BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Barack Obama Archive

Tuesday

19

October 2010

0

COMMENTS

China Calls Out Obama's Subsidy Hypocrisy

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, Labor Unions

When Barack Obama promises green subsidies, it’s an energy plan that will create “green jobs” (it isn’t and it won’t, but that’s another story). When China does it, it’s time for an investigation!

China’s top energy official said the U.S. was playing electoral politics with an announcement that it will investigate a union complaint that the Chinese government gives unfair subsidies to its alternative energy industry.

“Does America want to get fair trade or a genuine dialogue, or get transparent information?” National Energy Administration Director Zhang Guobao asked at a Beijing press conference last night. “I think not — it seems America’s main reason is to get votes.”

The U.S. acted on a complaint from the United Steelworkers union that China’s aid to its clean-energy producers violates global trade rules. Accepting the petition may lead the U.S. to file a protest at the World Trade Organization. The complaint, called a Section 301 filing, is the first filed and accepted by President Barack Obama’s administration after his predecessor, George W. Bush, turned down trade complaints against China.

Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are under increasing pressure ahead of the Nov. 2 congressional elections to take measures to reduce China’s trade surplus. The trade gap widened to a record $28 billion in August, bolstering claims that a weak Chinese currency is hurting American jobs. Last week Montana Democrat Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said a bill targeting China’s yuan may pass the Senate later this year and be sent to Obama for his signature.

And here we go with the trade deficit nonsense again. The “trade gap” is just a fancy way of saying that we get more stuff from China than we have to give them in return. I run a similar deficit with BestBuy, and it’s certainly not a bad thing for me.

But the real point here is the absurdity of an administration that promotes subsidies and protectionism to shield unions from competition – which incidentally raises prices for consumers and reduces overall prosperity – even considering complaining to the WTO when other countries do the same. Obama’s consistent disgust at practicing free trade gives him zero moral authority on the matter.

Wednesday

8

September 2010

0

COMMENTS

How Far They've Come

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

This video by the Winston Group contrasting JFK’s rather sound economic understanding with President Obama’s sophomoric demagoguery really highlights just how far the Democratic party has lurched to the left.  All the old 60’s radicals and democratic socialists have worked their way up through the party structure, and now have control of the Democratic agenda.

Monday

23

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Does The President Vacation Too Much?

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

A lot of conservatives seem to think President Obama spends too much time vacationing.  That is the thrust of this illuminating graphical time-line from Grand Rants:

I can certainly understand why conservatives find this argument attractive.  The President has demonstrated through his policies and speeches that he is out of touch with Americans.  Pointing out his frequent vacations certainly enforces that narrative.  But I think it also encourages an unhealthy attitude toward the presidency.

The idea that we expect a president to be on top of everything that happens across the entire country is something which one would expect to hear from the statist left, but not self-described individualists.  I want a president less involved in the day-to-day affairs of most Americans.  For the last century, our Presidents have gotten into the habit of responding to every little development, regardless of whether or not they have any legal or even moral authority on the matter.  Even conservatives have become used to this state of affairs, and are now quick to denounce the White House for failing to quickly react to this or that matter that probably shouldn’t be the concern of a president in the first place.

The purpose of the executive branch is to enforce laws and command the armed forces.  The President is Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief; he is not Nurturer-in-Chief, Therapist-in-Chief, Father-in-Chief or even Emergency Responder-in-Chief.  If conservatives want to make progress in convincing the electorate that a massive welfare state is bad because it promotes an unhealthy dependency on government, we should start by showing how little we care whether or not President Obama is around to tell us how to react to every little social or economic problem that comes our way.

Wednesday

4

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

A Simple Choice

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

Sometimes economic battles are fought by theorists without any strong empirical evidence existing on either side.  Today’s battle, with Obama administration tax-and-spend Keynesians on one side, and supply-side economists on the other, is not such a case.  As Richard Rahn shows in his Washington Times column, the evidence is really quite clear.  Reagan’s supply-side cuts produced a strong recovery by the same point in time where Obama’s Keynesian “stimulating” has not.

Our choice now is simple.  We can follow an economic model which has no empirical evidence suggesting it will work by allowing the taxes on capital gains, dividends and death to rise as planned at the end of the year. Or, we can keep those rates low – better yet still, we can reduce them – and get the results for which supply-side economics has already proven capable.

Cross-posted at Double Taxed.

Thursday

1

July 2010

0

COMMENTS

The Uncertainty Induced Failure Of Obamanomics

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Government Meddling

Allan Meltzer has an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining the failures of Obamanomics. One of the causes he identifies is the high level of uncertainty surrounding tax rates and regulatory policy under this administration.  Such uncertainty is the enemy of growth.  Robert Higgs first introduced “regime uncertainty” in his 1997 article explaining how government policy extended the Great Depression.  According to Meltzer, the Obama administration has so far proven oblivious to this lesson.

Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.

…Mr. Obama has denied the cost burden on business from his health-care program, but business is aware that it is likely to be large. How large? That’s part of the uncertainty that employers face if they hire additional labor.

The president asks for cap and trade. That’s more cost and more uncertainty. Who will be forced to pay? What will it do to costs here compared to foreign producers? We should not expect businesses to invest in new, export-led growth when uncertainty about future costs is so large.

…Other aspects of the Obama economic program are equally problematic. The auto bailouts ran roughshod over the rule of law. Chrysler bondholders were given short shrift in order to benefit the auto workers union. By weakening the rule of law, the president opened the way to great mischief and increased investors’ and producers’ uncertainty. That’s not the way to get more investment and employment.

Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it’s harmful now.

Thursday

17

June 2010

0

COMMENTS

Daniel Hannan Sees America Europeanizing

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling, Liberty & Limited Government

Britain’s Conservative MP Daniel Hannan, made famous in America for the viral YouTube video of his fiscal takedown of Gordon Brown, recently wrote of his regret for supporting Barack Obama in the general election of the 2008 presidential campaign.  A European politician’s opinion of America’s president really isn’t of any importance, but his chillingly accurate description of our path toward Europeanization ought to be of concern for all who believe in promoting freedom, limited government, and economic prosperity:

None of these advantages, however, can make up for the single most important fact of Obama’s presidency, namely that the federal government is 30 per cent larger than it was two years ago

This is not entirely Obama’s fault, of course. The credit crunch occurred during the dying days of the Bush administration, and it was the 43rd president who began the baleful policy of bail-outs and pork-barrel stimulus packages. But it was Obama who massively extended that policy against united Republican opposition. It was he who chose, in defiance of public opinion, to establish a state-run healthcare system. It was he who presumed to tell private sector employees what they could earn, he who adopted the asinine cap-and-trade rules, and he who re-federalised social security, thereby reversing the single most beneficial reform of the Clinton years.

These errors are not random. They amount to a comprehensive strategy of Europeanisation: Euro-carbon taxes, Euro-disarmament, Euro-healthcare, Euro-welfare, Euro-spending levels, Euro-tax levels and, inevitably, Euro-unemployment levels. Any American reader who wants to know where Obamification will lead should spend a week with me in the European Parliament. I’m working in your future and, believe me, you won’t like it.

Tuesday

1

June 2010

0

COMMENTS

Robert Reich Wants To Takeover BP

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

The left has one solution for everything: government control.  Whatever the problem, simply call for government to takeover and it will magically be solved. That’s their thinking, as demonstrated in this case by Robert Reich:

It’s time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP’s operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public know what’s going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP’s strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the President is ultimately in charge.

Let’s consider the benefits he sees to government control.

1) It’s the only way the public knows what is going on. Last time I checked, government was a hotbed of secrecy, spin and misinformation.  Despite running on a campaign of transparency, Obama has run one of the most opaque administration’s in history.  The idea that government control will help the public know better what is going on is laughable.

2) The public will be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the leak. Perhaps Robert Reich missed the memo, but confidence in government is at historic lows, and for good reason.  While it’s technically true that the government has more resources than BP, there is no indication that BP’s problem up to this point is a lack of resources.  Even if it was, they can be made available without a government takeover.

3) Government will ensure BP is using the correct strategy, and force them to change if they are not. What, exactly, gives government the expertise to determine what the “correct” strategy is?  How many wells does government operate, again?  How many similar leaks have they solved?  Let’s put aside the kindergardenish notion that being in government makes one an expert in everything.  It doesn’t.  This is, after all, the same government that is turning to James Cameron for “expert” advice.  The best and brightest oil men aren’t in government, they’re in the oil industry.  Let’s leave the clean-up to the professionals, and not a bunch of hacks trying to exploit it for political gain.

4) We can be sure the President is ultimately in charge. Again, what is the thinking here? What the hell does Barack Obama know about stopping oil leaks?  He’s a two-bit Chicago thug whose career consists of nothing more than agitating “community organizing” and campaigning.  What fool will be comforted by having him in charge of the operation? Robert Reich, that’s who.

Wednesday

28

April 2010

0

COMMENTS

Welcome To New Washington, Same As Old Washington

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

President Obama has always talked big about changing the way things are done in Washington.  He has unquestionably failed to deliver.  The latest example involves his Fiscal Commission.  At their first meeting, he said, “for years, folks in Washington deferred politically difficult decisions and avoided telling hard truths about the nature of the problem.”

And how exactly do the “folks in Washington” defer difficult decisions? Oh, that’s right, they form a commission that they can later pretend to listen to, then ultimately sideline.  We don’t need any more commissions, Mr. President.  We need politicians like you to name something – anything – that you are capable of cutting.  Right now.  Stop the posturing, pontificating, and politicking and just do it.

Wednesday

14

April 2010

0

COMMENTS

Regulatory Contradiction

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Government Meddling, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Obama steps up campaign for financial overhaul, putting pressure on GOP:

Just before a meeting with Democrats and Republicans to discuss the legislation, President Barack Obama said it needs to be passed in order to prevent another financial “meltdown.”

He warned that not passing the bill could put the economy in peril.

“All of us recognize that we cannot have a circumstance in which a meltdown in the financial sector once again puts the entire economy in peril,” Obama said. “And that if there’s one lesson that we’ve learned it’s that an unfettered market where people are taking huge risks and expecting taxpayers to bail them out when things to sour is simply not acceptable.’’

First of all, Obama contradicted himself.  A “market where people are taking huge risks and expecting taxpayers to bail them out when things turn sour” is not unfettered.  Nevermind that the one we have is obviously not unfettered, but even his simplistic description of it makes that a logical impossibility.  Implied and explicit guarantees by government are a market distortion.  Government interference already exists under such circumstances.

If we remove the President’s gratuitous use of “unfettered” here, then he’s actually saying something semi-intelligent.  We clearly do not want a system where government is encouraging people to take greater risk than they otherwise would by guaranteeing their loses with taxpayer dollars.  But that’s exactly what government did, and is one of the primary causes of the financial crisis.  The correct response to this situation is not to say that “we need to stop people from taking risks!”  The correct response is to end all government bailouts and make clear that there is no such guarantee.

Wednesday

7

April 2010

1

COMMENTS

Obama’s Head In The Sand On Radical Islam

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

This is absurd even for the Obama regime:

President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

…The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

It’s one thing to disagree about the severity of the threat posed by radical Islamic Jihad or about the appropriate policy response. It’s another thing entirely to allow one’s silly PC ideology to overwhelm reality. You cannot effectively combat that which you refuse to admit exists. And radical Islamic Jihad most certainly exists.

Eagerly awaiting the chance to talk to Obama about health care

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives