Of Stagflation and Economic Recovery

 

Photo by FortyTwo on Unsplash

Governments create inflation.  Since governments maintain a monopoly on money creation and exercise it constantly, the results of their policies are their own, whether they wish to own them or not.  Having said that, though government got us into this inflationary mess, more government is not going to get us out.  Yet, less government might.

The current administration—including the Federal Reserve—is in a tight spot.  Many repeatedly predicted that the unwholesome monetary and fiscal policies to respond to the equally unwholesome policies of dramatic economic shutdown of the 2020 Great Cessation would eventually lead to inflation.  So they have, even worse than what we saw in the 1970s.  The incoming Biden Administration persisted in blowing air into the inflationary balloon distended the year before.

This is not a partisan statement.  We have seen two Republican administrations doom themselves at the polls by engaging in ruinous economic policies because it was an election year.  Within memory of 2020 policymakers, the outgoing Bush Administration in 2008 mishandled the sure-to-be recession coming from the bursting of the housing bubble by panicking Congress into passing the TARP legislation, which fright drove investors to the sidelines.

True, the price rise from the 2020 massive fiscal and monetary stimulus did not appear as quickly as worriers, like me, expected.  Recipients of government largesse were not spurred to spend it as spontaneously as predicted.  Neither did negative real interest rates prod much borrowing, but it did punish savers.  While economic activity remained suppressed, people for a time sat on their money with little to do.  Eventually, puzzles all finished, people started coming out as 2021 wore on.  Congressional leadership called for more stimulus whilst the flood of funds from earlier stimulus at last began to flow.

The tight spot for the current administration is how to bring down inflation without bringing down the economy.  Of course, the economy will come down if they do not, because inflation eats away at the insides of economic activity.  Current White House leaders are sensitive about comparisons with the Carter Administration, yet there is talk of following the failed Carter example of trying to drive the economic car with one foot on the brake and the other on the accelerator.  That is the program for Carteresque stagflation, a stalled economy wrapped in continued high prices.

What we should have learned—and many have—is that the way to end inflation without getting into stagflation is not more government stimulus.  It is to end disincentives to business activity.  Reduce regulatory burdens and people will find ways to solve problems and get things done.  Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods and services, stagflation impeding production of goods and services.  Reducing regulatory burdens and barriers to business activity addresses both problems by promoting productivity, innovation, and expansion, which increase supply at lower costs, reward creativity, and encourage new ideas in a virtuous economic circle.  It worked in the 1980s.  It can work 40 years later.

Of the Great Cessation and Accountability

Photo by Remy Baudouin on Unsplash

The first Friday of the month is “Jobs Day” in the United States, when employment numbers for the previous month are released by the Labor Department.  A bit out of date for events moving quickly, the report—really for the first part of March when the data were collected—is that there was a net loss of 701,000 jobs.  More recent information from the Labor Department, gathered in the last two weeks of March, was that 9.9 million people filed unemployment insurance claims.

Those are firm, real, and disturbing numbers.  Perhaps you personally know someone tested positive for the virus or even made sick by it.  I feel more confident that you know someone who has lost his job, or whose business has closed, or one way or another is out of work.

Those people were not put out of work by the virus.  Up to this point the virus has reached but a small portion, some 240 thousand, of the 330 million Americans.  Those 9.9 million job losses were caused by government order and the fear spawned by government pronouncements and predictions of what may yet happen.

This unemployment is actual, not a forecast.  Each person of the 9.9 million has a very real story to tell, and it is not a happy one.  Many are tragic.  There are careers that have been disrupted, some only just started and some now ended.  There are businesses closed that will not reopen.  There are painful ongoing worries for people and families over what to do to cope.  None of us dismisses the sorrows involved with those who die, from whatever the cause.  I fear that the real, here and now unemployment wounds are too flippantly disregarded.

At some point, reasonable questions will need to be answered in a calm and deliberative way.  The actions taken and their consequences must be weighed, aside from professed intentions.  And the policies of policymakers will need to be evaluated in light of what they in practice wrought.  Among such questions might be these:

·         Did the realities of the Great Cessation—the sudden orders to stop activity and association, the practicalities of work lost, earnings gone, closed businesses, disrupted human interaction—caused by government decree, do more harm than good?

·         How many of those lost jobs are coming back?  How many of them are career-ending?  How many businesses are closed not to reopen?

·         Which actions ordered are unrelated to the health emergency but rather take opportunistic advantage of public fear and disruption?

·         What scars will remain on the body of our freedoms?

No doubt you also have important questions, calling for some explaining.

Involved officials might respond that the forecasts should not be unnoticed in the review.  Which forecasts?  Certainly good policymaking would rely upon future expectations.  Was a broad picture evaluated of what might likely occur?  How closely did policies applied align with appropriate and realistic forecasts (taken together)?  Which forecasts turned out nearest to what indeed happened?

Shall we go to the current forecasts?  Oxford Economics visualizes the loss of 27.9 million jobs in the U.S.  The most recent government estimates of U.S. virus deaths are between 100 thousand and 240 thousand.  For the full picture, we should include predictions of the fallout from prolonged social disruption and human isolation.  How much harm and how many deaths might those policies cause?  When we tally up the score to see whether it all is worth it, include all of that in the tally.

A deep recession caused by government order has never happened in our history.  Now it has and is part of our story.  Those who ordered it should, with due deference and full fairness, be called upon to justify it.

Of Warming Planets and Cooling Economies

Did you notice when the Obama Administration paused in its ballyhooing about global warming?  President Obama and his officials had been busily hustling the warming of the planet and its attendant disasters—which they insist can only be fixed by increasing government control of our lives, from birthing to breathing.  The President was in Florida, blaming the future hurricane season—which has not yet happened—on global warming.  “The best climate scientists in the world are telling us that extreme weather events like hurricanes are likely to become more powerful.”  What President Obama did not mention—anywhere in his speech at the National Hurricane Center in Miami—was that the scientists predicted a “below-normal” hurricane season for 2015.  Was that mercy because of or in spite of global warming? 

Perhaps we should not blame the President for leaving that little item of information out, since for each of the last several years the cited “best climate scientists” (whoever they are) had predicted extraordinarily active and destructive hurricane seasons.  Since each season turned out to be unusually mild, the official forecasters have now changed their tune, putting themselves solidly in-sync with recent trends.  Do not put yourself at risk with a long investment on it either way. 

As for global warming, however, the President and those who say they agree with him insist that the debate is over (in either science or a free nation can the debate ever really be over?), meaning that it is unacceptable to disagree with them.  If you can’t say something calamitous, then don’t say anything at all.

Then, suddenly and quite unexpectedly, the global warming talk stopped.  There was a mercifully, if brief, moratorium on warming warnings.  Instead of predicted calamity, a real calamity was at hand that required some ‘splaining.  The most recent report on the nation’s economic growth was announced.  Not only had growth slowed, as measured by government number crunchers, the economy had actually declined in the first 3 months of 2015.  That seemed to come as a surprise to no one who is either without a job or working in a job that is something less than the job held before 2009.  But it was unwelcome news to the Administration that has been working on economic revival for going on seven years.

Instead of global warming, the Administration needed cold weather to blame for the decline in economic activity during January, February, and March.  The lead official White House explanative was, “harsh winter weather”.  I did not make this up, and you are not supposed to notice how convenient White House excuses are.  It was better that global warming talk was cooled for a moment lest people recognize the contradictions in the official propaganda and begin to wonder whether White House policies were working.

Winter weather is not a novel excuse for failed government programs.  The old Soviet Union blamed repeated crop failures on harsh winters (in Russia?  Who knew?).  The similarity in excuses used by the Obama White House and the Soviet Politburo is not accidental.  Central planners can survive only if they have at the ready a list of excuses of things beyond their control.  The list could be a long one, since in the end there is not very much about the economy that central planners can control, if control means making things go the way intended.  To quote the character Jayne Cobb, in Serenity, “what you plan and what takes place ain’t ever been exactly similar.”

Of the Federal Reserve and Taking from Savers

Ben Bernanke has a blog.  You can find it here, courtesy of the Brookings Institution.  Of course, what would the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board write about, other than decisions he made as Chairman, and why people who take issue with them are wrong?  One would expect no less, and reading the light he sheds on previous decisions—offered in Fedspspeak at the time that they were made—is surely the chief lure of Ben Bernanke’s blog.  Allowed to communicate in regular English, not worried about how Fed Watchers might construe or misconstrue everything he says and does not say, Ben is more able to speak his mind clearly.

The former Fed Head chose for his first blog post a vigorous defense of price controls on interest rates.  In the process Bernanke demonstrates the assumption that we are safe letting government economists control the economy—an assumption continually disproven by real-world experience. 

In fact, as a result of entrusting much of our economic freedom in the United States to government economists, we do not have a free market for interest rates, at least not short term rates, and we pay for that every day.  The Federal Reserve sets short term rates in this country, and so far the market has had zero success in moving rates from the near zero interest rate range that the Federal Reserve has decreed and maintained for some years.  Keep that in mind the next time you wonder why you earned $1.73 in interest on your savings account last year.

If you borrow money—when you can get a loan—then you might consider yourself lucky.  The biggest borrower of all, in the whole world, is the United States Government.  Uncle Sam must be feeling very lucky, because he is paying comparatively little on the $18 trillion of U.S. Government debt, increased by another half trillion dollars last year.

If you save money, though, especially for your retirement—and if you have to live off of those savings in retirement—you might not feel so fortunate.  By keeping interest rates lower than the market would set them, the Federal Reserve is daily transferring many billions of dollars from savers to the Federal Government.  And you thought that only the IRS takes your money.

Let me illustrate with an example.  For the last three months of 2014, all of the banks in the United States, all of them together, paid no more than $11 billion to people who had their money in banks.  Is that a lot of money?  It depends.  When that is the interest paid on nearly $12 trillion in deposits, the answer is, no, that is not very much money at all. 

Do not blame the banks, though.  They are in the saving and lending business, too. Try as they might, with the Federal Reserve controlling interest rates, banks could not pay any more interest to depositors.  If a bank did, it would have more money than it could lend as people shifted their deposits where they could get a better return.  To pay interest on deposits, banks cannot get much more interest from the loans they make than the Federal Reserve price controls allow, and many relatively good loans present more repayment risk (banks do need to be paid back) than those low interest rates would cover.  Low interest earned means low interest paid. 

All the banks in the nation have a little over $15 trillion in loans and other assets, on which they earned last year about the same amount as they did five years ago, when they had $2 trillion less in loans and other assets.  In an environment of low interest rates, banks have to concentrate their lending on the safest borrowers. 

That is how the low interest rates controlled by the Federal Reserve are oppressing the economy.  When savers and lenders can only get a few cents on a hundred dollars lent, they place their money with the very safest of borrowers, since they cannot afford to take any losses.  Someone who has a really good idea—which like all good ideas may or may not succeed the first time—has trouble getting the money to give his idea a go and hire people to help him try. 

Ben Bernanke claims that the Federal Reserve’s near zero interest rate policy—called ZIRP—has been stimulating the economy.  If so, where is the stimulation?  Why has the recovery been so weak?  There has been stimulus, but it has gone primarily to support Federal Government spending and to pay down the debt of the largest and healthiest businesses that can trade in their higher cost loans for the Federal Reserve’s lending bargains.  The biggest increases in bank loans have been in Treasury debt and deposits at the Federal Reserve.

Ben Bernanke, in his blog, reminds me of the story of the lawyer representing a client charged with stealing a car and returning it damaged.  The lawyer says, first, that his client never had the car; second, that he returned it in perfect condition; and, third, that it was already irreparably damaged when his client took it. 

Bernanke begins by explaining that the Federal Reserve does not set interest rates, or that at most its ability to do so is only “transitory and limited.”  He pleads that the Fed can only affect short term rates “in the short run.”  He does not explain how seven years of ZIRP can be considered the short run.  Then he progresses in his blog to describe how the Federal Reserve “influences” interest rates and then how the “Fed’s actions determine” interest rates.  His argument, after denying that the Fed can set rates, is that the economy has been so weak that the Fed has had to lower interest rates for the nation’s own good.  Bernanke next argues that the economy has remained so troubled (he does not say, despite ZIRP) that the Federal Reserve has had no choice but to continue with ZIRP, concluding that it is the economy after all the forces the Fed to do what it does.  Do not blame the Fed Governors, they had no choice but to continue doing what they cannot do because it has not done any good so far.  I think you need to have a Ph.D. in economics to make such an argument.

We cannot do it, we did what we had to do, and since it has not helped we cannot stop.  I wonder how he reacted to those kind of explanations from his teenagers.  Any responsible parent would reply, no, you cannot have the car, give me back the keys.

Of Claiming Good and Doing Bad

A very good book was published this month.  Ostensibly, it is about our economy and the recession.  It is actually about much more.  It is the first book about the current American economy written by a philosopher, and it is perhaps the best book I have read yet about all the recent unpleasantness.  Some might say that the economic trouble still continues, more like a long, slow convalescence from a serious illness than a healthy recovery.  For many whose financial condition stagnates, for those who have replaced a full-time job with one or two part-time jobs, for graduates who have a degree in hand but no work in the field for which they have trained, and especially for the millions who remain out of work, talk of an economic turnaround can seem like a mockery.

For those and others, Infiltrated, by Jay W. Richards, can help make some sense of what hit us.  The book does not suggest that there was a massive conspiracy to drive our nation into economic turmoil.  It explains how turmoil came nevertheless as national policymakers followed the prescriptions of people who claimed to be doing good but tried to cheat the laws of economics and markets to impose what they might call “benevolence” on the rest of us. 

It was their idea that in order to help more people own homes lenders should ignore such things as ability to repay a mortgage, strong history of employment and steady income, and having some equity in the value of the house so there would not be an incentive to walk away if prices dropped.  They also agitated for the government to expand its guaranties for mortgages to people with poor credit histories and loans where lenders cut corners.  And they badgered builders to keep building more houses. 

Their plans horribly miscarried, and yet those people have even more control over us and our economy today and are more able and determined to try again.  The recession, rather than educating and deterring them, has made them bolder.

I am reminded of what the late Louis Rukeyser, the very popular host of the PBS program Wall Street Week, wrote in the 1990s:

            Washington has been taken over by an impregnable mob of short-sighted, power-hungry megaclowns.

They try their worst to micromanage every detail of the economy, but succeed only in whipping the markets back and forth, up and down in spastic patterns.  They despise the gentler forces of a free market, which would moderate swings far more predictably.

(Louis Rukeyser, 1993 advertisement for his financial newsletter)

The people to whom I refer and whom Richards exposes in his book do not like the markets.  They trust themselves more and think that you should trust them, too.  They seriously do believe themselves smarter than the markets, and that is the problem.  No one, other than God, is smarter than the markets.  A large part of economic history, the tragic part, is a chronicle of the disasters caused when a small coterie of people are able to enforce their wishes and preferences on the rest of us in contravention of economic reality.  It never works. 

That was the story of the Great Depression, and it was entirely the story of communism, where whole societies were based upon the now well-proven fallacy that any group of people, no matter how smart or well intentioned, can gather sufficient data and know and understand enough to run a national economy.  It is just far too complicated, with billions of economic decisions being made by millions of people all day and all night long.  The markets make it all work, because the markets are the sum combined total of all of those economic actions and decisions interacting with each other.  No human five-year plan for economic control has escaped failure.

What is worse, as well intentioned as such people may start out, all too often, as Richards’ book exposes, their efforts not only fail to do what they set out to do, they fail to stay virtuous and instead  become enlisted in the service of private gain at the expense of the rest of us.  The Soviet system might have worked pretty well for the party owners of the dachas along the Black Sea but only by impoverishing the workers their leaders claimed to be serving.

Do not let yourself be put off that Richards is a philosopher.  His book is remarkably readable, one that you can take with you to the beach and actually enjoy, and feel that you have learned something—a lot—in the reading.  Richards mixes real life narrative with hard facts and good research, unified by sound reasoning to expose a nasty and growing problem in American government today.  The problem is a big part of why government is expanding and becoming more intrusive in all aspects of our lives, including our financial affairs, education, healthcare, energy use, the products we buy, the food we eat, and the entertainment we enjoy, and even the breath we exhale. 

That is to say that the story told by Jay Richards, in Infiltrated, is actually a longer story, a story that began long before the recession, and continues afterward, a story that is bigger than his book.  The recent economic events and their painful aftermath illuminate Richards’ core message, the human wreckage caused when some people are able to harness the coercive force of government to impose their personal notions of “benevolence” on the rest of us. 

Roger Kimball, writing in 2011 in The New Criterion, warned that such efforts are “intoxicating, addictive, expensive, and ultimately ruinous.” (Roger Kimball, “Liberty versus benevolence,” The New Criterion, February 2011, p.6)  Richards offers several well-described examples, well illustrating the truth of Kimball’s observations. 

A valuable lesson for policymakers and for the people they would govern:  the more discretion you give to government, the more you create the opportunity for abuse of that discretion for private gain.  Europe in the 18th century was lousy with the practice.  Our forebears sought to escape it and fought a revolution to get out of its grip.  The men who threw the tea into Boston Harbor were acting in protest of the partnership between the British Crown and the British East India Company. 

Beware the public-private partnerships.  Jay Richards explains how some public-private mortgage partnerships went bad, very bad, for the partners and for all of us caught in the dust and debris of their collapse.  I am reminded of the warning by former Congressman Dick Armey, that when you enter into a partnership with the devil, you are always the junior partner.

I conclude with the words of New York City Democrat Congressman Bourke Cockran, delivered 110 years ago:

That Government only is good, that Government only is great, that Government only is just, which has neither favorites nor victims.

(W. Bourke Cockran, speech given before the National Liberal Club of England, London, July 15, 1903, in W. Bourke Cockran, In the Name of Liberty, p.190)

Our government should be that government.

Of Taxes and the Tenth Commandment

It may be a commonplace to comment on popular culture’s war on the Ten Commandments, but it merits the effort.  At best they are treated in Hollywood and other secular Zions of pop culture as the Ten Old Fashioned Ideas.  Undeniably, Moses was after all just another one of those old white men, whom many with public microphones wish would fade from the contemporary scene (as long as they keep paying the bills).

Yet there seems to linger in the hearts and minds of most people in America who are not cultural trend setters an enduring if vague respect for Ten Commandment concepts such as the preeminence of God, the duties to parents, abhorrence of murder, the value of marriage covenants, the evils of theft, and that telling the truth is still better than lying.  These are basic concepts that even children have little trouble understanding.

I must confess, however, that as a child I had difficulty understanding the tenth commandment, “Thou shalt not covet” (Exodus 20:17).  “Covet” is not a word much found in a child’s vocabulary, or in anyone else’s for that matter.  It required explaining to me.  Then it was not overly hard to take in as an idea.  I did wonder, though, why it had an exalted place with the other nine commandments.  The gravity of theft, murder, blasphemy, lying, not going to Church on Sunday, and even dishonoring parents I could sense as a child, but why make such a big deal about coveting?  Very bad things happen from breaking those other commandments.  Sure, coveting, as explained to me, led to other sins, such as stealing, murder, lying and the rest, but where was the great evil in the thing itself?  You could go to jail for breaking some of the other Ten Commandments, and you certainly were on the high road to hell if you did.  Coveting might make you feel unhappy or dislike someone who had something you wanted—not good, but was it really so bad?

I have come to learn, with time and experience, that the answer is, Yes, it is very bad.  The Ten Commandments address, first, our relationship with God; second, our relationship with family; and finally our relationship with our neighbors and in the communities where we live.  Coveting is a powerful corrosive acid in community relationships.  It dissolves kindness and respect and love for our fellows, leaving an envy that has hate at its root. 

Indulged in, coveting insidiously works to separate us from those who have what we might want.  One need not act on the coveting, one need not steal, lie, cheat, commit adultery, or engage in other offenses for the wedge of coveting to work its evil within society.  Neighbors become cold, businessmen and workers become self-centered, helping hands become harder to find, envy and jealousy increasingly push compassion and cooperation aside.  The poor hate any richer than they, and those who are better off lose their pity and concern for those whom they might otherwise be quick to help and encourage.

I am not one who looks to our political leaders to be moral leaders, but I do look to them to be virtuous.  Morality must be a fundamental qualification for those to whom we give authority to make, execute, and judge the laws if we want our laws and their administration to be based upon virtue.  We do not and should not derive our morality from these people, but we should expect them to act morally in the exercise of the duties and powers that they derive from the people whom they govern.

It is more than irresponsible, then, that coveting has not only been accepted by President Obama but is in fact advocated for the nation to embrace as the defining element of our economic policy, one that begins with demands for higher taxes on “the rich.”  This national call to covet is dangerous to our community.  Look again at how the evil was described on Mount Sinai, keeping in mind President Obama’s call to soak the rich to support more government:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (Exodus 20:17)

All sharing in the tax burden is a necessary element of self-government.  Self-government does not work without all of the individual selves in society pitching in fairly.  But how else than a call to covet can we understand President Obama’s “not negotiable” demand that the United States, on the brink of renewed recession and economic trouble for millions, do nothing unless the government first takes ever growing shares out of the pockets of those he calls “the rich”?  He wants their money, and he wants the rest of the nation to covet their money in support of his plans for bigger government. 

The demand cannot be explained on grounds of “fairness” or financial value.  One part of the population is singled out to pay for an outsized share of government spending, including promised subsidies to some of the rest.  The rich, for now defined by the President as those with incomes of $250,000 or more, currently earn 22% of all income but pay 45% of all federal income taxes.  No fairness in raising that share even higher.  But neither would Obama’s plans do much to pay for government budget deficits.  His so-called “Buffett Rule” would drink in some $47 billion more over the next ten years, or just under $5 billion a year.  The federal government, however, is currently spending $4 billion a day more than it collects.  That is, soaking the rich will pay for a little more than one day of the federal deficit.  Not a financial policy that will bridge the government budget gap.

What is going on here, other than a destructive and cynical effort to gain popularity by stirring up the many with envy of the income of a few?  This short-sighted strategy is working to undermine our national community, just as surely as Moses warned 4,000 years ago.  Already it has brought us to a month long national financial emergency, at the very time of Christmas when virtues of generosity, tolerance, kindness, and unity would better occupy the public attention.  The theme of peace on earth and goodwill to men is replaced by a manufactured national crisis over how to pitch class against class with sentiments of envy and hatred led by America’s chief executive.

By the way, I am not aware of any religion that condones coveting.  But even if the fear of God does not make you slow to covet, objective love for the nation as a whole and the integrity of the society should cause you to recoil from a political platform based upon feeding the fires of envy.

Of Struggling Economies and Finishing the Job

The Obama Administration is having trouble keeping the economy down.  In spite of all the battering that the economy has taken from Obama policies, it keeps showing signs of life—weak, hesitant, surely not robust, but they are there, like the weak patient who wants to get out of bed and shuffle downstairs to sip some chicken soup.  Instead, the Administration, like some 18^th century doctor, wants to try some more blood letting to get the bad humours out of the system. 

People want to do things.  Businessmen have new ideas that they want to have a go at.  Men and women like to build, grow, and develop their lives.  No one needs to tell them to do it.  You just need to get out of the way.  The most productive, the most energetic, the most inspired, the hardest workers will do it best.  We can still remember when the economy was like that, when the news was full of new products, new ventures, new growth, and new jobs.  That is the light America shines to the world and what despots throughout the world hate about the American experiment.

President Obama came to power with a different vision for America, what he thought was a mandate to spread the wealth around, to take from those who succeeded the most in economic activity and growth and find ways in which he and his administration could give it to those who were less productive—or not even productive at all.  In other words, his plan was to tax success and reward failure.  So far, it has worked as designed, even if he has not yet finished with his efforts.  We are getting less of the success and more of the failure.

The trillion dollar “stimulus” plan was a good example.  President Obama and friends hit the economy with a special trillion dollars of new Washington spending that went to support cronies and fund new projects that soon added to the landscape littered with failed businesses.  The “stimulus” plan added to the deficit and became a seemingly permanent part of federal largesse, but it failed to add to the economy.  In fact, it made legitimate businesses compete for funds and customers against those who enjoyed government subsidies.  Hard to do.

The housing market makes up about a quarter of the economy, when you include people who build houses, furnish houses, maintain houses, and so forth.  That market was in full decline as the housing bubble burst in 2007 and kept deflating.  But eventually all the extra air comes out of economic bubbles (if you do not keep pumping new air into them), the crashing market reaches bottom and starts to recover.  The Obama Administration has made sure that it stayed on the bottom a long time.  Normal economic crashes and recoveries look like a “V” on a graph charting their progress.  The housing market under the Obama Administration looks like an “L”.  Note the tiny turn up at the end of the letter.  That is what the Administration’s friends would try to convince us is the recovery.  And they would like to divert our attention from the several thousand pages of new mortgage regulations that will go into effect in the next several months to whack the housing markets again.

Sure, mortgage rates are incredibly low, but that is not a healthy sign.  Have you tried getting a mortgage lately?  The paperwork, already a mountain, has become overwhelming.  And do you think that those rates would be so low if there were a real recovery in demand for houses and mortgages?  There is more (or less):  many people who qualify for mortgages today will have trouble qualifying in the future under the new rules.  The Obama Administration’s new consumer Bureau has been putting off those rules until after the election, but they are promising to issue them by the end of the month.

The summers of 2009, 2010, 2011, and even 2012 were each supposed to be the “Summer of Recovery” with the “green shoots” of new economic activity showing life each spring.  Yet each year those summers saw instead new economic setbacks as the green shoots wilted.  Sometimes the damage came from threats of new tax policies that would raise rates but give “tax breaks” to people who spent their income in ways approved by the Obama Administration and the tax code.

Businesses were threatened with new carbon taxes and other innovative and contorted ways to penalize any use of carbon dioxide, part of the air that we as humans produce with every breath.  Even a Congress with heavy majorities of legislators from President Obama’s own party choked on that idea.  Not to be deterred, the Obama Administration just imposed restrictions by fiat through the Environmental Protection Agency—all part of the war on carbon, which includes the energy industry as its victims.

The business climate remains in turmoil, as waves of new regulation and Obama campaign promises to bail out new favorites in the economy continue changing the rules and make business planning impossible.  Who would take a risk at trying something new when Obamacare and other employee regulations make it hard to know what the expense will be for new hires?  American businesses are sitting on somewhere between one and two trillion dollars in funds, waiting to know when it would be safe to invest them.  Employers are trying to put some of that cash to work, but they are being very cautious in doing so, not what the words “free enterprise” bring to mind.

The Obama Administration and its apologists call the recent unemployment report “good.”  The unemployment rate went up, above the level when President Obama came to office; 5 million people are long-term unemployed, up by 200,000 from the month before; and the economy has 4.4 million fewer jobs than at the peak of its last growing period before Obama took office.  The excitement apparently comes from the net increase of 171,000 jobs in the past month, above the experts’ predictions of 125,000.  Watchers have learned to lower their expectations for this administration, so that they greet with cheers any signs of life above their reduced standards.  Maybe for President Obama that continued anemic performance is good, but America can do better.  America has done better, much better.  We cannot afford to lower our vision. 

Our future and the future of our children and grandchildren must not be crippled by looking at 2% economic growth as being “good” or even acceptable.  If we want a better future for our children and grandchildren, in fact if people my age want a secure retirement, we need to get back to an America where 4% annual growth or better is the norm.  The social welfare state is expensive, not the least of which being the cost it exacts from the future to pay for the promises of today.

Fortunately, the economy still refuses to die, in spite of all the beating that it has received at the hands of the Obama Administration, but the economy is not well.  Let’s not give the Obama team another four years to try to finish it off.

Of Government and Getting What We Deserve

There is a theory that I believe but I am not sure how to prove (this side of the final judgment) that over time people tend to get the government that they deserve.  This idea comes to mind when I hear complaints in the public media about the Congress.  You have certainly heard them.  They come in various flavors, but they are the same soda:

• Why can the Congress get nothing done?

• Congress is unable to rise above partisan politics.

• The people in Congress seem so out of touch with the rest of America.

• Congress avoids making tough decisions.

You could surely add to this list.  The underlying theme is that the Congress is not doing its job.

These comments are a frustrating alloy of truth and silliness.  There is a lot that is right and wrong with the current Congress.  Who put these men and women on Capitol Hill?  With the exception of a handful of Senators appointed by their governors to fill temporary vacancies, and the few dozen congressmen who by order of the Supreme Court must be elected in districts where there really is no democracy (I refer to those from districts mandated by the courts to provide only minority representation), all of these congressmen and Senators were elected—by the people whom they represent.

I mention that to refer to both sides of the coin.  We, the people, put those people there.  The other side is, we the people can send them home.  That is a weighty responsibility, one that we cannot discharge faithfully by just complaining.  We cannot do our legislators’ jobs for them and be involved in all of the minor details of all that they do, but we can and must hold them accountable for the sum of what they do and for the general tone and direction of their actions.  To be successful we need to have a clear idea of what we want our representatives to do and be well educated about what they are doing—not just what they are saying.

One of the sillier comments I hear is the suggestion that we should “throw them all out.”  Is that true?  Is every single congressman and Senator doing a bad job?  Even a basic review of congressional action should tell us that is not the case.  On nearly all of the most important issues there is in fact quite a divergence of views and actions.  Again, our inescapable job is to figure out what is the right policy and look carefully at how our elected representatives are conducting themselves with regard to it.  We should weed the garden, not plow it under.

There are many policies and many issues from which to choose.  Let me suggest two.  The first would be the Constitution.  What have been the actions of our own particular representatives with regard to supporting and defending the Constitution and the rule of law?  Our current President has been active in undermining the Constitution and disregarding the rule of law, so this is not a theoretical issue.  What have our representatives been doing to combat voter fraud, to make sure that the executive branch does not spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress, or to prevent bureaucrats from telling law abiding people how to spend their money, run their businesses, freely express their opinions, or observe their religion?  There have been many other assaults on the Constitution by people in Washington.  As voters, we should be mighty touchy about any of those efforts and reluctant to vote for people who do not share our sensitivity about the importance of the Constitution and our rights as citizens.

The second issue I would suggest is economic growth.  We will never really get out of this recession (that feels depressingly like the 1930s) unless we place a top priority on getting the economy growing.  We cannot solve our budget deficit and federal debt problems without economic growth.  People forget that the few years that we had a balanced budget in the 1990s did not come by government action.  Congress and President were in fact surprised by the surpluses.  They came about because the economy grew more strongly than expected.  We should support those legislators who act like they understand that economic growth creates jobs and that economic growth is created by private initiative.  We should support those legislators who consistently vote to remove barriers to business creation and innovation and defeat those who do not.  Those barriers include higher taxes and increasing government involvement in business decisions and operations.

All of this will take work on our part.  We cannot expect to have legislators who work for what is right and wise unless we do our work to find and support those who do.  There are many of them in the House of Representatives and in the Senate today.  We need more of them.

I believe that people eventually get the government that they deserve, and I yet believe that we deserve better than we have and that the time has come to get better.

Of the G-20 and Running the World

When you think about it, it is ridiculous.  In fact, it would be pitiful, if they were not so serious and did not have the power to do seriously bad things.  I am referring to the leaders of the Group of 20 (G-20) nations, who recently met in Mexico, thinking that they run the world.

If the question were put to you, “Who runs the world?” there could be several correct answers, but none of them would be this group of people, or any subset of them.  Nevertheless, because they think that they do run the world, and because they act on that belief, they do a lot of things that not only do not work but that make things worse.  Then they gather again and try something else, much of which is designed to clean up the mess caused by their previous foray in hubristic action.

The world is a complex place, with billions of people each doing complex things and interacting with each other in complex ways.  Then the planet itself does a lot of complex things.  Take the weather, for instance.  With computers and a hundred years of scientific study, weather forecasters have succeeded in the ability to predict the weather with a passable degree of accuracy two or three days out.  Beyond that, the accuracy of forecasts declines to about 50-50 (flip a coin) and drops from there.  The ability to change the weather, after a lot of work and investment, remains elusive. 

You have to be very smart, or think that you are, to convince yourself that you can in any significant way control the economy of your own nation, let alone of the world together.  The Russians, who are very smart people, tried it for 70 years with less than success and with the death and misery of tens of millions of their people.  The communist Chinese gave it a go, too.  Lately they have been reluctantly recognizing that there might be a better way—though they act like they are still not so sure.

Consider how many of the most serious problems facing mankind today are caused by people like these G-20 government leaders who fancy that they run things.  A few examples:

• The economic malaise in the United States.  The U.S. economy has just passed through a very deep recession, caused by government programs that encouraged people to buy houses that they could not afford, investors to invest in the mortgages used to buy those houses, banks to take government investments in their capital that they did not need, and people who could afford to pay their mortgages to walk away and leave the keys on the counter.  To solve those problems, the U.S. government spent a trillion dollars it did not have, increased rules and regulations on businesses that could otherwise create new jobs, “created” a quarter of a million new jobs at the cost of eliminating a million jobs in the private sector, and threatened investors and small businessmen with stiff tax increases.  Economic activity remains in the doldrums.

• The second economic recession in Europe.  The European economy went into recession about the same time that the U.S. economy did, for rather similar reasons.  It then weakly recovered, briefly, and then went back into recession when the promises that the governments of southern European countries made over decades to buy votes at last became more expensive than they could borrow money for—let alone pay for.  Now, every couple of weeks Greece, Italy, or Spain goes into economic crisis, the rest of the European leaders make empty promises to solve the problem, followed a couple of weeks later by new crisis and another round of promises.  That has been going on for about a year, while economic activity heads south.

• The availability of energy.  From the gasoline that we put in our cars, the electricity that lights our houses, to the natural gas that warms our offices and homes government rules affect the availability, price, distribution, and supply of energy.  The United States imports enormous amounts of oil from unstable countries that use the money we pay for it to threaten our people at home and abroad.  Meanwhile, we have more than enough supplies of coal, natural gas, and oil located in oil shale and oil sands and off our own shores to meet all of our needs now and for the foreseeable future, but government efforts to run the energy business prevent us from using them.

These are just three groups of examples of many.  Once again I call on the wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman, the great Union general of the Civil War, who famously refused to run for President of the United States with the assertion that if nominated he would not run, if elected he would not serve.  He gave his friend and colleague, U.S. Grant, who did not make such a refusal, a piece of excellent advice:

My opinion is, the country is doctored to death, and if President and Congress would go to sleep like Rip Van Winkle, the country would go on under natural influences, and recover far faster than under their joint and several treatment.

(William T. Sherman, letter to General Ulysses S. Grant, February 14, 1868, in William Tecumseh Sherman, Memoirs of William T. Sherman, p.922)

If someone should ask you, “Who runs the country?”, the correct answer is, “no one.”  Plenty pretend to, and many others wish to, but none do and none can, and we would all be better off if they would stop trying.  Our nation’s founders would have recoiled in horror at the question, because they intentionally created a nation that no one could run.  Why else have three branches of a federal government, one of which is divided into two separate houses, and state governments take their share of governmental authority?  They had seen Europe and knew of Asia where people for thousands of years had royally messed things up by trying to run their countries.

Instead, the American founders created a system where each person would run his own life.  The leaders in government were to run the government, that for the most part was to stay out of people’s lives and keep foreign governments at bay should they have any thoughts of trying their hand at running the lives of Americans.

That vision of the founders has been fading.  Today, make a list of the things that you can do that do not involve some sort of authority or permission from government.  It will not be a long list, and it has not been getting any longer in recent years.  Then ask yourself if life has been getting any better.  If it has, congratulate yourself on your power to overcome.

Of Washington Poverty and Market Growth

We are now well into the new year and even farther into the economic recession, and it would be hard to find people who think that things are looking better. The best you can find are those who will say that things are looking like they may soon start to look better, at least a little bit.

Unemployment continues to grow, with the best predictions calling for a turn around in 2010. The economy continues to shrink. Trade—imports and exports—is contracting. The number of bank failures has been growing in recent weeks. The stock market, after a hope-led surge in the Spring, is languishing. And the great State of California is bankrupt, literally bankrupt. It cannot even borrow money. The state government is making payments with IOUs—as long as people will accept them, and patience is running very thin.

We are now into a full year of trying to run the economy from Washington—stretching back into last year’s failed economic policies under President Bush and continuing at an accelerated pace under President Obama. Things have gotten progressively worse. Maybe it is time to admit that Washington cannot run the economy, at least not if you measure success by economic growth, business expansion, and generation of good (rather than make-work) jobs.

After one year of trying everything, if government-directed, Washington-led economic control worked, you would think that we would see strong evidence by now. The evidence is just the opposite. The job creation engines—business and investment—seem to be on strike. Or maybe they are just frozen out by government programs trying to take their place. With efforts to control all aspects of the economy, from taxes that reach to anything that uses energy, to proposals for government to “compete” with the private sector for health care (you ever try to “compete” with the umpires in baseball?), to plans to have brand new government agencies control the banking system (protecting the “consumer” by making consumers’ banking decisions for them), how can investors figure out where to place their money? How can businessmen make plans for growing their businesses?

The problem is not that the people in Washington are not smart. They are smart. They are just not smart enough. No mortal is. The economy of a great nation like the United States is far too complex for any small group of people to run it. It is impossible for them to know enough or to do enough. These smart people desperately pull on a handful of economic levers and hope to run the entire economic machine, always overlooking myriads of other important economic matters, and mishandling the levers that they can pull.

It is best to let the markets run the economy, the markets that efficiently take the billions of freely-made economic decisions of the whole population every day, drawing upon the combined knowledge of everyone, and turn them into economic growth and expansion. The interference of the government policies got us into the current recession, and the increased interference has intensified it. Now it is time to back off, and let the people make their decisions, all of the people, and watch this economy soar. That formula has always worked.

Of Signs and Deception

A well-known principle of propaganda is that if you are going to tell a lie, the bigger the lie the more believable it will be. Most people are so trusting that they do not want to believe in the enormity of a big lie. They do not want to believe that someone can intentionally say something appallingly false. Rather than disbelieve the liar, they will want to disbelieve the person who exposes the lie.

One of the biggest of lies is asserting something to be exactly the opposite of what it is. Such is the warmonger who claims to be the leading pacifist, the thief who claims to be the victim of theft—and accuses the real victim of being the criminal—or the bigoted radical who accuses opponents of intolerance.

In recent travels on the streets, roads, and highways I notice at this time of the year the beautiful Fall foliage—and the many political campaign signs. While for some there might be a distaste for seeing these, I feel to rejoice in the signs as evidence of a vigorous system of subjecting our political leaders to public vote.

Having said that, I do draw the line at the steady growth of the mega-yard and curb signs, the five-foot by eight-foot broadsides. So, already inclined to dislike such construction-size boards, I have been particularly disturbed to see what appears to be a planned series of Obama-Biden signs advocating policies that these two Washington insiders have long worked hard to oppose.

I have noticed three in this series. There may be others. The ones that I have seen show the names of the two candidates, followed by a motto reading something like, “Better Schools,” “Lower Taxes,” and “Energy Independence.”

If facts matter, and I believe that they still do (even if they are optional in the mass media), such messages on the signs of these two politicians should be jarring to the honest in heart. The political record of Obama and Biden are unequivocal on these three issues. They both have strongly and consistently opposed school reform, supporting doing more of the same old stuff that has been steadily undermining the quality of government-run schools since the 1960s.

Both have been leading advocates for raising taxes and opposing tax cuts. Even in the current campaign they advocate new tax hikes. They try to disguise their intentions with the assertion that their proposals supposedly would reduce taxes on 95% of Americans (including the 40% who pay little or no income taxes), while raising them on the rest. Either they failed with the simple math, or they hope that voters cannot or will not be able to apply simple math, but you cannot get enough taxes out of 5% to pay for genuine tax cuts for 95%. In fact, their proposals are just another camouflage for the old tried and failed policies of tax and spend. Not only does that always put more power into the hands of the politicos who take and then redistribute, but it is a highly dangerous thing to do in the teeth of an economic downturn. Taxes fall on income and investment, and whatever you tax you get less of. Now is not the time for less income and investment.

And as for energy independence, both Obama and Biden support programs that will yield little and have yielded very little new energy—at very high expense in government subsidies—while staunchly opposing expanded use of the energy resources that are abundant in the United States, particularly oil, coal, and nuclear energy. Independence seems to me to increase reliance on your own resources. Obama and Biden are consistent supporters of policies that keep U.S. energy resources under lock and key.

This should not be surprising from two candidates who campaign on change while advocating the oldest political formula in the history of government, that government knows best, that decisions about spending, whether for health, education, or job creation, are best made by power brokers in the halls of Washington power centers, rather than by families in their homes. Calling that change may be the biggest lie of all.

Of Plumber Joe and Community Organizer Barry

It took a real life example to give life to the key difference between the two candidates for president. When Plumber Joe met Barack Obama campaigning in his neighborhood, Joe asked the would-be president, why do you want to tax my small business? Actually, more precisely, Joe wants to buy the plumbing business he has worked at, and Obama wants to raise taxes on it, and Joe asked Obama, why? At first, Obama equivocated and mumbled something about getting some tax breaks to offset the tax hikes. When Joe refused to buy into that sleight of hand trick, Obama fessed up. Obama admitted that he wanted to spread the wealth around. In other words, he said that Joe would be making too much money, so Obama wanted to take from him and give to someone else.

Why would Obama want to do that? Because, unlike Plumber Joe, who has a real job, Obama’s career experience came as a “community organizer” (when he was known in Chicago as Barry). Taking money from people and giving it to others is what community organizers do. Barry the Community Organizer now wants to organize a big community, of over 300 million people, and he wants to keep spreading the wealth around. Community organizers like to do that, because they like to get the credit for being compassionate and generous, compassionate and generous handing out other people’s money.

Joe has worked hard as a plumber. Joe has saved and prospered. Now Joe wants to own his own business and provide work for other employees. The employees, these plumbers, would provide plumbing services and get paid by their customers. Barack Obama wants to take some of that money—O.K., a lot of that money—and spread it around to people who would get their money from Barack, people who have not been as “lucky” as Plumber Joe.

Lucky? My guess is that it was not luck that made Joe work hard over the years and save his money to be in a position to own a business and provide real jobs to other people. Under a President Obama, Joe and others like him would become unlucky.

John McCain has been trying to point out for weeks that the change offered by Barack Obama is a big time return to the tired old tax and spend politics of the big government politicians. John McCain is not the most eloquent campaigner, and the mass media has been doing its best to bury his message anyway. McCain finally found a real life example, and that is the most eloquent statement of all. At the last national debate, on a stage that the mass media could not ignore, McCain introduced us to Joe the Plumber (who by the way did not ask for all the attention and is a bit embarrassed by it), and McCain asked, why raise his taxes? Why raise anybody’s taxes going into an economic downturn?

If you do not raise the taxes, you cannot keep spending other people’s money and winning praise for your compassion and generosity. And that is the point of this election.

Of Elections and Consequences

Elections have consequences, real, life-affecting consequences. One of the more unfortunate aspects of the mass media attitude toward elections is their approach to them as if they were some kind of game. The running score that they keep of the latest polls, their up-to-date electoral college count, the fixation on who “won” the latest debate, all demonstrate a sentiment that the election is some kind of sporting event, where we all root for one side or another, and when the game is won and the season is over we all go back to business as usual. That is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

After the election in November is over, it will not be back to business as usual. America’s standard of living, our economic welfare, our health, safety, and national security will all be affected. Electing Jimmy Carter meant economic and social malaise, it meant the loss of allies in several parts of the world, it meant civil war in Central America and the rise to power of the Ayatollahs in Iran. It meant a toxic economic brew of high unemployment, high inflation, and high interest rates. It meant increased crime in our cities. It meant an underpaid and undersupplied military, with Navy ships coming into harbor trading ammunition with those leaving port because there was not enough ammunition to go around.

Barack Obama is not quite as good or experienced as Jimmy Carter. His leading economic proposal is a whopping tax in the face of an economic downturn. Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt tried that in the 1930s, which turned a recession into the Great Depression. And Obama lies about his tax increase. He lies that it would not affect 95% of the population. The severe recession that it would cause will affect everyone, even the non-tax payers who are promised a tax cut by Obama.

Obama’s plan for a camouflaged government take over of health care will mean that health services will be provided with the same efficiency of the U.S. Postal Service. That means that sick people will have reduced access to medical services. It means that incentives to develop new medicines and new treatments will melt away. If government runs health care, as Obama wants, that means that political muscle will determine health care priorities rather than patient demand setting the priorities.

Obama’s foreign policies are right out of the Jimmy Carter briefing book. That means betrayal of our friends, appeasement of our enemies, and adventurous use of the military in places and causes that mean little to the national security of the United States. It means preparation always for some other war but inadequate commitment to fight the war we are in (he's eager to send more troops into Afghanistan, but unwilling to win the war in Iraq). It means further design of the next weapons system, but never deployment of it, a return to starving our military of what it needs to do the job with least loss of life and maximum success. It means that the most important issues for the Obama military will be social engineering of the armed forces rather than a focus on their increased effectiveness and efficiency.

Voting in a republic like the United States is a serious matter. It is not a game. It means far more than bragging rights over whether our team won the World Series. It means that we are responsible for our electoral choices, with a full understanding that the people we elect will mean a difference in our lives and the lives of our families. It is a truism that people get the government they deserve. I firmly hope and believe that the American people deserve better than Obama. I know that my children do.

Of Con Artists and Presidential Candidates

There is something disturbing about Barack Obama. I have been trying to put words to it. It is not merely that I disagree with him on his political prescriptions. There are many people, across the political spectrum, with whom I disagree on political policies and programs, even those for whom I used to work. With only a relative handful of them, however, have I sensed the same disquiet that I feel with regard to this year’s Democrat nominee for President.

After the recent presidential debate between Obama and Republican candidate John McCain I found the right words. Obama is a con artist. Fundamentally, he is acting in a deceptive way to get something from you. He wants you to believe that he has your best interests at heart so that he can get from you your precious vote. He pretends to be what he is not, because if you understood what he is all about, you would not vote for him.

Take, for example, his tax policies. Barack Obama promises a tax cut for 95% of the population. He is offering you a financial incentive for your vote. He is offering to buy your vote. He does not tell you that many of those people for whom he promises a tax cut do not pay any federal income taxes. A tax cut to people who do not pay taxes is just a government hand out. And he usually tries to hide the fact that this hand out to people who do not pay taxes is coming from you. We should not be so willing to believe that you can tax just 5% of the people in order to give a tax break to the other 95%—especially if many of the 95% do not pay any income taxes. You cannot get there, even if you try to take all of the money of the “rich,” and once that is gone what do you do for the next act?

If you own your own business, chances are very high that your business is taxed like an individual and that the revenues for that business will be classified as the “rich” that Obama says he thinks need to pay more taxes. Or perhaps you have some investments in the stock market—half of all Americans do. When those rich companies pay the new Obama taxes, that money comes out of the hides of the companies’ shareholders. Moreover, raising taxes into the teeth of an economic decline is a certain recipe for accelerating the decline. That is what Hoover did, and what Franklin Roosevelt did in order to make an economic recession last for a whole decade (eventually history should recognize that FDR was the worst president of the 20th Century—even if he could talk a good game).

A second example follows directly from the tax example. After he is finished talking about tax cuts (on people who do not pay taxes), Obama starts his litany of very expensive new government spending programs. The price tag for these comes to some $800 billion, give or take a hundred billion dollars. Each program is carefully designed to buy votes. Not only do his tax cuts not work as real tax cuts—taken by themselves—they cannot possibly work in the face of $800 billion of new federal spending.

The third example is really the most prominent. Barack Obama says that this is all “change.” He says you should vote for change, because he thinks that you want change and that his promise for change will get you to give him your vote. If you believe that major tax increases and massive new government spending programs are change, maybe he will succeed in getting many votes. But maybe people will say that they have heard that formula before, and whenever it is applied the nation always becomes poorer.

Barack Obama looks good, talks smooth, promises everything. If he loses this race for President, maybe he could try his hand selling used cars.

Of Presidents and Training for the Job

There are some jobs you just cannot safely do without proper training and experience. Flying an airplane is one that comes to mind. Driving a bus is another. I would put being President of the United States in the Twenty-First Century on the list, too.

President of the United States was a tough job in the days of George Washington. It was even a challenge in the days of Millard Fillmore. It has not become any easier in recent years, and next year it will be a very big job. Considering the global responsibilities of the United States, with several irresponsible oil-drunk regimes threatening peace and freedom (ours and other’s) around the world, can we afford to enroll our new President in a foreign policy on-the-job-training program?

Economically as well, there is little room for error. So far we have gone through a year and a half of the housing market bust without falling into a recession. But our economic growth is anemic. A small false step or two can put us into a full-blown economic decline, exploding banking and financial markets that will then take years to recover. It is important that economic policy next year be led by someone who understands economic growth and how to promote it. The formula for growth—low taxes and steady prices—is well known to those who have learned the lesson; we do not need a novice who does not have enough experience to know that you cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity. We cannot afford his experiments with our jobs and livelihood.

That is why it is breathtaking that a major political party is on the verge of nominating for President someone so inexperienced as Barack Obama. I am unable to recall a single nominee for President, by any major party, less prepared for the office than Barack Obama. Really, there is the challenge for you. Name a nominee—Republican, Democrat, Whig, Federalist—less prepared than Obama.

Barack Obama likes to liken himself to Abraham Lincoln. I cannot claim to have known Abraham Lincoln or assert that he was a friend of mine, but I do say, Barack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln. Even liberal exaggerations of Obama’s undistinguished career cannot make it compare favorably with the long and grueling life experiences that schooled Lincoln for the White House.

In short, Obama does not have the training for the job. It may be that the Democrats’ talent pool is so thin that he will be nominated. But the job of President is too important—to all of us—to be extended to someone so unready.