5 questions I wish a bold journalist would ask the president
Now before any dreamy eyed Obama voters get offended by the timing of this, I’m in no way calling our nascent President a failure. I’m still hopeful. But as an American, I want answers, which is what good reporting should be seeking anyway. So why haven’t these questions been asked (or maybe I missed them)?
- How did you decide on $800 billion as the stimulus amount? Seems like a precise number for such economic uncertainty.
- Why give more tax payer money, borrowed I might add, to troubled companies, seeing how the first $750 billion bailout (which you voted for as a senator) provided little to no economic relief?
- Why do we still have bankruptcy in this country? The federal government’s recent behavior suggests this is no longer a remedy for those unable to repay creditors.
- At what point must debtors, either home owners or businesses, pay for bad debt? The federal government’s recent behavior suggests it’s better for the economy to artificially prolong said reconciliation or let tax payers absorb the cost.
- You’re following the most liberal spending president of all time, who had a dismal showing and was on duty when the recession hit, and yet you’re spending at a rate faster than him. How do you respond to that?
DISCLOSURE: I’m a registered independent, and I’m concerned with the amount of spending going on, because I favor limited government and greater state power. As the Associated Press reported on Sunday, Obama’s economic spending “is unnerving.”
6 Comments
I think its fair to call him a failure to this point. That doesn’t mean he can’t pull out a victory by the end of his term, but two months in and he is definitely losing.
I personally think his biggest downfall is trying to put the blame on Bush. Take responsibility for your own actions. it seems that if Obama makes a bad move, he turns around and says, “its Bush’s fault”. So what if you think Bush got us into this mess. It’s now his job to fix it, which he has not done a very good job at doing to this point.
It’s time Obama takes responsibility for his policies. If it works, great! If it doesn’t work, then I hope the American people can look past “its Bush’s fault” and vote him out in 4 years so we can get someone in that can fix this mess.
(My gut feeling tells me it won’t work cause BIG government has yet to win me over)
Re: #1:
When asked how they chose the large number for the first bailout, Treasury responded thusly:
“It’s not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number.”
I have little doubt that porkulus is any different.
Add No. 6 – On Restoring Our International Prestige – How Does Diss’ing the British Prime Minister and offending the British People by returning a gift they gave us just after 911 help fight the Ugly American stereotype?
I’ve heard some reputable quotes — from Krugman, I think — saying that if anything the bailouts were much too small. I think Obama’s team is thinking tradeoff: letting the market sort itself out in this dire moment would be very long, very messy, and probably chaotic to the point of service disruption. By holding their noses and throwing the big cash in fast, I think, the idea is to speed the healing process up quickly, get money flowing again now, and deal with the consequences later. Pumping so much cash in the system will necessarily have a major inflation component; Obama’s team will next try to manage the inflation caused by the bailout. In theory, it’s “controllable.” The alternative may not be.
Sure, the free market will eventually fix itself, but at what cost? What happens when half the banks or more go under, and then the car companies, then their distributers…? How long would it take? How much would the rest of the world suffer during that time, and what dictators would pop up amidst the misery? Legitimate questions — this alternative could end up being vastly more expensive in $$ and human life in the long run. Hard to gauge, and a risk of total collapse.
Perspective is also important: the stakes here are extraordinarily high, much higher than any of the major economic ruts since, well, the 70s at a minimum. This is “the big one,” not a bump in the economic road or a setback.
Mind you, I’m not “defending” Obama’s team (though yes, I did vote for him). I’m against spending big dollars and driving up debt, but these seem to be extraordinary circumstances. I’m willing to trust him and hope his “fast and pricey” approach works. I think it will, but there of course consequences for us all. Still, manageable ones.
Plus, in response to the first comment, he can’t be a “failure” already. It’s been 2 months! Republic, Democrat, Indie, you gotta give the guy a chance. He’s had a lot of success in patching up international relationships, which we desperately need. So it’s not all bad.
Sid, you raise some good questions. I don’t pretend to know how to properly run the largest enterprise in the world (the U.S.) and admit it’s much more complex than cash flows and supply and demand like most economies.
Nevertheless, it alarms me that these questions aren’t being asked. Shouldn’t they be asked? I think it’s only fair as I have a stake in spending (aka my taxes), and the media should watchdog both government and business.
Regarding what would happen if we didn’t inject money into the system, only GM, its employees, and partners would be affected by their impending bankruptcy for example. Since we threw taxpayer money their way, billions, now my kids and grand kids will have to pay the price in addition to the aforementioned. See how in that sense gifting taxes hurts more people than natural failures?
Also, to be clear, I never called Prez O. a failure. “Iām in no way calling our nascent President a failure,” were my exact words. š
I like question number four. One of the justifications for criminal punishment is rooted in the fact that criminal activity, define it as broadly or as narrowly as you like, adversely affects the rights and interests of uninvolved third-parties. Arguably, this isn’t much different than using tax-payer dollars to remedy the financial or business mistakes of individuals and companies; in both scenarios, the rights and interests of the third-party are being limited or impacted by the unilateral activities of the debtor. Why is it that the government feels a need to not only allow the conduct but to reward it.
The counterargument is obvious but I don’t give it much weight. I know, I know, without the bailout and government intervention, the rights and interests of those “innocent” third-parties will be more adversely affected do to the overall disruption in the economy. Thus the brilliance in your question Blake; at what point do the interests balance out? How far should government go? Is there a limit?
Let me know when President Obama responds and provides you with the requested information. Thanks.