On The Right Track

Conservatives are thinking that Barak Obama is making a mistake jumping into the fray so quickly to prepare his economic package. Although I am sure Obama would like to have the entire package in place in time to launch it right after the inauguration, it would be quite a feet indeed to have that much work accomplished in that short of a time span. Clearly, Obama is wasting no time at all in preparing a team so it can hit the ground running as soon as possible after taking office. And much to his credit he is just as clearly considering more than one front, evidenced by his appointment of prominent scientists to deal with the environmental issues that have been neglected for the last eight years by the outgoing administration.

Nonetheless, conservatives still fear his direction will have less effect on economic recovery than what they feel would be the case if he were to take a different tack. What a surprise that the right would take that view. The beltway boys on Fox news discussed their reservations that the proposed tax cuts are going to the wrong people. They follow the conservative philosophy embraced by Republicans which has always favored tax cuts for those who had the ability to use the savings to re-invest in more plant and equipment or ventures which would in turn result in more jobs, thereby fostering a more thorough boost to a lagging economy.

This view was much more realistic during the industrial age than it is now in this age of globalization. A major problem with this outlook now is that the wealthy are not investing in such a way that will foster job growth here in the U.S. With labor costs higher in America than anywhere else in the world, owners of the means of production are not motivated to sink their funds into plants and operations here. As long as their prime motivation is to increase profits and as long as the CEOs and decision makers must answer to boards of directors and stockholders who collectively insist on positive financial performance, they will not sink money into creating costly American jobs when they can build in Mexico, India, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Korea and a host of other locations where the average worker can live high on the hog while making wages that are lower than what we here in America consider to be at poverty level.

As long as globalization is part of the picture and as long as Americans are on the top of the wage and cost of living scale we are going to experience the pain of economic contraction that comes with the world economy’s process of seeking its own form of equilibrium. The smaller economies of the world are experiencing upward pressure on wages and costs of living at the same time we Americans are experiencing downward pressure on the same factors. Until the world’s economy reaches some semblance of economic equilibrium, this process will continue. And as long as these conditions prevail, economic recovery here in America will not be painlessly achieved by blindly giving tax relief only to the wealthy.

Yes, the middle class and the poor will spend the money differently than the wealthy will. But they will spend it here. Yes, they will spend much of it on consumer goods made in China and other places previously mentioned here, just as the wealthy are spending investment dollars in those same places to maximize their profits. Globalization is not going away. Neither can it be ignored by planners of an intended economic recovery.

Obama knows this, and is surrounding himself with a philosophical mix of competent advisors and planners so he can come up with a realistic plan to address the most difficult problems ever faced in American government. All accounts at this point indicate that he wants to hear good advice even though it may be contrary to what his current thinking may be. Were that not the case he wouldn't be placing Republicans in his cabinet over defense and transportation. If this continues he will have a much different persona in the White House than his predecessor. Wouldn’t that be a pleasant change?

Out With the Old, In With the New

Now that we are to have a new president we are all expecting changes. I expect most of those changes to be for the better, even though I realize that no president can accomplish everything he or she wants to. When Obama gave his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Denver he outlined a long list of goals. I wish him the best of luck in accomplishing what he can. He certainly has a full plate of challenges to deal with.

Since I will be spending a lot of time and space writing about how things go for the new administration, I have a thing or two to state going in. I do not like how we have become a polarized nation filled with people who are constantly looking for an excuse to brow beat the president at every chance they get. I like it when I read arguments based on facts and actual content when those arguments are expressing discontent. Shallow arguments make it seem to me that the people making those arguments are simply looking for a nail to hit with a hammer. It actually weakens their argument.

Having said that, let me state a few things about the outgoing president. I am not in his camp. Like many others, I am disappointed in the end result on the home front. Our economy is in sad shape and we are all feeling the pinch. Life for us is not going smooth at all. Bush has also alienated much of the European population with his foreign policy. But it would be folly not to admit that Bush has had some successes. Some of that was necessary and some was not. On the foreign front, he has done a little better. He toppled two evil regimes, and without firing a shot he put nuclear (not nucular) inspectors in Iran, Syria and North Korea. Those are positive accomplishments and deserve to be placed in his win column.

When we went to Afghanistan after 911 the entire country wanted it. When we went to Iraq shortly afterward the whole country believed that Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction. Many people changed their mind very quickly about that. We forget that he had them. It was Bill Clinton who first said Husein was dangerous and no one paid attention to his statements. He was certainly not chastised for saying it.

Time magazine even published a cover story about how dangerous he was. And he was at the time refusing to cooperate with the UN mandate for him to comply with full disclosure of his arsenal by certain deadlines. If the United States had refused to comply with UN deadlines on anything for any reason there would have been a world wide outcry filled with venomous accusations and disgust. But there was no such outcry concerning Iraq. The fact that no WMDs were found doesn't mean they didn't exist. We know he had them--because we sold them to him.

Anyway, we got sidetracked in Iraq and became focused on something other than what is ultimately good for us here in America. That was not good. Maybe Obama will get us back on a productive track, back to what is good for America. I certainly hope and believe he will.

So we should thank George Bush for the things he did that were right, because he did indeed do some things that were right. I am, however, still disappointed in his administration's overall performance. Like so many of us, I feel like the middle class has had to foot the bill for the agenda of the wealthy .

For some reason I trust Obama. How often can you say that about a newly elected president?