenting that loose-lipped Stanley went rogue.

Now, Obama has a tough decision,  Give McChrystal a pass and he confirms that he isn’t in command.  Fire him and the he takes sole ownership of the Afghan war – which, by the way, isn’t going that well these days.

Cue the teleprompter …

Obama shells out a mega-buck of taxpayer money to extol his “Big … Deal”

June 23, 2010

On Friday, President Obama’s economic victory lap stopped for an hour in Columbus, Ohio where he declared:

This is a “big….deal,” pausing for effect between the two words between which Biden had inserted an expletive in an overheard whisper three months ago.

CBS estimates that the trip cost taxpayers – you know, about half of the country —  between $500,000 and $1 million since:

  • Air Force One alone bills out at $100,000 per hour
  • There’s a fleet of accompanying military aircraft to carry limos and secret service vehicles
  • The Marine One helicopter is  on standby
  • The security entourage includes Secret Service, local police and other first responders.

And, oh yeah, construction sites in the immediate area were shut down for the day (on Secret Service orders) – so, about 100 workers got unpaid (and unwanted) days off. 

Source article: CBS News, Obama Jokes About Biden’s “Big F-ing Deal” Comment, June 18, 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008201-503544.html

Are those Hillary’s footsteps that O is hearing ?

June 21, 2010

Last week in the Homa Files we opined that President Obama made a critical mistake when he heeded Michelle’s advice and passed on Hillary as his VP

My argument: Obama has no operating people in his posse of lawyers, academics and political hacks – Hillary would have made an effective COO.

For the record, the Homa Files was on record before a flurry of Hillary chatter.

A day after our post, Sally Quinn wrote in the Wash Post that Hillary and Joe Biden should switch jobs. 

Her logic: it would position Hillary for 2016.

But there’s more …

* * * * *

Buried in a weekend WSJ opinion piece on how snakebit the President appears, Peggy Noonan snuck in a showstopper:

“ … among Democrats — and others — when the talk turns to the presidency it turns more and more to Hillary Clinton.

“We may have made a mistake. She would have been better.”

Sooner or later the secretary of state is going to come under fairly consistent pressure to begin to consider 2012.“

WSJ, A Snakebit President, Noonan, June18, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313181930072638.html

* * * * *

A couple of factoids:

Shortly after the 2008 election, a plugged-in politico told me that Hillary was looking towards 2012 by “keeping the core of her campaign group, expecting Obama’s presidency to implode.”

Hmmm.

Then last fall, Gallup published the results of a survey that revealed Hillary to have favorable ratings than Obama … and that was before the healthcare fiasco, the Sestak meddling, the dissing of Israel, the BP oil spill, etc.  Gotta think her gap is even greater now.

image

Source: Gallup, Hillary Clinton Now More Popular Than Barack Obama October 15, 2009
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123665/Hillary-Clinton-More-Popular-Barack-Obama.aspx

* * * * *

These days, Bill is running around trying to save Dem congressional candidates who are trying to distance themselves from Obama.

Think Obama — with his approval rating down to 41% and even mainstream media questioning his competence — is looking over his shoulder ?

“Keep your non-union oil skimmers out of our Gulf” … huh

June 18, 2010

“We’ve been doing everything we can since Day 1”

Oh really ?

Except for letting other nations send their oil skimming fleets to the Gulf.

Team O has turned down offers from the Dutch (on day 3), the Swedes, the Saudis, and the Mexicans.

Why ?

The Jones Act prohibits foreign flagged ships from our waters – except for single port loading or unloading of freight or people. It’s “an antiquated 1920 law mandating that goods shipped between U.S. ports be handled by U.S.-built and -owned ships manned by U.S. crews.”

Why the Jones Act?  Because unions say so.

Unions fiercely support the law as a means of preserving U.S. jobs.

Bush waived the Jones Act in the first week of Katrina.

Obama refuses waive it for the Gulf clean-up to because his union base says no.

Politics trumps clean-up.

Surprised ?

For more details:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575310800313251666.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

How’s your productivity today ? … More or less than $1 billion per minute?

June 17, 2010

Show ‘em you’re boss – Step #1

Summon the top execs of a (foreign) mega-corporation to the White House.

Show ‘em you’re boss – Step #2

Demand that they ante $20 billion into a recovery slush fund.

Show ‘em you’re boss – Step #3

Leave the meeting after 20 minutes.

* * * * *

Productivity = $1 billion per minute = pretty good

* * * * *

Implication: If O can keep up the pace, the National Debt will be gone in no time.

* * * * *

Question: Why did BP ante in without a fight ? 

Dumb or something up their sleeve?

I’m watching their sleeves …

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN16174261

20/20 Hindsight: Obama’s critical mistake … coming from me, this will surprise you.

June 17, 2010

Here’s a take I haven’t heard from the pundits …

Obama is getting slammed – justifiably if you ask me – for flailing (and failing) as an executive.

Even Lib Dems are raising the competency issue.  Much chatter about his complete lack of executive experience and his entourage of lawyers, academics, and politicos. 

Not a business exec or “operating person” in sight … think goofy Joe Biden dishing stimulus money to non-existent zip codes or creepy Ken Salazar threatening BP or clueless Robert Gibbs spouting nonsense about what corporate boards do.

Obama fashions himself as a CEO. 

My take: he’s more akin to a non-executive chairman of the board … think Tony Hayward’s boss at BP.  A mega-high altitude thinker who occasionally prods the organization for better performance.

But, I’ll give Obama the CEO title.

What he’s missing is a strong, operations-oriented COO reporting to him.  Somebody who’s into details, has mental toughness, and has a propensity to get things done.

Somebody like – here it comes – Hillary Clinton.

Can’t you imagine her on the Gulf right now – kicking butt without waiting for a committee to tell her who to target – working 24 hour days to make stuff happen ?

I disagree with  Hillary on practically all policy issues and question her motives, but I’ve always conceded her aggressiveness and qualifications.

Obama ruled her out as VP because he felt threatened by her (my opinion) and because he didn’t want to operate in Bill’s shadow (Obama says).

The irony is that now Obama is counting on Bill to save the Dem’s butts in the November elections.

Imagine what the Obama administration would be like with Hillary running the operations …

Flash: O’s morning after polling …

June 16, 2010

According to this morning’s Rasmussen poll results …

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s job performance.

That’s the lowest level of approval yet recorded for this president.

The president’s approval rating has held steady in the 46% – 47% range for six months.

It remains to be seen whether this new low is merely statistical noise or the start of a lasting change.

image

Full report:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Roof leaking? … Then bulldoze the neighborhood.

June 16, 2010

Couple of takes from last nights speech ….

* * * * *

Probably just me, but the President just didn’t look right in the venue.  It reminded me of student-government day when the Class Prez got to be Mayor of Maple Heights for a day. 

Or, maybe it was the lack of a doting throng of pressers and supporters.  Just didn’t seem right.

* * * * *

I’m glad the WH leaked that last night’s address would be a shameless pivot to Cap & Tax – oops, I mean Cap & Trade.  Otherwise I would have screamed.

After a couple of minutes of necessary Gulf spill foreplay, it was …  bang ! … go for the order: 

The roof is leaking badly, so it’s time to bulldoze the neighborhood and rebuild with most costly homes (Fannie financed, of course).

* * * * *

I cringe every time Obama mentions the Nobel prize winning Secretary of Energy. 

1) Doesn’t the President know that many folks considered his Nobel Peace Prize to be laughable?  Where exactly has peace broken out ?

2) I forget, was Chou’s prize in petroleum engineering or something else relevant? 

3) What exactly has the dude done so far? Looks to me like the oil is still gushing and heading towards shore …

* * * * *

I didn’t hear any references to the Governors who have stepped up to make things happen.

Why no mention Salazar (it’s his arena), Napolitano (“it’s a matter of national security”), Holder (lien on them and put ‘em in jail), or the head of FEMA (whoever that might be).  Weren’t they dispatched to manage the mess?

There still isn’t an organization structure – staffed by capable managers – that can get control of the situation.

* * * * *

Unprecedented” has replaced “paradigm” as my most dreaded word …

Flashback: Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required

June 15, 2010

Have you noticed that Salazar and Napolitano haven’t been getting much Gulf face time these days ?

Have you noticed that – except for Coast Guard Admiral Allen – nobody from Team O has a clue how to take charge of the situation ?

All completely predictable from the Team O resumes – all lawyers, academics, and political hacks – nobody who has run anything but a campaign.

Here’s a flashback to last December that saw this one coming.  Only suspense was what the ‘event’ would be.

* * * * *

Originally posted December 4, 2009:
https://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/help-wanted-no-private-sector-experience-required/

This analysis — reported by AEI and sourced to JP Morgan researchers — examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy.

It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.

obamacabinet
AEI, Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required, November 25, 2009
http://blog.american.com/?p=7572

In the Obama administration over 90 percent of the players’ prior experience was in the public sector, academia, or law practices. Virtually no “business experience” per se.

* * * * *

Ken’s Take:

(1) Quibble with the numbers, but directionally the conclusion fits — which is why the Faux Stimulus didn’t work, why the spending is out of control, why there’s sloppy implementation (think Cash for Clunkers), and why businesses refuse to rebuild their payrolls.

(2) Note that the analysis was sourced to JP Morgan. I’ve heard from my sources that off-the-record boardroom commentaries re: the Obama administration has turned very, very negative.  But, public commentary is constrained by fear of vindictive government retribution (think pay caps, voiding of contracts, etc.).  Surprised me that JPM is associated with the analysis.

(3) Liberal blogs have marshalled to debunk the 10% number for Obama’s advisers.  Their rebuttals are laughable — largely claiming that private sector experience includes having had a parent who had a real job. having been a lawyer with at least one private sector client, having run a campaign, or having been a university administrator.  For example, here are a couple of my favorites:

Vice President Joe Biden – Private experience:  Yes.   Biden’s father worked in the private sector his entire life — unsuccessfully for a critical period.  Biden attended a private university’s law school (Syracuse), and operated a successful-because-of-property-management law practice for three years before winning election to the U.S. Senate.   Running a campaign is a private business, too — and Biden’s first campaign was masterful entrepreneurship.

Secretary of Interior Kenneth L. Salazar – Private sector experience: Yes. Besides a distinguished career in government, as advisor and Cabinet Member with Colorado Gov. Roy Romer, Salazar was a successful private-practice attorney from 1981 to 1985, and then again from 1994 to 1998 when he won election as Colorado’s Attorney General.    Salazar’s family is in ranching, and he is usually listed as a “rancher from Colorado.”

Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis – Private sector experience:  Yes.   Solis’s father was a Teamster and union organizer who contracted lead poisoning on the job; her mother was an assembly line worker for Mattel Toys.  She overachieved in high school and ignored her counselor’s advice to avoid college, and earned degrees from Cal Poly-Pomona and USC.  She held a variety of posts in federal government before returning to California to work for education and win election to the California House and California Senate, and then to Congress.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan – Private sector experience:  Yes.  Duncan earned Academic All-American honors in basketball at Harvard.  His private sector is among the more unusual of any cabinet member’s, and more competitive.  Duncan played professional basketball: “From 1987 to 1991, Duncan played professional basketball in Australia with the Eastside Spectres of the [Australian] National Basketball League, and while there, worked with children who were wards of the state. He also played with the Rhode Island Gulls and tried out for the New Jersey Jammers.”  Since leaving basketball he’s worked in education, about four years in a private company aiming to improve education.

To verify the above examples — and for a few more chuckles — check out
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/obamas-well-qualified-cabinet-conservatives-hoaxed-by-j-p-morgan-chart-that-verifies-prejudices/

Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson ?

June 4, 2010

This caught my eye because I frequently use the characterization in references that somebody can (or can not) take a punch.

For me, it’s shorthand for how a person deals with unexpected adversity and criticism.

It’s a gauge of character …

* * * * *

David Axelrod was reportedly concerned about candidate Obama’s “willingness and ability to put up with something never before experienced on a sustained basis: criticism. I don’t know if you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch.”
 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/27/obama-the-thin-skinned-president/

  • Note to non-sporters and young folks, Ali could – Patterson couldn’t

Last week, there were none too flattering characterizations of Obama floating around: thin-skinned, defensive, whiney, blame shifting … and one TV pundit quipped “America wants a president, not a princess”.

Paraphrasing MLK: A person’s true character is revealed in not times of prosperity, but in times of adversity

* * * * *


This has been the toughest year and a half since the 1930s … oh really ?

June 3, 2010

Every promoted business manager faces challenges that were rolled to him by his predecessor.

From my consulting days, I know that all companies think that they’re competing in the most challenging industries, at the most challenging times, against the most formidable foes ever.

Effective managers read the cards they were dealt and craft the strategies and tactics required to remediate the issues and leverage the jewels.

Ineffective managers just whine about the weak hands they were given, remorse over unkindly “shocks”, and focus on ducking blame.  In business they don’t last very long.

* * * * *

Excerpted from Politics Daily: Obama, the Thin-Skinned President
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/27/obama-the-thin-skinned-president/

In a fundraising event for Sen. Barbara Boxer, President Obama repeated his constant refrain:

“Let’s face it: this has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930s.”

Really, now?

  • Worse than the period surrounding December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001?
  • Worse than what Gerald Ford faced after the resignation of Richard Nixon and Watergate, which constituted the worse constitutional scandal in our history and tore the country apart?
  • Worse than what Ronald Reagan faced after Jimmy Carter (when interest rates were 22 percent, inflation was more than 13 percent, and Reagan faced something entirely new under the sun, “stagflation”)?
  • Worse than 1968, when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated and there was rioting in our streets?
  • Worse than what LBJ faced during Vietnam — a war which eventually claimed more than 58,000 lives?
  • Worse than what John Kennedy faced in the Bay of Pigs and in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we and the Soviet Union edged up to the brink of nuclear war?
  • Worse than what Franklin Roosevelt faced on the eve of the Normandy invasion?
  • Worse than what Bush faced in Iraq in 2006, when that nation was on the edge of civil war, or when the financial system collapsed in the last months of his presidency?
  • Worse than what Truman faced in defeating imperial Japan, in reconstructing post-war Europe, and in responding to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea?

In Obama’s eyes, he is always the aggrieved, always the violated, always the victim of some injustice.

He is America’s virtuous and valorous hero, a man of unusually pure motives and uncommon wisdom, under assault by the forces of darkness.

It is all so darn unfair.

Or maybe a man who was as unprepared to be president as any man in our lifetime — has over the last 16 months shown that he is overmatched by events.

Source: “Obama, the Thin-Skinned President”
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/27/obama-the-thin-skinned-president/

Bush was dumb … Obama is smart.

June 1, 2010

This caught my attention last week during the press conference, and was reported in the WSJ’s “Best of the Web”.

An interesting illustration of the the way mass media cut Bush no slack, but constantly gives Obama a pass …

  • Headline #1:
    With Recession Looming, Bush
    Tells America to ‘Go Shopping More’

    ThinkProgress.org, Dec. 20, 2006
  • Headline #2:
    Obama: Go to Gulf Beaches;
    Most Still Open, Clean

    Associated Press, May 27, 2010

The prevailing commentary to #1:

Freakin’ moron, that was the same advice you gave us after 9-11.

What an AMAZING grasp of economics you have!!!!

The prevailing commentary to #2:

With the summer tourist season about to start, Obama provided timely encouragement to Americans.

He emphasized that they can help people along the Gulf by continuing to visit their communities and beaches.

Hmmm …

* * * * *

See the Best of the Web post titled “The Thinker”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704596504575272542364164212.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

The difference between price and value …

June 1, 2010

In my courses, I try to emphasize the difference between price and value.

The Sestak affair provides a memorable (I hope) example.

Background: Fed law prohibits offering something of value to someone to impact the outcome of an election. There seems to be common agreement on that.

Obama’s lawyers’ written explanation tried to parse around the law: Yes, there was an offer, but the position offered was to be uncompensated. So, no violation.

Big mistake.

Even accepting their explanation, Sestak was offered something of value: prestige, access to the President, etc. 

Just because something is free  (i.e. uncompensated) doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value.

Think about it: the Administration’s argument boils down to having a former President offer Sestak nothing to drop out of the Senate race … ‘nothing’ usually isn’t a strong incentive for changed behavior.

* * * * *

Another example: I’m doing this blog post on WordPress.  I pay nothing to use WordPress’ software and storage … but they provide me with enormous value.

The Sestak predicament: somebody’s gotta be lying … uh-oh.

May 27, 2010

Long ago, Congressman Joe Sestak said that he was offered a high ranking position in the Obama administration if he’d step aside rather than challenging Sen. Specter in the Dem primary.

Of course, Obama folks denied the claim.

Issue would have faded … but Sestak screwed things up by staying in the race and winning.

Why is that a problem?

Well, it gives the GOP a ‘”can’t lose” issue.

I see  only 3 options:

(1) Obama folks continue playing rope-a-dope and the issue stays alive … seeming sinister and begging the question what are they hiding ?

(2) Obama folks “prove” that Sestak is fabricating the story … and, who wants to elect a Senator who gets caught lying from the get-go?

(3) Sestak names names and gives details of the offer … which causes legal problems for the administration.  Why ? It’s reported to be a Federal felony to tamper with an election – and to bribe somebody to drop out of an election is, well, tampering. 

I expect option(1) to prevail. so if the GOP wins a majority of either the Senate or Congress in Nov., expect investigative hearings on this issue to be high on the agenda. 

Hope so – they’ll be fun to watch and might keep our elected reps distracted from their spending bills.

‘Ridiculous finger-pointing’ or ‘systemic failure’ … it’s in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

May 18, 2010

Last week, President Obama lambasted BP, TransOcean and Halliburton for “ridiculous finger-pointing” that he “didn’t appreciate”.

Ridiculous finger-pointing ? 

Hmmm.

So, the President points his finger at, well, finger-pointers.  That in itself is funny, isn’t it ?

From a guy who then went to a fundraising event where he proceeded to point his finger (again) at Pres. Bush for everything except the Bubonic Plague.

From a guy whose department heads in State, Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, FBI all pointed their fingers at the others – to duck blame for the Xmas underwear bomber.

In that case, the finger pointing was legitimized as characterizing a “systemic failure”. 

Translation: it was nobody’s responsibility – certainly not the President’s.

Why didn’t BP, TransOcean and Halliburton just claim the oil well blast & leak was simply a systemic failure ?  Then, maybe, the President wouldn’t have pointed his finger at them for finger pointing !

AG Holder: “It’s unconstitutional … No, I haven’t had a chance to read it”

May 17, 2010

Talk about shooting first and aiming later.

AG Eric Holder has made cameos on new shows warning that the Arizona law enforcing U.S. immigration laws could lead to racial profiling, might prompt Latinos to stop cooperating with police, and might be unconstitutional — all “on the basis of things that (he has) been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television”.

When asked by Rep. Poe of Texas if he had read the 10 page bill, Holder admitted “I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it – I have not read it”.

Note: the entire bill is only 10 pages long.

Below is the video and a transcript.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rH1FEcbi4A

* * * * *

REP. TED POE:  So Arizona, since the federal government fails to secure the border, desperately passed laws to protect its own people. The law is supported by 70 percent of the people in Arizona, 60 percent of all Americans and 50 percent of all Hispanics, according to The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll done just this week. And I understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. It seems to me the administration ought to be enforcing border security and immigration laws and not challenge them and that the administration is on the wrong side of the American people. Have you read the Arizona law?

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.

POE: It’s 10 pages. It’s a lot shorter than the health care bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it, if you would like to — to have a copy.

Are you going to read the law?

HOLDER: I’m sure I will read the law  … I’ll spend a good evening reading that law.

POE: Well, I’ve gone through it. And it’s pretty simple. It takes the federal law and makes it — enacts it in a state statute, although makes it much more refined in that it actually says in one of the sections that no state or subdivision may consider race, color, national origin in implementing the requirements of any subsection of this law.

It seems to outlaw racial profiling in the law. I know there’s been a lot of media hype about the — the legislation.

You have some concerns about the statute. And it’s — it’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you hadn’t even read the law.

HOLDER: Well, what I’ve said is that I’ve not made up my mind. I’ve only made — made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people

* * * * *

Full transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/14/transcript-holder-hot-seat-arizona-immigration-law/

Implementation is the hard part … especially if you don’t have any experience.

May 13, 2010

Back in December, there was a report circulating that “In the Obama administration over 90 percent of the players’ prior experience was in the public sector, academia, or law practices. Virtually no business experience per se.”

obamacabinet

For details, see: Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required
https://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/help-wanted-no-private-sector-experience-required/

At the time, liberals debunked the study as both untrue and irrelevant.

In the past week or so, I spotted 2 articles that play on the original report.

One is from the right-leaning Washington Examiner, so it’s likely to be dismissed by many folks as partisan.

As the president said about the passage of his new national health program: “We proved we’re still a people capable of doing big things.”

More accurately, it proved that Washington is still capable of saying big things. The doing part is another matter.

The RAND Corp. told us that rather than holding off premium increases, the president’s health program will drive premiums up 17 percent. The Congressional Budget Office projected that 10 million people will be booted from their employer-based policies. Medicare’s chief actuary predicted a $311 billion health spending increase on Medicare and dramatic cuts to services over the next decade.

Whether you love the idea of government-guaranteed health insurance or hate it, no sensible person expects what’s been enacted to work properly.

Excerpted from Washington Examiner: Trust gap will haunt Democrats in November, May 10, 2010
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Trust-gap-will-haunt-Democrats-in-November-93238804.html

Another is from uber-liberal Joe Klein of Time magazine.  Not so easily dismissed.

Obama’s health care reform, and the soon-to-be-passed financial-reform bill, will create scads of new and reinforced regulatory agencies. They will have to be managed well if those new programs are to succeed — and good management is, sadly, neither a government specialty nor a priority.

Democrats tend to be more interested in legislating than in managing.

They come to office filled with irrational exuberance, pass giant fur balls of legislation — stuff that often sounds fabulous, in principle — and expect a stultified bureaucracy, bereft of the incentives and punishments of the private sector, to manage it all with the efficiency of a bounty hunter.

Traditionally, Republicans were more concerned with good management than Democrats.

But even if Republicans were intent on managing the necessary bureaucratic evils, and even if Democrats understood that making the government run brilliantly was the key to building support for their programs, there would be problems inherent in the nature of the beast.

Most bills are designed for passage, not implementation. They are stuffed with special provisions inserted by lobbyists and predatory politicians. They are empretzeled with circuitous funding mechanisms.

And then there is the nature of the bureaucracy itself.

Three types of people tend to seek government work: idealists, those looking for sinecures and those who want to build lucrative private-sector careers based on their knowledge of government regulations. All three types present problems.

There is a pretty good, but not overpowering, reason government workers are hard to fire: they need to be protected from political pressure. But that protection inevitably produces regulators who, as in a recent notorious case at the Securities and Exchange Commission, spend more time watching porn than riding herd on Wall Street.

Too many of their colleagues who are not watching porn are building expertise that will enable them to beat the regulatory system when they exit the revolving door into private finance.

Even the idealists, who are prominent in places like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), can cause trouble if they are naive and inflexible in their enforcement of rules and regulations.

Management 101: What the Democrats Need to Learn, by Joe Klein Thursday, May. 06, 2010
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1987358,00.html

Gee.  Do you think adding a couple of experienced business managers to the team might help ?

A parody of parroting: "… from day one …"

May 5, 2010

Grandma Homa adage “say something often enough and people will start believing it.”

Well, President Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that American people will believe absolutely anything if it’s said often enough.  Think “not one single dime” or “on C-Span” …

For the record, I’m not on the ‘slow response’ bandwagon — I wasn’t on Bush for Katrina —  and to be consistent — I can’t jump on Obama for the oil spill.

But, I am amused by the Administration’s rapid response to re-write history. 

Even the NY Times has turned on Obama : “It took the administration more than a week to really get moving. The timetable is damning.”

The Administration’s response?  A downright laughable media blitz with the talking point mantra — “from day one” — that’s being parroted ad nauseam by administration lackies so of often that it’s becoming a parody of “on message”.

Click the pic to see it for yourself:

image

I expect “from day one” will become part everyday jargon now … and proof positive that if you say something often enough, people will believe it

Grandma Homa had it right on that one.

* * * * *

Excerpted from NY Times: Unanswered Questions on the Spill, April 30, 2010

President Obama has ordered a freeze on new offshore drilling leases as well as a “thorough review” into what is almost sure to be the worst oil spill in this country’s history — exceeding in size and environmental damage the calamitous Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989.

The company, BP, seems to have been slow to ask for help.

Yet the administration should not have waited, and should have intervened much more quickly on its own initiative.

A White House as politically attuned as this one should have been conscious of two obvious historical lessons. One was the Exxon Valdez, where a late and lame response by both industry and the federal government all but destroyed one of the country’s richest fishing grounds and ended up costing billions of dollars. The other was President George W. Bush’s hapless response to Hurricane Katrina.

Now we have another disaster in more or less the same neck of the woods, and it takes the administration more than a week to really get moving.

The timetable is damning. The blowout occurred on April 20. In short order, fire broke out on the rig, taking 11 lives, the rig collapsed and oil began leaking at a rate of 40,000 gallons a day. BP tried but failed to plug the well. Even so, BP appears to have remained confident that it could handle the situation with private resources (as did the administration) until Wednesday night, when, at a hastily called news conference, the Coast Guard quintupled its estimate of the leak to 5,000 barrels, or more than 200,000 gallons a day.

Only then did the administration move into high gear … with a series of media events designed to convey urgency — including a Rose Garden appearance by the president and dispatching of every cabinet officer with the remotest interest in the disaster to a command center in Louisiana.

We now face a huge disaster whose consequences might have been minimized with swifter action.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html

The "spill" will be a problem for Obama … here’s why.

May 4, 2010

Lots of chatter on the right-leaning talk shows along two points:

(1) Obama was slow to respond to the crisis … no better than Bush on Katrina.

(2) There goes off-shore drilling as a source of oil for the U.S.

I can’t take the slow response criticism seriously.  I didn’t think Bush deserved it (should he have declared the LA Governor and N.O. Mayor to be grossly inept and Federalized the state ?)  … so I can’t criticize Obama on this one.

Interestingly, Obama got boxed by some bad timing.  Just a couple of weeks ago he announced expansion of off-shore drilling. While the announcement had no substance to it (actually cut back on authorized areas), it did provide some pro-drilling sound bites.  If he hadn’t said it, he would be in the catbird seat now: “See, I told you offshore drilling was bad.”  But, now he’s rhetorically in the offshore canoe.  We’ll see on that one.

My take: There will be a ‘discontinuity’ in offshore production.  This well is gone, and others will be shut or slowed by government inspections and reviews.

So what? 

I expect gas prices to be over $4 by the end of the summer … and maybe as high as $5 … due to curtailed supply and the oil companies costs of clean-up and mandatory rig upgrading.

The impact? Uh-oh for the economy. Oil is a major cost component of many products.  So, if oil prices spike, a broad range of prices to go up, demand will falter, and the expected recovery will sputter.

That means that unemployment stays high going into the November elections.

That’s a problem for the President.

One of these things is not like the others …

May 3, 2010

Remember the Sesame Street skits where — as a kid — you had to identify that in a group consisting of an apple, an orange, a dog, and a grapefruit that the dog “wasn’t like the others” ?

* * * * *

Let’s play that game again.  Here’s the group:

(a)  “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZcEHLr4gBg

(b) “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/28/obama_to_wall_street_i_do_think_at_a_certain_point_youve_made_enough_money.html

(c) “There will be time for them to make profits … now is not that time.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/01/obama_now_is_not_the_time_for.html

(d)  “I’m not anti-business … or anti-capitalism”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_32/b4142000676096.htm

* * * * *

If you were raised on Sesame Street, you probably picked (d) … correct.

* * * * *

There are a bunch of ironies:

(1) Some people seem genuinely surprised these days that Obama is trying to spread the wealth around … geez, he said he was going to do it and people voted for him and his ideas.  As the President likes to say (over & over & over): elections have consequences.

(2) Apparently $5.5 million per year is below the threshold of “you’ve made too much money” since that was what Obama raked in last year while in his $400,000 per year job as President … hmmm.  Remember in a debate John McCain answered “what’s rich?” with the answer: $5 million … double hmmm.

(3) Jobs, jobs, jobs … if the Dems have an Achilles Heel this November it’s the unemployment rate.  Other than bloating the government bureaucracies and watchdog agencies, where does the President think the jobs are going to be created?  Does he really think that he can rally American businesses by constantly vilifying them — one after another?  I guess the approach might work, but I’m taking the under bet …

It’s called "principle": Why tea partiers swayed by a dollar-a-day …

April 21, 2010

Punch line: Tea party supporters are not easily bought off with dollar-a-day tax credits — they resist an emerging culture of dependence.

* * * * *
Excerpted from Washington Examiner, Tea Partiers Fight Culture of Dependence, April 19, 2010

The Obama Democrats’ vast expansion of the size and scope of government — is really not just about economics. It is really a battle about culture, a battle between the culture of dependence and the culture of independence.

The Obama Democrats see a society in which ordinary people cannot fend for themselves, where they need to have their incomes supplemented, their health care insurance regulated and guaranteed, their relationships with their employers governed by union leaders. Highly educated mandarins can make better decisions for them than they can make themselves. That is the culture of dependence.

The tea partiers see things differently.

They’re not looking for lower taxes — half of tea party supporters, a New York Times survey found, think their taxes are fair. Nor are they financially secure — half say someone in their household may lose their job in the next year. Two-thirds say the recession has caused some hardship in their lives.

But they recognize, correctly, that the Obama Democrats are trying to permanently enlarge government and increase citizens’ dependence on it. They believe that this will destroy the culture of independence which has enabled Americans over the past two centuries to make this the most productive and prosperous — and the most charitably generous — nation in the world.

Seeing our political divisions as a battle between the culture of dependence and the culture of independence helps to make sense of the divisions seen in the 2008 election. Barack Obama carried voters with incomes under $50,000 and those with incomes over $200,000, and lost those with incomes in between. He won large margins from those who never graduated from high school and from those with graduate school degrees, and barely exceeded 50 percent among those in between.

The top-and-bottom Obama coalition was in effect a coalition of those dependent on government transfers and benefits and those in “the educated class,” who administer administer those transactions. They are the natural constituency for the culture of dependence.

The in-between people on the income and education ladders, it turns out, are a constituency for the culture of independence.

Tea party supporters are not in the mood to be bought off with $400 tax credits. They have a longer time horizon and can see where the Obama Democrats are trying to take us.

Full article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/19/tea_partiers_fight_culture_of_dependence.html

Glub-glub … O’s back under water again.

April 12, 2010

Pres. Obama had a small bounce from the enactment of ObamaCare, but it was very short lived.

Now, Gallup — which leans slightly left — has a plurality of Americans disapproving of the job he’s doing as president — 48% disapproving to 45% approving.

image

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

* * * * *

Similarly, the Real Clear Politics “poll-of-polls” has the President upside-down by 1.2 points — 47.3% disapproving, 46.1% disapproving.

image
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

* * * * *

And according to Pollster.com’s poll-of-polls,  Obama’s approval rating among Independents is 9.2 points under water — 39.8% to 49%

image

Wash Post: The answer was a doozy … “Holy filibuster, Batman”

April 6, 2010

Punchline: I once worked with a guy who sorted managers into two categories: simplifiers and complicators … his view: the former always win.

If ObamaCare is so good and the President is so smart, articulate, and practiced on the subject … why can’t he explain it?

Here’s the Wash Post recap; below are links to the text & video of the President’s answer … and a great summation by Charles Krathammer.

From the Washington Post, “Obama’s 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman’s claim of being over-taxed”, April 2, 2010

Even by President Obama’s loquacious standards, an answer he gave here in Charlotte on health care was a doozy.

Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman asked the president whether it was a “wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care package”.

“We are over-taxed as it is”. 

Obama started out feisty.

“Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have.”

He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze.

His discursive answer – more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, “F-Map”). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as “FICA”).

Always fond of lists, Obama ticked off his approach to health care — twice. “Number one is that we are the only — we have been, up until last week, the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance,” he said.

A few minutes later he got to the next point, which seemed awfully similar to the first. “Number two, you don’t know who might end up being in that situation,” he said, then carried on explaining further still.

“Point number three is that the way insurance companies have been operating, even if you’ve got health insurance you don’t always know what you got, because what has been increasingly the practice is that if you’re not lucky enough to work for a big company that is a big pool, that essentially is almost a self-insurer, then what’s happening is, is you’re going out on the marketplace, you may be buying insurance, you think you’re covered, but then when you get sick they decide to drop the insurance right when you need it,” Obama continued, winding on with the answer.

Halfway through, an audience member on the riser yawned.

But Obama wasn’t finished. He had a “final point,” before starting again with another list — of three points.

“What we said is, number one, we’ll have the basic principle that everybody gets coverage,” he said, before launching into the next two points, for a grand total of seven.

His wandering approach might not matter if Obama weren’t being billed as the chief salesman of the health-care overhaul. Public opinion on the bill remains divided, and Democratic officials are planning to send Obama into the country to persuade wary citizens that it will work for them in the long run.

It was not evident that he changed any minds at the event.

The audience sat politely, but people in the back of the room began to wander off.

Even Obama seemed to recognize that he had gone on too long. He apologized — in keeping with the spirit of the moment, not once, but twice. “Boy, that was a long answer. I’m sorry,” he said, drawing nervous laughter that sounded somewhat like relief as he wrapped up.

But, he said: “I hope I answered your question.”

Source article:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/obamas-17-minute-2500-word-res.html

Video of Obama’s answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jz6y_16NI8

Text of Obama’s answer:
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/02/obamas-17-minute-14-second-answer-on-higher-taxes-and-health-care/ 

=> Krauthammer’s rephrasing of the answer:
http://www.wikio.co.uk/video/krauthammer-20-seconds-correct-answer-obama-rant-3041426

Obama’s post-healthcare bump … going, going, ….

March 29, 2010

Gone !

This week, the left-leaning media has been trumpeting the bump that Pres Obama and his healthcare plan have gotten from passage of ObamaCare.

Perhaps the high fives were a tad premature.

Pollster.com’s poll-of-polls shows that — immediately after the vote — there was a bump of a couple points in people favoring the bill.

The approvers were still in the minority, and disapprovers outnumbered approvers.

But, the approvers number has fallen back to pre-vote levels.

image 
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php

* * * * *

What about Obama’s approval numbers?

There was a positive bump of about 5 percentage points in the days after the vote.

But, the numbers seemed to have turned back around.  According to Gallup, the 5 points are gone  — and the approver and disapprovers are tied at 46% — just as they were before the vote.

Why ? My guess is that the publicity surrounding the enormous corporate write-offs related to the bill is resonating … people may be sensing that ObamaCare isn’t free after all and that they may be the ones paying for it — either by losing benefits or losing their jobs or both.

image 

* * * * *

Most interesting (to me) is the movement among folks who strongly approve or disapprove.

There has been a 5 point bump is strong approvers, suggesting that Obama did, in fact, rally his base.

But, the level of strong disapprovers has remained in a pretty tight range and is trending upwards, indicating that few people who opposed ObamaCare before the vote has been won over, and that the intensity of disapproval remains quite high

image
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Miss me yet ? … Put one in the “W” column.

February 23, 2010

The cheery image of former President George W. Bush appeared on a billboard in Minnesota earlier this month, next to the words, “Miss me yet?”

It appears a lot of people think it’s a fair question.

The online store CafePress saw a spike in demand for items featuring the same image as the billboard. Ten “Miss Me Yet?” items were on the company’s list of its top-selling designs.

“There were no Obama-themed designs on the list … Bush has stolen the political spotlight, just like Sarah Palin did the week before when she re-surfaced with crib notes written in her palm.”

Obama-themed merchandise saturated the Washington area around the time of the president’s inauguration last year, but by the fall, the enthusiasm for Obama caps, t-shirts, commemorative plates and so forth, seemed to fizzle.

U.S. News and World Report noted earlier this month that even the Obama Store, located in tourist-filled Union Station, has closed, in what “may be the most tangible sign yet that the [Obama] honeymoon is over.”

From CBS News: “Miss Me Yet?” Bush Merchandise a Hit Online, February 17, 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6216739.shtml

Bayh goes bye … so do the oil companies

February 18, 2010

Bottom line: Three big companies quit an influential lobbying group that had focused on shaping climate-change legislation, in the latest sign that support for an ambitious bill is melting away.

Besides the obvious — that climate change fever has subsided — companies are starting to stand up to the President.  Many companies had been bending over to the anti-business policies and rhetoric, hoping to at least minimize their hurt with sweetheart dealing and avert the wrath of the White House’s’  vindictive Chicago thugs. The worm seems to be turning.

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ: Defections Shake Up Climate Coalition, Feb.   17, 2010

Oil giants BP and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar said Tuesday they won’t renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

For companies, the shifting political winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.

More than 20 other large companies, including oil company Royal Dutch Shell PLC and industrial heavyweights General Electric Co. and Honeywell International Inc., remain in the coalition with environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council.

But experts said the companies’ decision to withdraw from USCAP is a sign the politics of climate change is shifting in Washington.

When USCAP was founded in 2007, leaders of big U.S. companies had grown concerned that Democrats in Congress were preparing to put strict limits on industrial emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to climate change. Many executives decided it was better to be part of the debate in a united front.

“The saying in Washington is that if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” 

As long as climate legislation appeared imminent, companies were willing to paper over their differences and continue to work together. But by late last year, momentum had stalled in the Senate as Washington turned its attention to health care, the economy and the midterm elections.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069440096420212.html

When political deals backfire … not the Cornhusker Kickback, the Pfizer Fiasco.

February 5, 2010

Bottom line: Rather than fight on principle, Pfizer decided to cut ObamaCare deals … and is now left holding the bag.  Talk about getting what you deserve !

* * * * *
Excerpted from WSJ : Pfizer’s Bad Political Bet, Feb 4, 2010

The sight of ObamaCare on life support has many Democrats disappointed. It could be worse. They could be Pfizer CEO Jeffrey Kindler.

The twin events of an Obama presidency and a financial crisis rattled corporate America.

Public anger put companies on the defensive. A liberal president vowing to punish firms that didn’t aid his agenda got companies scared.Fortune 500 execs could stand up for a free market that benefits consumers and shareholders, or hitch their cart to the new Democratic majority.

Pfizer’s Mr. Kindler is a case study in the hitch-and-hope mentality—a CEO who became the motivating force behind Big Pharma’s $80 billion “deal” on reform, and industry support of ObamaCare.

With that health agenda burning, the choice isn’t looking so grand.

Pfizer was long a company that zealously guarded against government interference.The Pfizer board made Mr. Kindler CEO in 2006—picking a … a Democrat and political junkie.  Mr. Kindler was primed for the Obama ascendancy.

Mr. Kindler heeded congressional threats that companies would do well to have more Democrat-heavy lobby shops. Pfizer also aggressively shifted political giving. According to OpenSecrets.org, in the 2006 campaign cycle it gave 33% of its money to Democrats. In the 2008 cycle, 52%. In the 2010 cycle so far, 61%. In 2009 Pfizer became the fourth largest federal lobbyist, spending nearly $25 million. The year before it hadn’t even made the top 20.

With these gestures, Mr. Kindler surely believed Democrats would treat his industry gently.

The strategy: The industry would pledge $80 billion to reform. In return it would get greater volume and a requirement that people buy brand-name drugs. Democrats would also fight against drug reimportation and forgo price controls.

No one pushed harder than Mr. Kindler. The CEO made no fewer than five trips to the White House last year. He pressed the industry’s $150 million ad campaign promoting ObamaCare, rolled out with liberal activist groups.

Critics warned the legislation would lead to a government takeover and price controls. They warned Democrats would take the money and double-cross them.

None of it phased the industry, right up until ObamaCare imploded.

Having got this far (with Big Pharma’s help), Democrats are more desperate than ever to pass “something.” It won’t include any upside for drug companies. There is talk instead of “popular” stand-alone legislation, including reimportation, Medicare price controls, and slashing the industry’s 12-year patent exclusivity on biologics.

Big Pharma can’t count on former conservative protectors. Republicans were sympathetic to its decision to “sit at the table,” but grew furious when it engaged in active advocacy of the Democratic agenda.

One House Republican staffer predicts the next time drug companies “ask us to stand in front of the train,” the answer will be: “Since you were so happy to work with Democrats, call them. Go on, go: Call Rahm [Emanuel]. Call [Henry] Waxman.”

Public anger over ObamaCare doesn’t help the industry’s reputation. Many Americans now view drug companies in the same light as “crony capitalist” banks or energy firms.

Mr. Kindler might take solace that he’s not alone. Insurers, hospitals, utilities — many chose to accommodate a president whose health-care and climate agendas are now teetering.

There’s a lesson here for corporate America. Try standing up for the free markets and limited government that have always been the foundation of U.S. business. It might work out better.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704041504575045702997683276.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#articleTabs%3Darticle

A picture is worth a thousand words on the teleprompter…

January 26, 2010

While speaking to a crowd (?) of 6th graders … cue the teleprompter.

 Here’s Jon Stweart’s take
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/26/jon_stewart_mocks_obama_for_teleprompter_in_classroom.html

image

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Obama-Cabinet-Picks-Education-Secretary-Arne-Duncan/ss/events/pl/110508obamacabinet/im:/100119/480/9131bc77c7534185bdbf267bb4ab8497/

Obama: "Cambridge Police behave stupidly, again"

January 19, 2010

Well, the President didn’t really say that, but he must be thinking it.

Remember when Obama started a bruhaha over the the arrest of his buddy Harvard Prof. Louis Gates Jr. ? 

Obama said he ‘didn’t know all the facts’  of the case and then declared that the Cambridge police had acted ‘stupidly.’

Well, what goes around comes around, I guess.

At the time, a few Cambridge officers said they would never vote for Obama again.  Who cares, right?

Well, it’s payback time.

The Cambridge Police Patrol Officers union endorsed Republican Scott Brown in the Mass Senate race.

To add salt to the wound, Martha Coakley’s husband is a retired Cambridge cop, and a member of the union.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1409379713/In-dig-at-Coakley-Cambridge-Police-Patrol-Officers-union-endorses-Republican-Brown-in-Senate-race

Just can’t seem to get the ball into the end zone …

December 29, 2009

Ken’s Take: Even “Cash for Caulkers” seems stalled. Imagine what implementation of the complicated healthcare program will be like.  My bet: It won’t be pretty. 

* * * * *

Excerpted from LA Times: Obama’s ambitions outpace his effectiveness, by Doyle McManus, December 27, 2009

Obama has turned out to be masterful at launching new policies but inconsistent at getting them to work.

His presidency is threatened to fall into a worrisome pattern:

  1. The announcement of a lofty goal,
  2. The delegation of implementation to second-rank officials,
  3. A missed deadline or two,
  4. Last-minute intervention by the president to rescue the effort from collapse,
  5. And, finally, mixed results …
  6. … followed by a statement claiming victory.

Full article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus27-2009dec27,0,3930020.column

* * * * *

About the Cadillac excise tax …

December 18, 2009

Ken’s Take: I’m a big fan of the so-called Cadillac tax — not because it hacks off the unions (that’s a lucky strike by-product) — but because it it about the only vehicle being discussed that might contain some healthcare costs. 

In fact, I’m an advocate of putting all company paid premiums on W-2s and then allowing taxpayers reasonable deductions for health insurance premiums (say, $5,000 per person).

And, as a political junkie, I love when WH spokepeople contradict each other, e.g. Summers: recession is over”, Romer: “no, it’s not”.  Here’s another example …

* * * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ: White House v. White House,  Dec.18, 2009 

The ad hoc arguments that WH spokesmen use to put out one healthcare political fire invariably contradict those they’re using to put out another.

Among labor’s complaints is a 40% excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, given that union-negotiated benefits are more generous than average.

So Jason Furman, the deputy economic director, declared that this so-called Cadillac tax “will affect only a small portion of the very highest cost health plans — a total of 3% of premiums in 2013.”

But wait: White House budget director Peter Orszag has been emphasizing the excise tax as critically important in the cost-control stone soup that he’s been trying to sell.

As he put it earlier this month, “You’re creating an incentive for plans for employers to design their plans in such a way that they’re under that threshold. . . . You’re creating an incentive to slow the growth rate in private health costs.”

So a tax that applies to 3% of premiums is going to reshape the entire health-care market? These guys can’t even get their blog posts straight.

The White House brain trust seems to have been placed in a blind trust, and is finding it so hard to make a coherent case.

* * * * *

Mr. Furman used to advocate policies that really would make a difference, by “helping consumers become more cost conscious about their health-care choices,” as he put it in a 2007 Brookings paper. He estimated that increasing cost-sharing could lower total health spending from 13% to 30%.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574602191760050978.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Why I don’t let students grade themselves …

December 15, 2009

Under tough interrogation by Oprah, President Obama scored his job performance at B+ … A- if the healthcare monstrosity gets passed.

Doing pretty good, right ?

Well, not according to the most recent polls.

* * * * *

The most recent RealClearPolitics  poll of polls has only 48.4% of Americans approving of the job Obama is doing. 

image http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

* * * * *

The most recent Rasmussen survey  — which leans a bit right and tends to lead the other polls — has only 44% of likely voters approving of Obama’s job performance.

image
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

* * * * *

And, on what I believe to be the most indicative measure — Rasmussen says that only 24% strongly approve of Obama’s performance, while 42% strongly disapprove.  A deficit gap of 18 points.

image
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Now, this is funny … Jon Stewart on counting jobs saved or created.

December 11, 2009

I haven’t been a big Jon Stewart fan, but he may have started to win me over with this clip.

WARNING: for mature audiences.

click picture or link below to view

image

http://vodpod.com/watch/2655813-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewartamerican-idle?pod=

Pres. Obama "bends the curve" … and that’s not good news (for him)

December 7, 2009

Well, on Sunday, the curves crossed for the first time during the Obama administration.

Based on the Polster.com “poll of polls” — more people disapprove of the job Obama is doing as President than approve.

The approve-disapprove curves have been on a collision course for awhile.  Now they’ve passed through what stock technicians would call a resistance level. 

Next critical number would be if disapproval passes through 50% — indicating that a majority, not just a plurality, disapprove.

[Healthcare Reform results are below]

image

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php?xml=http://www.pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/Obama44JobApproval.xml&choices=Disapprove,Approve&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=1&lines=1&colors=Disapprove-BF0014,Approve-000000,Undecided-68228B

* * * * *

Self-explanatory, right ?

image
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-presobama-health.php?xml=http://www.pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/USObamaJobPresHealth.xml&choices=Disapprove,Approve&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=1&lines=1&colors=Disapprove-BF0014,Approve-000000,Undecided-68228B

Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required

December 4, 2009

This analysis — reported by AEI and sourced to JP Morgan researchers — examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy.

It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.

obamacabinet
AEI, Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required, November 25, 2009
http://blog.american.com/?p=7572

In the Obama administration over 90 percent of the players’ prior experience was in the public sector, academia, or law practices. Virtually no “business experience” per se.

* * * * *

Ken’s Take:

(1) Quibble with the numbers, but directionally the conclusion fits — which is why the Faux Stimulus didn’t work, why the spending is out of control, why there’s sloppy implementation (think Cash for Clunkers), and why businesses refuse to rebuild their payrolls.

(2) Note that the analysis was sourced to JP Morgan. I’ve heard from my sources that off-the-record boardroom commentaries re: the Obama administration has turned very, very negative.  But, public commentary is constrained by fear of vindictive government retribution (think pay caps, voiding of contracts, etc.).  Surprised me that JPM is associated with the analysis.

(3) Liberal blogs have marshalled to debunk the 10% number for Obama’s advisers.  Their rebuttals are laughable — largely claiming that private sector experience includes having had a parent who had a real job. having been a lawyer with at least one private sector client, having run a campaign, or having been a university administrator.  For example, here are a couple of my favorites:

Vice President Joe Biden – Private experience:  Yes.   Biden’s father worked in the private sector his entire life — unsuccessfully for a critical period.  Biden attended a private university’s law school (Syracuse), and operated a successful-because-of-property-management law practice for three years before winning election to the U.S. Senate.   Running a campaign is a private business, too — and Biden’s first campaign was masterful entrepreneurship.

Secretary of Interior Kenneth L. Salazar – Private sector experience: Yes. Besides a distinguished career in government, as advisor and Cabinet Member with Colorado Gov. Roy Romer, Salazar was a successful private-practice attorney from 1981 to 1985, and then again from 1994 to 1998 when he won election as Colorado’s Attorney General.    Salazar’s family is in ranching, and he is usually listed as a “rancher from Colorado.”

Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis – Private sector experience:  Yes.   Solis’s father was a Teamster and union organizer who contracted lead poisoning on the job; her mother was an assembly line worker for Mattel Toys.  She overachieved in high school and ignored her counselor’s advice to avoid college, and earned degrees from Cal Poly-Pomona and USC.  She held a variety of posts in federal government before returning to California to work for education and win election to the California House and California Senate, and then to Congress.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan – Private sector experience:  Yes.  Duncan earned Academic All-American honors in basketball at Harvard.  His private sector is among the more unusual of any cabinet member’s, and more competitive.  Duncan played professional basketball: “From 1987 to 1991, Duncan played professional basketball in Australia with the Eastside Spectres of the [Australian] National Basketball League, and while there, worked with children who were wards of the state. He also played with the Rhode Island Gulls and tried out for the New Jersey Jammers.”  Since leaving basketball he’s worked in education, about four years in a private company aiming to improve education.

To verify the above examples — and for a few more chuckles — check out
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/obamas-well-qualified-cabinet-conservatives-hoaxed-by-j-p-morgan-chart-that-verifies-prejudices/

A sharp stick in the "I" …

December 4, 2009

Sports coaches refrain that there’s no “I” in “Team” … every management communications coach cautions against the arrogant and isolating effect of using “I” instead of “we”.

Appears somebody missed that class …

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ: Obama Redeclares, Peggy Noonan, Dec. 3, 2009

There was too much “I” in Obama’s speech at West Point.

George H.W. Bush famously took the word “I” out of his speeches—we called them “I-ectomies” — because of a horror of appearing to be calling attention to himself.

Mr. Obama is plagued with no such fears.

“When I took office . . . I approved a long-standing request . . . After consultations with our allies I then . . . I set a goal.”

That’s all from one paragraph.

Further down he used the word “I” in three paragraphs an impressive 15 times.

“I believe I know” “I have signed” “I have read” “I have visited.”

I, I—ay yi yi. This is a man badly in need of an I-ectomy.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574311658007036.html

A portrait in black & white…

December 1, 2009

Last week, Gallup reported that Pres. Obama’s approval rating has dipped below 50%.  That is, less than half of the country approves of the job he’s doing as president.  That’s less than the percentage of folks who voted for him, and 17 points lower than his inaugural approval rating.

image

Among the telling — but largely unreported trends — is Obama’s sharp drop-off among whites.  While his approval rating by blacks has stayed sky high — above 90% — his approval rating among whites has gone down from 61% to 39% — a 22 point drop. Ouch.

To diffuse any racial undertones, Gallup points out that  Bill Clinton averaged 55% job approval during his presidency, including 52% among whites … and 82% among blacks” … leading them to conclude: “One reason Obama may have maintained support among blacks is their overwhelming affiliation with the Democratic Party.”

Is that an elephant I see in the middle of the room ?

image

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124484/Obama-Approval-Slide-Finds-Whites-Down-39.aspx?CSTS=alert

image

Doing OK … except on the economy, Afghanistan, the deficit and, oh yeah, healthcare.

November 16, 2009

Bottom line: Rasmussen & Schoen say that unless Obama changes his approach and starts governing in a more fiscally conservative, bipartisan manner, the independents that provided his margin of victory in 2008 and gave the Democrats control of Congress will likely swing back to the Republicans, putting Democratic control of Congress in real jeopardy.

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ: Obama Is Losing Independent Voters, Rasmussen & Schoen, Nov. 14, 2009

Obama’s approval among likely voters has dropped to the low-50s in most polls, and the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters shows him slightly below the 50% mark. This is a relatively low rating for new presidents.

A CNN poll released Nov. 6 found that 47% of Americans believe the top issue facing the country is the economy, while only 17% say its health care. However, the bulk of the president’s efforts over the past six months have been not on the economy but on health care, an issue in which he continues to draw negative ratings.

In a Rasmussen Reports poll taken after the House of Representatives passed health-care reform by the narrowest of margins last Saturday night, 54% of likely voters say they are opposed to the Pelosi plan with only 45% in favor …   58% of unaffiliated voters,oppose the bill.

The CNN poll also shows that in addition to health care, a majority of Americans disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, unemployment, illegal immigration and the federal budget deficit. Put simply, there isn’t a critical problem facing the country on which the president has positive ratings.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from Oct. 22-25 found that the president’s personal ratings have suffered a similar decline. His rating for being honest and straightforward has fallen eight points from January to 33% and his rating for being firm and decisive has fallen 10 points to 27%.

Even more fundamentally, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted from Oct. 15-18 shows that the president has now reached a point where less than a majority of Americans believe he will make the right decisions for the country.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released Oct. 26 shows that only one-third of likely voters believe the stimulus package has helped the economy.

This week’s Rasmussen Reports poll shows  49% of respondents blame Mr. Bush for the economy and 45% blame Mr. Obama. By the beginning of next year, the problems of America will be Mr. Obama’s problems, and references to his predecessor will increasingly fall on deaf ears.

* * * * *

Deficit reduction and reining in spending are critically important priorities for the vast majority of the electorate. Indeed, according to a Rasmussen Reports Poll conducted at the end of last month, voters say deficit reduction is most important and health care is a distant second.

Obama has found himself in a false and arguably artificial conundrum on health care, with the two alternatives being his bill with a public option and a trillion-dollar price tag, or no bill at all. While the failure to pass a health-care bill could be devastating for his administration, polling suggests that ramming through an expensive bill with a public option (potentially using procedural techniques in the Senate) could divide America and not improve his standing with the public.

Voters would like to see compromises on key elements of health care to reduce costs, while the Democrats’ plan has appeared to focus largely on expanding coverage.

There is a clear, bipartisan majority who favor a less costly bill that incrementally increases coverage, provides insurance reform involving pre-existing conditions, and experiments with tort reform and competition across state lines.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525543109875438.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

After $787 billion, an we stand much more stimulation?

November 9, 2009

The current refrain: almost 1 million jobs saved or created.  Yeah, right.

The chart says it all …

image
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519602476681352.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

More Pookie backlash … the obligatory bumper sticker.

November 9, 2009

It was only a matter of time …

image

From the exit polls … more warning shots from tax payers

November 6, 2009

Currently, less than 1/2 of adults pay income taxes.  That causes undeniable pressures. 

Those who don’t pay income taxes want tax rates raised (on those who do pay) and want more and more freebies from the gov’t. 

Those who do pay are starting to say “I don’t think so”. 

Watch this trend big time in 2010.

The GOP victories reveal fissures in the coalition that elected Barack Obama.

In the election results and the exit polls there are clear signs that the Obama majority coalition has splintered.

Mr. Obama benefited last year from a big turnout of young voters, who backed him by a 66% to 32% margin. This year young voters formed only about half as large a percentage of the electorate in Virginia and New Jersey as they did in 2008, and in Virginia they voted about as Republican as their elders.

Economically, the Obama majority was a top-and-bottom coalition. The Democratic ticket carried voters with incomes under $50,000 and over $200,000, and lost those in between.

As the shrewd liberal analyst Thomas Edsall has noted, there’s a tension between what these groups want.

High earners in non-Southern suburbs have been voting Democratic since the mid-1990s largely because of their liberal views on cultural issues;

Low earners vote Democratic because they want more government money shoveled their way.

Tuesday’s elections suggest those whose money gets shoveled are having second thoughts about this odd-couple coalition.

Excerpted from WSJ: Tuesday’s Biggest Loser: the Union Agenda, Nov 4, 2009 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574515681098665524.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

The "Pookie Effect" … no, I didn’t make Pookie up.

November 5, 2009

As expected, I got some pushback on yesterday’s election analysis — especially the “Pookie Effect”.

For those who missed the original post, here’s what I said:

The Pookie Factor:  At the risk of  political incorrectness … I know Pres Obama was just trying to be cute with his “get lazy cousin Pookie off the couch and get him to vote”.  I think there was some backlash to the comment.  I know a lot of folks who are repulsed by the thought of lazy cousin Pookie deciding the direction of the country.  Perhaps lazy cousin Pookie should get off the couch and get an education or get a job.
https://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/the-elections-checkbooks-adult-supervision-pookie-and-buyers-remorse/

No, I didn’t make Pookie up (even I CAN’T make that kind of stuff up) and, no, I didn’t just hear it on FoxNews.

My point: Corzine made a big mistake attacking Christy’s heft (pardon the pun).  Similarly, Obama may have inadvertently created a flashpoint issue by invoking Cousin Pookie.

* * * * *

Video Proof

FIrst, here’s the video proof: Obama stumping for failed candidate Deeds in Virginia … at 2 different venues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Al6r8ESjAY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_293EQfM9Y

* * * * *

Print Proof

Here’s  an AP report on CBSNews.com … hardly right wing sources of misinformation.

Excerpted from AP / CBSNews.com: Obama Invokes “Cousin Pookie” to Help Va. Dem, October 27, 2009

(AP )(NORFOLK, Va.) In a last-ditch, against-the-odds effort to help Creigh Deeds win election as governor of Virginia next week, President Obama invoked the assistance of “Cousin Pookie.”

Addressing a campaign rally for Deeds at an arena at Old Dominion University, Mr. Obama used a device that served him well during his presidential campaign – especially before African-American audiences.

“Go out and get your cousin who you had to drag to the polls last November, Cousin Pookie, you go out and get him and you tell him ‘you got to vote again this time.'”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5427510.shtml

* * * * *

So, who’s Pookie ?

Excerpted from HNIC Reports: “Who is Obama’s ‘Cousin Pookie’?”, March 13, 2007 <== Note the date

In remarks at Brown Chapel in Selma, Ala., Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama made reference to the mysterious Cousin Pookie.

In his sermon Sunday at Brown Chapel in Selma, Ala., Barack Obama declared: “If Cousin Pookie would vote, if Uncle Jethro would get off the couch and stop watching SportsCenter and go register some folks and go to the polls, we might have a different kind of politics.”

It wasn’t the first time the Illinois senator and presidential aspirant has invoked “Pookie” … but for those not in the know, the question remains: Who is this Pookie?

The Obama campaign didn’t respond to requests for details. But Newhouse News Service asked some of America’s best minds on black culture, language and politics.

In their interviews and e-mails, Pookie emerges as a stock character of the black popular imagination, a name that has come to personify the kind of layabout kin who, if endearing, is also a source of some embarrassment and consternation to his more successful relations.

“Pookie means a whole lot of different things; none of them are good.”

Pookie is the kind of ghetto character played by Cedric the Entertainer or Chris Tucker in one of those “Barbershop” or “Friday” movies. In the 1960s and ’70s, he would have gone by Leroy, Tyrone or Otis.

Pookie goes way back, but he has come into his own only in the last decade, as a “metaphor for kin … who everybody knows is just a little trifling and a little lazy.”

“If you get it you get it, and if you don’t, you don’t care.” Kitwana said.

Pookie “may be a kinder, gentler take on Cosby’s reference to, and critique of, Shaniqua and Taliqua (as average black youth).

By referencing Cousin Pookie, he’s showing that he’s comfortable with Pookie without being condescending.

“By invoking the name of someone that might be familiar to a lot of black people, he’s attempting to personalize his appeal.”

How the Rev. Joseph Lowery hears it: The contemporary of Martin Luther King Jr. smiled at the mention of Pookie — not because he was familiar with the reference but because he knew, in context, who was being talked about: any of the hundreds of thousands of African-Americans.

Jethro is Pookie’s white counterpart, and by including him, Obama was making a cross-racial appeal to get off the couch.

http://thehnic.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/who-is-obamas-cousin-pookie/

Bulls 83, Bucks 81 … what’s the significance ?

November 5, 2009

Please help me understand … President Obama back-burnered Afghanistan, the economy, and healthcare … and spent all of last weekend stumping for John Corzine … his 4th & 5th trips to NJ on Corzine’s behalf.  And, he crossed the Potomac 3 times for campaign appearances with Deeds.

But, according to his press secretary, he was disinterested in the results … had his eyes glued to Tuesday nite’s Bulls vs Bucks basketball game … didn’t even look in on  the election results.

Does anybody — and I mean ANYBODY — believe that ?

Sometimes, I’ve fallen asleep before the end of a Sunday nite football game … but I’ve never tuned out a game that I was playing in.

* * * **

Source: Politico, Tuned out – Obama ‘not watching returns’, 11/04/09

Hours after urging reporters not to draw sweeping conclusions from Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told POLITICO President Barack Obama wasn’t even keeping an eye on the results.

“He’s not watching returns,” Gibbs said.

But while Obama may not have been following Tuesday’s returns, he and Vice President Joe Biden campaigned repeatedly for candidates in all three of the night’s key races.

As recently as Sunday, Obama stumped in New Jersey for incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, who has struggled in an uphill battle for reelection against former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, a Republican.

On Monday, Biden visited New York’s 23rd congressional district to appear at an event for Democratic congressional candidate Bill Owens, who was running against Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.

Both Obama and Biden made stops in Virginia for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds.

Full article:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1109/tuned_out_c3071f29-4d59-43b7-bd9d-60b15b03a038.html

Why is the White House mad at Edmunds … and not at me ? It’s just not fair !

November 2, 2009

Gotta admit, I’m a  bit hacked off.

This week, Team O turned its Chicago guns on Edmunds.com for reporting that “each vehicle sold with a CARS-program assist actually cost taxpayers more than $24,000”.

Source: The New Ledger, The White House Attacks Edmunds for Reaching Politically Uncomfortable Conclusion on Cash for Clunkers, Oct 30, 2009
http://newledger.com/2009/10/the-white-house-attacks-edmunds-for-reaching-politically-uncomfortable-conclusion-on-cash-for-clunkers/

Why am I hacked?  Because we  were all over this one in the Homa Files more than 2 months ago — on August 18.  (The post and the prove-it link are below.)

Shouldn’t somebody be mad at the HomaFiles, too ?

* * * * *

Original post: The Homa Files, C4C … here’s the “incremental analysis”, August 18, 2009
https://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/c4c-heres-the-incremental-analysis/

Most reports tout the Cash for Clunkers programs as a runaway success.

In fact, about 250,000 C4C deals were transacted in a week or two – fully utilizing the budgeted $1 billion – at an average rebate of about $4,000.

But …

Marketing promotions should always be evaluated on an incremental basis.  That is, how many sales were induced over and above what would have happened any way.

Car authority J.D. Power and Associates thinks that most of the cars purchased through the C4C program were simply sales that would have happened this year but were pulled ahead a few months. The company thinks that as few as 20% of the cars bought in the program are really new sales to the market. That means that as many as 80% of the cars would have been sold this year anyway. Edmunds.com, which tracks vehicles pricing and buying data, agrees. They say: “when the public thought that the program would cease after the first billion dollars was spent, they rushed to dealerships.By Aug. 20, we could be back to pre-clunker sales levels.”

So what ?

Well, from a marketing analysis perspective, the full cost of a program should be assigned to the incremental sales.  So, the $1 trillion should be allocated across 50,000 incremental car sales (20% times 250,000).  That’s about $20,000 per incremental sale.

Recast, phase 1 of C4C took 250,000 clunkers off the road by, in effect, giving away 50,000 new, more fuel efficient cars.

Worth it?

You decide.

* * * * *

Must read: "Americans feel increasingly disheartened, and our leaders don’t even notice."

October 30, 2009

Ken’s Take: I’ve said many times before that I love reading Peggy Noonan — even though I don’t always agree with her .  (For my more  liberal friends, keep in mind that she was onboard the Obama train in ’08.)

What she’s always able to do is dive down beneath the superficial and get to the core — the philosophical and emotive stuff that most other analysts miss.  She invariably provokes my thinking … and, she’s a wonderful writer to boot.

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ: We’re Governed by Callous Children, Oct. 29, 2009 

The new economic statistics put growth at a healthy 3.5% for the third quarter. We should be dancing in the streets. No one is, because no one has any faith in these numbers.

Waves of money are sloshing through the system, creating a false rising tide that lifts all boats for the moment. The tide will recede. The boats aren’t rising, they’re bobbing, and will settle.

No one believes the bad time is over. No one thinks we’re entering a new age of abundance. No one thinks it will ever be the same as before 2008.

Economists, statisticians, forecasters and market specialists will argue about what the new numbers mean, but no one believes them, either. Among the things swept away in 2008 was public confidence in the experts.

* * * * *

The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes.

The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business.

It is a story in two parts. The first: “They do not think they can make it better.”

The most sophisticated Americans, experienced in how the country works on the ground, can’t see a way out.

This is historic. This is something new in modern political history … Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.

Part of the reason is that the problems—debt, spending, war—seem too big.

But a larger part is that our federal government, from the White House through Congress, and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better.

They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths—spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone—well, not those in government, but most everyone else—seems to know that won’t work.

* * * * *

And so the disheartenedness … of even those who have something.

This week the New York Post carried a report that 1.5 million people had left high-tax New York state between 2000 and 2008, more than a million of them from even higher-tax New York City. They took their tax dollars with them—in 2006 alone more than $4 billion.

You know what New York, both state and city, will do to make up for the lost money. They’ll raise taxes.

I talked with an executive this week.   He was thoughtful, reflective about the big picture. He talked about all the new proposed regulations on industry. Rep. Barney Frank had just said on some cable show that the Democrats of the White House and Congress “are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area.”

The executive said of Washington: “They don’t understand that people can just stop, get out. I have friends and colleagues who’ve said to me ‘I’m done.’ ” He spoke of his own increasing tax burden and said, “They don’t understand that if they start to tax me so that I’m paying 60%, 55%, I’ll stop.”

Government doesn’t understand that business in America is run by people, by human beings.

Mr. Frank must believe America is populated by high-achieving robots who will obey whatever command he and his friends issue.

But of course they’re human, and they can become disheartened. They can pack it in, go elsewhere, quit what used to be called the rat race and might as well be called that again since the government seems to think they’re all rats.

***
And here is the second part of the story.

While Americans feel increasingly disheartened, their leaders evince a mindless callousness.

It is a curious thing that those who feel most mistily affectionate toward America, and most protective toward it, are the most aware of its vulnerabilities, the most aware that it can be harmed. They don’t see it as all-powerful, impregnable, unharmable. The loving have a sense of its limits.

When I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax—health care, cap and trade, etc.—I think: Why aren’t they worried about the impact of what they’re doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?

They don’t feel anxious, because they never had anything to be anxious about. They grew up in an America surrounded by phrases—”strongest nation in the world,” “indispensable nation,” “unipolar power,” “highest standard of living”—and they are not bright enough, or serious enough, to imagine that they can damage that, hurt it, even fatally.

We are governed at all levels by America’s luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they’re not optimists—they’re unimaginative.

They don’t have faith, they’ve just never been foreclosed on.

They are stupid and they are callous, and they don’t mind it when people become disheartened. They don’t even notice.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574503631430926354.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Squandering hope … the politics of blame & attack.

October 30, 2009

Excerpted from Weekly Standard: Obamaland – Squandering hope, channeling Nixon, 10/29/2009

The transition from campaigning to governing has not been kind to President Obama.

As a candidate he spoke of hope, change and ending the polarization of the past; he promised to bring people together; he pledged a new style of civil political engagement; he sought to lift us as a people above surly partisan warfare.

As president, he sucked the veracity from these hopes.

Maybe this was the plan all along. Politicians often say one thing and do another.

Or perhaps, he succumbed to inexorable forces and patterns that swallow every idealistic elected official trying to navigate the Washington swamp.

Whatever the reason, Obama has fallen short of those lofty aspirations.

After ten months in office a clear pattern has emerged. Instead of hope and change, it’s blame and attack.

Obama rarely gives a speech about a pressing national problem–the economy, health care, the budget deficit–without blaming Republicans or former president George W. Bush.

For many Americans it’s getting old. It makes the president look small and petty. Does he want America’s respect or its pity?

Attack is the other side of this strategy.

Playing Chicago-style politics comes naturally to this White House, populated with a cadre of former Obama for president staffers and others steeped in the tactics of the permanent campaign. And they don’t merely assault an enemies list. “We routinely hear about phone calls from the president’s staff to congressional Democrats expressing White House dissatisfaction if someone says anything out of line with Obama’s policies,” a senior congressional aide told me.

The gap between the president’s campaign rhetoric compared to his governing style creates a harsh cognitive dissonance and a toll in the polls.

And the slide will likely persist as the White House continues to force its vision of change on a country that lacks consensus in many areas.

Full article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/132koltj.asp?pg=2

What does Obama do way more often than Bush ?

October 27, 2009

If you guessed fund-raising events, you’re right.  But, more importantly …

President Barack Obama has only been in office for just over nine months, but he’s already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years.

CBS’ Mark Knoller — an unofficial documentarian and statistician of all things White House-related — wrote on his Twitter feed that, “Today – Obama ties Pres. Bush in the number of rounds of golf played in office: 24. Took Bush 2 yrs & 10 months.”

This news comes on the heels of the news that Obama played golf with a woman — chief domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes — for the first time since taking office.

Source: Politico, President Obama ties George W. Bush on golf, 10/25/09
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/obama_ties_bush_on_golf.html

CNN says "President Obama’s high job approval ratings continue" … ABC, CBS agree. Gallup respectfully disagrees — big time.

October 22, 2009

Ken’s Take:

I’m an avid follower of political polls.  So, the other nite when a CNN reporter said that President Obama’s high job approval ratings were still holding, it aroused my curiosity.  After all, that’s not what I recollected seeing in the polls.

My first stop: www.RealClearPolitics.com — a site that tracks polls and combines them into a “poll of polls”.

Here’s the headline on RCP:
Gallup: Obama Suffers Worst Quarter Drop in Approval Since 1953

Barack Obama has suffered the worst quarterly decline in his public approval rating of any elected president in the post-World War II era.

Obama’s average quarterly approval rating has slipped from 62 percent in the second quarter to 52.9 percent in the third quarter, according to Gallup polling.

That 9 percentage point decline is twice the amount of any other post-war elected president.

No other elected president has declined more than 5 points since 1953. 

Obama suffered the bulk of his decline in late summer, though the media was slow to notice or note.

Since summer, Obama has stabilized and generally bobbed a sliver above the 50 percent mark.

Among all presidents since WWII, Obama’s third quarter approval rating is above only Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford. Clinton averaged 48 percent in the third quarter of 1993. Ford averaged 39 percent during his 1975 third quarter.

Gallup reports that Obama’s latest quarterly average ranks 144th, or in the 44th percentile, for all post-war presidents during any quarter.

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/10/21/poll-obama-worst-decline-in-approval-since-wwii/

It gets even more interesting.

RCP says that the current average rating across major polls is 52.4%.  CNN reports  55%.  Hmmm.

Interestingly, CBS reports a higher number — 56% and ABC reports a still higher 57%.  Three mainstream media shops reporting the 3 highest numbers in the sample.  Double hmmm.

The 2 surveys generally considered the most objective are Gallup — which leans a little bit left — and Rasmussen — which leans right.

Gallup reports 50%; Rasmussen calls it 47%.

So, three mainstream networks average about 7 points more than the 3rd party sources.  I’d call that statistically significant.  And, I don’t call it a coincidence …

BTW: note that Fox reports 49% — between Rasmussen & Gallup.  I didn’t throw Fox in with either group since some folks question their objectivity and they’ve been stripped by the WH of their “news network” status.

* * * * *

The Data

image
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

* * * * * *

Note that both Gallup and Rasmussen show a decline in job approval from the high 60%s to 50% plus or minus a little. 

Gallup bounces around a little above 50%,’ Rasmussen a little below 50%.

image
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

image 
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

* * * * *

The number I like to watch is Rasmussen’s PAI — Presidential Approval Index — the difference between the % of people who strongly approve and the 5 who strongly disapprove.

Early on, Obama’s PAI was as high as plus 30%.  Now, it’s down to minus 13% — with 27% strongly approving and 40% strongly disapproving.  That means that almost 80% of the folks who disapprove, strongly disapprove.  That’s a high intensity factor.

image
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

* * * **

Declaring war … on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?

October 21, 2009

Ken’s Take: Unemployment — likely to be the 2010 election’s issue — is almost 10% and shows no sign of abating.  So what does Team Obama decide to do? Put the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — the most prominent representative of business — on its enemies list for failure to support some of the administration’s policies. 

Who, pray tell, does the administration think is ultimately going to do the hiring that’s going to get unemployment down?

My real life business friends tell me that they’re were already going to move slowly hiring people back because of “political risk” — the uncertainties re: higher taxes, increased healthcare burdens, and wage controls.  I’d think that hacking-off these folks  would just slow the hire-back process even more … keep unemployment levels high … and hang a political millstone around Dems necks next year,

We’ll see …

* * * * *

Excerted from: Politico, White House plan: Neuter the Chamber, October 19, 2009

The White House and congressional Democrats are working to marginalize the Chamber of Commerce — the powerful business lobby opposed to many of President Barack Obama’s first-year priorities.

Democrats in Congress have been angered by the Chamber’s attacks on the House climate change bill and its staunch opposition to the creation of a consumer financial protection agency, a centerpiece of the administration’s financial regulatory reform efforts.

Chamber officials say the White House is scapegoating the Chamber and other trade associations as a way of dividing the business community, a move that could help the administration make headway on health care reform, climate change legislation and regulatory reform.

“When they launch a frontal assault against free enterprise and the Chamber of Commerce, I can guarantee it is not lost on any trade association executives or staff in this town.”

Administration officials give significantly more attention to the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies.

And some Democrats in the House say they are … overlooking the national Chamber in favor of local organizations in their districts.

The Democrats’ assault on the Chamber is not without risk. While neutralizing the Chamber would amount to a major tactical victory for the administration, anything less could backfire — infuriating and energizing a well-funded foe with ties to business in virtually every community in the country.

Full article:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6A5B11C3-18FE-70B2-A873536030768679