Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Obama's "team"

Well, this is interesting. Obama has named his new economic team and it has me quite intrigued. Geithner, Summers and Romer will be advising the new President when he takes office and, to be honest, I am a bit optimistic about it, particularly Romer’s presence. Christine Romer is hardly a Leftist. In fact, if you do your research, you’ll find out that the Left is not happy about her appointment. However, Wall Street responded favorably. Why? Because she is more of a supply-sider than a socialist. Romer could easily serve in any Republican administration, she is very much right of center, which is a good thing for economic times like these. She is pro-free trade and market oriented. She does not believe that government intervention can revive or stimulate the economy. She has been quoted as saying “…tax increases are highly contractionary” and cause a “…large, sustained, highly significant negative impact on output.” All indications show that both Geithner and Summers tend to lean this way as well.

What does that mean? Well, it tells me that Obama may govern as a centrist. That he will listen to economic advisors when they tell him that raising taxes during a recession is disastrous. It means that there will be no tax hikes in 2009, and possible not even in 2010, even though Obama has stopped short of officially announcing it. If this is true, then he improves his chances of re-election dramatically and stands to succeed as our leader. That’s good news. Now, let’s hope that he stands strong against Congress when they try to strong-arm him and his economic team, which is sure to happen. I only wish he would just come out and announce that he will not raise taxes during his first year. That would have a dramatic impact on the market and could potentially trigger a recovery. Why he has failed to do this, I don’t know.

So I give Obama a B+ on his economic team. His campaign rhetoric on redistribution of wealth so far appears to be only that. Hopefully, he won’t follow through on it. We’ll have to see how the media responds. Interesting how they brutalized Hillary and McCain for their economic proposals and have been rather silent so far regarding Obama’s economic team when that team could have just as easily been appointed by Obama’s former opponents.

Now the bad news. Hillary for Secretary of State??? Are you kidding me? This is very disappointing. I suppose Obama is attempting to mend fences here but couldn’t he have named her to a lower level cabinet position? She is not qualified for the job and has a very shady history relating to Bill’s final days as president. Foreign leaders will not take her seriously and may consider her a pushover. This is dangerous. My only hope is that her past will prevent her from being confirmed, but that’s a long shot. Obama missed it big time on this and it looks like nothing more than politics as usual, something he promised to stay away from. This gets a big fat “F” from WEP.

Good job on the economic team, very bad on the Sec State appointment.

7 comments:

MoneyBonanza said...

Receive $130 Paid to You Immediately

The LWS Freedom program makes it possible!
Click here to discover how:
http://www.lwsfreedom.com/id/greentitan

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Dr John, This is a pretty good summation. Next, BOTH PARTIES need
to clean out the dead-wood, and rid themselves of the most corrupt and the incompetent rascals that have been disasterous to our economy with outraegeous sub-prime lending, bankrupting out largest financial intitutions!

Then, harness the U.A.W. before any bail-out for Detroit's Big Three Auto Manufacturers!

The resignations of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Christopher Dodd & Barney Frank would be a fine start.

Then, an equally dramatic house-cleaning on the Republican side of the aisle would provide the incoming administration with some much-needed Integrity in Washington, D.C.

Hah! It just ain't gonna happen. The old guard is still there, many of them Clintonites! It's Sad.

So, now it's up the voters to do it...in 2010! reb
__________________________________
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.co

Jason said...

With the Treasury Secretary on his spending spree he surely isn’t trying to get a good return on the tax payers’ investment. The bailout was to buy up bad mortgage debt but it never did. What is the purpose of the fund? Paulson’s has warrants on many banks and they average 1 – 3 percent when enacted. Yet the cash investment is about 20 percent of the market cap. Maybe the next Treasury Secretary will be less erratic.

http://nomedals.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Dr John, money bonanza is a spam ad

reb

Dan Trabue said...

Foreign leaders will not take her seriously and may consider her a pushover.

I have many serious problems with Clinton, but this is not one of them. Hillary? A push-over?? Are you serious? She comes across like a tiger. I think the Clintons are generally much more respected globally than here in the US, it seems to me.

Again, I don't like her for various reasons and this administration is looking WAYY too Clinton-y for my tastes already, but I don't think we have to worry much about the world not taking Clinton seriously.

John Washburn said...

Dan, what I meant by that is that Hillary has a price, and everyone knows it. In other words, she can be bought. Therefore, no foreign leader will actually respect her. I have no doubts that if it meant advancing her own political career she wouldn’t hesitate to sell her country out. I can’t remember ever thinking this way about any other Secretary of State, regardless of the Administration. Obama made a big mistake here and created a major weakness in his foreign policy team. It may cost him in a big, big way. Trust me, I’m not the only one who thinks this way. My guess is that foreign leaders, particularly those who are opposed to our policies, can’t wait to get her to the negotiating table.

Dan Trabue said...

I seriously don't like Clinton - either of them. I have disagreed with their policies often. I don't find them especially trustworthy.

Nonetheless, I think it beyond reasonable to think that she'd actually sell out her country. She is a bit power-hungry, it seems to me, but she is not treasonous and I believe - like Bush - she wants what's best for the country.

I agree that Obama probably made a mistake in choosing her. I just disagree that other nations would consider her a push-over.