In the 20th Century it was said "What's good for GM is good for the country." Not a decade into the 21st Century, the county, more specifically the federal government, has taken over the company and is deciding what is good for GM. On June 1, 2009 General Motors collapsed into the government's arms. GM is the latest in a string of company takeovers in our history and the second biggest ever. Despite overwhelming public opposition, only 21% support, as well as opposition from many conservatives, the President took a 60% ownership stake in the company and fired its CEO. President Obama has repeatedly asserted that he has no interest in owning a car company and will not interfere in its day-to-day operations, but his administration's actions so far call those words into question. Obama taking on the job of GM CEO is a move that some think he will come to regret and others warn could drag the economy into a deeper recession. It is certainly a move that has been noticed around the world as Hugo Chavez joked to Fidel Castro that they risk being more conservative than Barack Obama. The fact is Obama now owns GM; its success or failure will be his. As to the prospect of GM failing, George Will says, "if GM has not already failed, New Coke was a success." Be that as it may, Obama faces an incredible challenge to crack the infamously insular culture at GM. Some see Obama diving into a quagmire with no exit strategy. Many experts have a hard time seeing how GM will ever make money and do not believe we, the taxpayers, will ever get our $70,000,000,000 back. Some Senators such as Mike Johanns and John Thune are calling for much greater oversight in light of the administrations use of TARP money, meant for troubled bank assets, to purchase GM. Indeed, who would have thought we would see this happen. The public remains very unhappy with the move, 17% of Americans calling for a boycott of the company and only 42% of GM owners saying they are likely to buy GM again. We have been told the government intervention was necessary because GM was too big to fail. Really? Will points out the absurdity of this argument. Currently GM is worth about the same as California Pizza Kitchen, a nice restaurant but far from vital to US interest.
If America hopes to remain the world economic leader, we must understand and embrace the concept of creative destruction and comparative advantage. If other countries have proven themselves better able to efficiently manufacture automobiles, our country will do better by allowing the natural destruction of the inept parts of our automotive industry and creating greater value in other endeavors that will enhance, not detract from, our global competitiveness. "Out of destruction, a new spirit of creativity arises." The President should not have taken this dramatic step, blurring the fundamental line between government and business, the free enterprise that defines the capitalism on which our nation was founded. I hope for the sake of taxpayers and our economy that this experiment works. If it does not, Obama will not be the only one to suffer.
It's not news that the main stream media in this country has a liberal bent; it's even less surprising that they love Barack Obama. What is rather amazing is the fawning, constant and utterly uncritical coverage he is receiving from most of the press. When Bill Maher says "enough with the Obamathon" you know it's gotten out of control. I must admit, the wall to wall coverage of the President's every move did lead me to a great burger joint in Arlington, but burgers aside, the free press is failing at their duty of checking our politicians and offering critical analysis of their actions. This is not healthy for America. Pew Research Center found that Obama has enjoyed "substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George Bush." This infatuation with Obama has allowed him unquestioned authority that no president should have. Cal Thomas points out that we have many houses of worship in this country but newsrooms should not be one of them. Some in the press have even said that Obama is "sort of God." I beg to differ.
Despite the dangerous lack of critical press, the public is paying attention and is growing more and more uneasy with many of the President's policies. Obama is holding strong in public opinion polls due to his very high personal favorability numbers and the fact that many Americans still place the majority of blame for current problem on former President Bush. However, if you look at polling on individual Obama policies, his issues seem to be crumbling. Even with a press in love, if Obama's policies do not succeed, patience will run out, and Americans will make him pay.
The debate over what could be the greatest change to this country's health care system in history has begun in earnest and is heating up. While both sides of the aisle agree that something must be done to fix a system with cost running out of control, the points of agreement do not extend much farther into what the solution should look like. There are many, many facets to this debate, but the "rock" that threatens to derail the entire process is the public option which Obama and liberal Democrats support. There are many flavors of a public plan, but the one Obama would like to see in a health care bill has drawn loud criticism from the right and raised great concerns among the more moderate members of his own party. As Democrats fight amongst themselves over the legislation, Republicans are making their case to the American people with an alternative and are gaining trust from voters on the issue.
Some on the left believe conservative arguments are meant only to scare the public and ensure that Obamacare goes down just as Hillarycare did in the mid-90s. This is far from the truth as conservatives have very legitimate concerns about what decision making power being centered in Washington would mean to the future of health care in this nation. Conservatives, consistent with the age-old debate between big government vs. individual freedom, believe that decisions about health care should be left to individuals and their doctors. Which solution will improve a system in dire need of change is the question which we better hope Washington gets right. There is good and lively debate taking place between those who are wholly against a public plan, believing it will not improve health care, and lay out good arguments for that view and those who support such a solution and offer counter points. Before deciding which side has it right, it's prudent to get a basic understanding of and context for the debate.
Americans believe in prevention to improve our health care system and lower cost, but until we see it actually happen, there are a number of questions, in addition to the one on the efficacy of a public option, that must be answered. The most important, and the one that has the least clarity at the moment is how any new policy would be paid for. The Washington Post has criticized the administration for releasing reports on cutting the cost of health care that contain "few details about how those ambitious goals would be achieved" and do not "address any increased spending needed to implement reform." Such lack of a cost cutting plan lead conservatives to believe Obama is not addressing the problem and led USA Today to say that the Republican plan is more detailed and bolder than the one coming from the White House. Several ideas have been floated to pay for reform. Obama has considered taxing the wealthy to fund a health mandate. He has also said that it is ok to borrow more money, adding to our already approximately $1 trillion deficit for this fiscal year alone, to pay for health care. Some on the left have also floated the idea of taxing employee based health care, an idea that, when proposed by McCain, Obama vehemently attacked. The current House bill includes $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicate, which hospitals oppose. Another idea is to have those Americans who are already insured pay more in taxes for greater security in their coverage. Observers on the right fear that cost will ultimately be cut by rationing care and limiting choice, which is what has led to the infamously long waits for care in Canada.
Some see Obama's rhetoric not matching up with reality and fear that he will kick the harder questions of funding down the road, to be dealt with when we are financially on the brink. Health care reform is, without a doubt, one of the President's top priorities, and he is realizing that he must take on a greater role if he hopes to see something pass. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal suspects that all the rush is because Democrats don't think their bill can stand public inspection. As Gerson notes, "the political fight on health care remains lopsided in Obama's favor, but the policy argument is growing more balanced." Therefore, as the debate becomes more complex, the outcome is less certain.
Pressure is mounting on the President as the economy continues to lag well below the predictions he used to push his stimulus bill through Congress, a bill that has shown little to no evidence of helping to jump start us out of recession. We lost another 345,000 jobs in May, an improvement but still enough to send our unemployment rate well past 9 percent. Meanwhile, benefit spending under Obama has soared to new highs at an average of $17,000 for each household. Also, oil has spiked above $70 and is rising fast signaling another summer of pain at the pump. Obama's tax proposals also promise to do more harm than good as Microsoft pledges to move jobs overseas if they pass. Some see the policy proposals as so anticompetitive that every firm could need a bailout, as if Obama is telling businesses to drop dead. With our budget deficit soaring out of control, almost $1 trillion this year alone, China is voicing fears and looking to diversify from the dollar. If and when that happens, the fun really is over.
Mindful of the disastrous consequences of losing fiscal credibility, Obama boldly proclaimed that he is reinstituting "paygo" rules for Congress to reign in the deficit. Let's just say that, with exceptions for every major Obama program including health care, the proclamation was worth little more than the teleprompter from which he read it. The president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget likened the President's announcement to quitting drinking but making an exception for beer and hard liquor. The WSJ sees a pattern emerging of spend, repent, spend again, repent and believes the paygo announcement is nothing more than a coverup. Obama has also started making a renewed push for his stimulus package, which has only spend 6% of its funds to date. How can that be stimulative? The AP called out Obama's rhetoric as spin and said his proclaimations are simply summer reruns. The stimulus was passed with Obama warning that if Congress failed to pass it, we could see unemployment rates of 8.5%; that aweful scenario would, of course, be avoided with the stimulus package. Oops, with the stimulus package, we are already at a rate of 9.4% and rising.
My favorite line oft repeated by Obama is that he will or has "saved or created" x number of jobs. What? Saved or created? How can you measure that? Answer, you can't. Therein lies the magic for Obama. As Democratic Senator Max Baucus observed, "you created a situation where you cannot be wrong... you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct." Somehow, see infatuation piece above, the media has fallen for this empty and baseless claim.
David Brooks believes we have moved from the Age of Leverage to the Great Unwinding and that politically difficult action will be required to pull the nation back up. Some economists and lawmakers are beginning to question whether Obama's activist agenda is helping or hurting the economy. Most believe that Obama's presidency will rise or fall on economic results. He himself has staked his success on his economic policies. However, his spending plans may pose political risks. Polling is now showing significant vulnerability for Obama on the economy as his policies are not working and the public has noticed.
The Obama administration has begun its public relations offensive for the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Republicans continue to have concerns about the Justice as I outlined previously. Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican Party, wrote in Politico that Sotomayor's is a milestone nomination but that her record requires scrutiny. Peggy Noonan has ideas about how Republicans should approach her nomination hearings, as grown-ups asking serious and legitimate questions that require thorough answers if she is to sit on the Supreme Court. In more thoroughly examing Sotomayor's record, it seems that gender and heritage are frequent topics for her, particularly how they affect her judging. In fact, she has repeatedly referenced 'wise woman' in her speeches over the years. Stuart Taylor of the Nation Journal takes an excellent, in depth look at the contoversial Ricci case and concludes that the more you examine the case, the more indefensible her decision looks. Meanwhile, Chris Dodd, the veteran but vulnerable Connecticut senator, is dodging questions about the case. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee chairman who will oversee her confirmation hearings has unilaterally decided to begin the hearings on July 13th despite protest from Republicans that the schedule does not allow enough time for careful examination of her record. Please see the comments on the last post for a challenge of my assessment of Sotomayor and my response.
Virginia is one of two states holding a Governor's election in November of this year. As such, it has great national importance, to the psyche of the two parties going into the midterm elections of 2010 if nothing else. The Democratic primary in Virginia to determine who will face Republican and former Attorney General Bob McDonnell was very exciting, not least because Terry McAuliffe, Clintonite and Democratic fundraiser extraordinaire was in the race. In the end, this past Tuesday, Creigh Deeds, a state legislature from rural Virginia surged at the last minute to a "stunning win." How he did it is truly fascinating. Remember, in politics, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. Deeds' win has many implications for the general election race and beyond. For starters, the WSJ saw it as Clintonism going down. In addition, with Deeds the most moderate of the three Democratic candidates, some believe it sets up a tougher race for McDonnell. A key question for Deeds will be whether or not he can capitalize on the "Obamacization" of Virginia that took place in 2008. Turnout will be key, and it will be difficult for Deeds to recreate the massive turnout Democrats saw for Obama. Michael Barone looks at what Virginia voters were telling us on that and other points.
President Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, the heart of the Islamic world to deliver a much anticipated speech that some think could be a turning point in the history of US relations with Muslim nations. He saught "common ground" with Islam by highlighting our shared values and interest, which I believe was effective. Interestingly, after making his middle name off limits during his presidential campaign, in Cairo, he found value in using his middle name, Hussein, several times. Surrounding this speech, Jake Tapper saw the emergence of Obama's Muslim roots.
Some level of humility is necessary to earn the trust and ear of such an audience; however, some believe, and I agree, that he was overly gracious to the Islamic countries while simultaneously downplaying the great deeds of the United States in that part of the world throughout history and continuing his trend of highlighting our supposed downfalls as a nation and sounding an apologetic tone, which is rare for a president on foreign soil. While refusing to utter the word "terror" or directly challenge the human rights atrocities that take place every day in that part of the world, he declared that the United States is one of the largest Muslim counties on Earth. Curious given that we are only the 48th biggest Muslim country. I hope that after this first step of opening dialogue, he will feel able to be more frank with an Islamic audience in the future.
One of the most significant parts of his speech was his reiterating support for a Palestinian state to resolve the seemingly eternal Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He even went so far as to call on Israel to cease settlement activities, something Krauthammer calls a myth. These strong stands, in some ways against Israel, have caused growing anxiety in one of our closest allies. Israelis are beginning to wonder how much support they now have from Washington, and some are lashing out in anger at Obama. Feeling the pressure from the US President, Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister has endorsed a Palestinian state but rejected Obama's call to freeze settlements.
To be clear, I thought the President merely going to Cairo was a positive move and thought parts of his speech were very good and praiseworthy. In fact, the WSJ recognizes that just as Obama has validated much of George W. Bush's security agenda and foreign policy, parts of his speech in Cairo were "artfully repackaged versions of themes President Bush sounded with his freedom agenda." I agree with Thomas Friedman saying "when young Arabs and Muslims see an American president who looks like them, has a name like theirs, has Muslims in his family and comes into their world and speaks the truth, it will be empowering and disturbing at the same time. People will be asking: “Why is this guy who looks like everyone on the street here the head of the free world and we can’t even touch freedom?” You never know where that goes." I do believe there can be immeasurable, profound and history changing good done by us reaching out more proactively and humbly towards the Muslim world. While not without objections, I appreciate the effort the President is making and hope his greatest aims of improved relations and greater peace are realized.
OTHER STORIES OF NOTE:
A hate-filled and very disturbed man entered the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, opened fire with a rifle and killed a brave guard who saved lives with his immediate actions. In light of this horrible killing, Michael Gerson wonders why anti-semitism has endured for so long.
North Korea has convicted two young, female journalists from the US on charges of entering the country illegally and sentenced them to 12 years of prison. Meanwhile, the North is shooting off more threats that I'm afraid we cannot dismiss. They have shown no signs of rationality, and no one truly knows what they will do next. The US is looking at intercepting North Korean shipments, which could prevent the spread of their weapons or nuclear technology and choke off a major money supply. The North of course sees this as a provocative act of war. North Korea presents us with a highly complex challenge. The WSJ looks at Bush's futility in dealing with North Korea via diplomacy and suggests that the sentencing of our journalists indicates the limits of talking and the futility of only gestures and conversation.
Facing polling that indicates Americans oppose the closing of Guantanamo Bay by a 2 to 1 margin and oppose the relocation of prisoners into the US by a 3 to 1 margin, Obama has given up on bringing detainees to the US. On the PG Poll, readers oppose closing the prison 24 to 7.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been declared the winner in Iran's presidential election, but protests have erupted in the streets and his challenger is crying foul.
The WHO has declared the first level 6 flu pandemic since 1968.
There are still very few answers as to what happened to the Air France flight that crashed into the Atlantic with 228 people on board. We do, however, have a better idea of the horror that was the flight's last 14 minutes.
President Obama has created a new Compensation Czar to monitor compensation of top employees at companies receiving taxpayer funds; however, conservatives fear that this new power of government could be extended to all companies.
The Senate passed a bill that will establish FDA regulation of cigarettes and other forms of tobacco. Obama looks forward to signing the bill.
We had quite the hot debate on the comments board about the legal proceedings still ongoing in Minnesota to determine the state's next senator. Do yourself a favor and have a look; it's very entertaining. There were also some great comments about my assessment of Judge Sotomayor as well as my view on affirmative action. Please see the comments as well as my response. Out of 13 votes in the PG Poll, 11 agree with me that affirmative action is a temporal issue, but 15 of 19 believe we have crossed the treshold and that affirmative action should not be practiced today. Finally, in response to Joe Christenbury's column, we had several great comments to which Joe responded.
COMMENT & VOTE: Please make your opinion known by commenting & voting in this week's new polls: Should Obama have bought GM? Will GM ever survive as a private company again? Should the media be more critical of Obama? Do you side more with liberals or conservatives on the health care debate? Do you think the economy will hurt Obama and Democrats in future elections?
TWITTER: Follow the new PGBlog on Twitter for breaking news updates throughout the week! Also see the feed on the left side of the page.
EMAIL: Get the PG Blog via email! Sent an email to pearcegodwinblog@gmail.com with subject line SUBSCRIBE in order to get each post directly to your inbox.
Posts
