A Fine Mess You've Got Us In !

Just Because a Meme Sounds Terrific (jobs, growth, stimulus)

That Doesn't Mean It's True !

One month ago, I published a post entitled "Near-zero Interest Rates are The Won's Drug of Choice," which was an off-hand, micro-economic look at the fine mess he's got us in. The conclusion was that near-zero interest rates are the economic equivalent of crack-cocaine.

Here we look at the macro-economic mess, at the ingredients of the economic hash being dished out in DC:

• Gotta have jobs
• Gotta keep interest rates low to stimulate business
• Gotta remain competitive
• Gotta have free trade

I hate suspense . . .here's the punch-line:

Multi-national corporations are borrowing money in the US at near-zero
 interest and using those funds in other countries.  
(This out-flow of funds is one source of the downward pressure on the dollar)

That money is going where it is most productive . .
. to the borrower – to low-wage, low-tax, low-regulation, 
low-uncertainty environments and growing markets.

Low-wage, low-tax, low-regulation, low-uncertainty 
are not words that aptly describe the U.S.under leadership of The Won - 
the country that is financing this economic activity.

Put it all together:  

The government of the Obamessiah is creating the high-cost,
 high-uncertainty environment and then . . .
financing the job loss to better corporate environments 
and to growing markets

What remains to be said?

How dumb is that?

This is a bi-partisan dumbness, but The Won is making policy now.  The fact that he has support on both sides of the aisle does not absolve him of his failure to lead wisely. 

Meme of the Week – Wednesday, October 21, 2009

What Good is Obama?

“A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.” — George Bernard Shaw (quoted by Jeffrey Ellis at http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=1905 ) 

Apart from the Pauls of this world, who can say what Obama has been  good for?  There's no there there, apart from fluff and smoke and mirrors.

We can't convince Paul.  We just have to help the other folks see another way.  Arguing the details isn't the only way to succeed.

Abandoning the Dollar is another aspect of The Won’s assault on American Exceptionalism.

The Dollar is a sacrifice 
to The Won!

The easiest, fastest and cheapest defense of the Dollar is talk.  The Won will not even talk in defense of the dollar.  Talk is what The Won does best.  He won’t even do that.

The next easiest and fastest defense is raising interest rates.  The Won will not do that because it will raise the projected costs of his massive deficits – increasing the price of his massive re-do of America – thus increasing opposition to his proposals.  Never mind that this is real life arguing against The Won’s fantasy; anything (including reality) that stands in His way is to be denied and otherwise resisted.

The near-zero interest rates are not increasing credit or promoting general economic recovery.  The near-zero interest rates are accomplishing only two things

• Reducing the projected costs of The Won’s absurd make-over of the U.S.
• Temporarily inflating profits (and bonuses) in the financial sector.

Let's see what a small increase in interest rates does for the value of the dollar and the forecast profligacy of The Won!

Adjusting Expectations . . .

From a campaign that can fairly ("This will be remembered as the moment when the seas stopped rising") be characterized as

Messianic,

cries are now heard in many quarters (foresight.org, Camille Paglia, inter al.) for a leader who is simply . . .

Competent

and now, competently orchestrated, the loyal conservative opposition of this country should already be popularizing the next, (hopeful and hopefully) inevitable, meme:

Over & Out.

I'll say the same thing now, to the GOP, that I said to the good folks who are "Values Voters" (below, Sept. 23):

Your arguments just won't convince the good folks in the middle. 

They just won't.

 If you want to win, 

you must find/embrace another point of view from which to espouse your convictions. 

That's it. That's all. 

Tell your tale from a different perspective.

More of Journalism's Shining Fulfillment

Tucker Carlson has written more eloquently than I might have, "Never has a president been warped by Washington quicker. At times tonight, Obama sounded like an embattled second-termer with a 35 percent approval rating. What percentage of his speech was spent lashing out at his enemies, real and imagined? Radio and cable-television pundits, George W. Bush, former Congresses, unnamed ghouls employing “scare tactics,” whose “only agenda is to stop reform at any cost”—they’re all against him, Obama said. And they’re lying.This isn’t how confident leaders speak. These are the complaints of a man on his way to bitterness. So soon?"

I constantly remind myself of The Anointed Won rushing TARP through Congress in two days and then letting it sit on his desk for three days, while he took a long week-end off.

This is a guy who gets his way and

gets cocky . . .or he gets ugly.

Ed Morissey observes, "Obama, on the other hand, has never held executive office in politics. He has spent his short political life as a legislator, and not even a particularly bold legislator. Obama was much more of a bandwagon man as a legislator, offering rhetorical instead of political leadership, and for the most part receiving nothing but warm praise bordering on tongue-baths from the media."

To bring this back to Memetics, I regard

The Anointed Won

as someone who takes the world in big chunks -

- as "Mine!"

I'll leave others to pick names out of the DSM (American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), but this is an individual who gives Nancy Pelosi and unseen lobbyists the job of drafting laws; he has no interest in details. The Won likes winning. I'll bet he loses interest in something before he loses, so the conclusion of the ObamaCare ObamaShow may offer some humor and surprises.

I'll bet he characteristically loses interest in anything

where he perceives he is likely to lose.

Protests in Iran,

Democracy in Honduras,

War in Afghanistan.

Domestic economic recovery.

This is not the leader we need.

I will also wager than he compensates. His show in the Security Council next week will be interesting, even if disturbing.

Meet the Mob Who Manage the Message for Barack Obama - No, seriously!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Total White House Staff: 6,550 + 500 volunteers + 100 interns ===> 7,150

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Total White House Staff working directly on communications/media ===> 129

{traditional press, internet management, new media, supermarket media}

Office of Communications: 50 staff

Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs: 29 staff

Press Secretary: 20 staff

Presidential Speechwriter and assistants: 15 staff

Office of Political Affairs: 10 staff

David Axelrod: 4 staff

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There was a published article within the last few weeks (I can't find it now) that put White House media expenditures at $500,000/week (= $26 million/year) .

It isn't normal to have this kind of effort expended on pre-digesting the news for the press. It has always been the job of the press to do this work for itself. In fact, this is very undemocratic and "Brave New World."

Please, realize that this isn't what the television and newspapers spend on salaries and expenses. This is what O's White House is spending to manage O's message to journalism professionals who are paid to "cover" the White House.

That's a lot of money being spent:

• on a lot of people
• to tell us that what they want to tell us
• and pretend that it is what we want to hear.

Under these circumstances, no one should have uncritical confidence in what is reported - not what, not how, not when.

It should also be noted that our post-racial President has a Director of African-American media and a Director of Hispanic Media.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

source: http://whitehousetransitionproject.org/resources/briefing/SixMonth/Patterson%20-%20OBAMA%20WHITE%20HOUSE%20STAFF.pdf

Good Examples of Stealing Thunder

Bill Whittle, on PJTV, has some interesting things to say about Obama, his megalomaniacal symbolism and how those symbols may be used to haunt him and taunt him. His eight-minute segment is at : http://www.pjtv.com/v/2317

Obama Blinked/Winced/Dodged . . . Two words: TORT REFORM

Now that Obama has pulled his "public option," at least publicly and at least for the moment. The photo shows not a wink, not a blink . . . but a wince. That's Obama wincing. Yeah!

He'll try to do it another way, but . . .

NOW is the moment for the Conservatives to yodel: TORT REFORM.

Make tort reform a condition for anything done to health care.

Tort Reform would put a cap on claims for malpractice. It would be fair to suffering patients but remove the risk of run-away jury awards. It would also remove most of the incentive for lawyers to create causes and cases, like the source of John Edwards' wealth.

Say it loudly and say it now, when the public's attention is available.

Make it a test of Obama being able to do something simple, logical and right to reduce medical costs. The Trial Lawyers Association is one of the largest contributors to Obama and the Democratic Party. This won't be easy for Obama. Make it impossible for Obama to say "no." Embarrass and blackmail him into Tort Reform by making it the first step, a trial step, a first proof, a demonstration.

It would be nice if doctors put a notice in their waiting rooms:

"Malpractice insurance costs each patient $ x,xxx; please support reform of the legal system called Tort Reform. Tort Reform will reduce the cost of an office visit by $xxx."

Dr. Krauthammer explained it much better than I could: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080602933.html .

Now.

Tort Reform.

"Politicians lie to reporters and then believe what they read in the newspapers."

The quotation in the headline is variously ascribed to Winston Churchill and Benjamin Disraeli, hypothesizing how governments are constantly surprised by world events.

In the present economic upheaval, I believe that President Obama sincerely believes the untruths that he tells.

President Obama, his senior advisers and senior bureaucrats do not live with the uncertainties of normal Americans. Their salaries and pensions are guaranteed. The perquisites of their job - cars, airplanes, security, entertainment - are virtually unquestioned. They get and keep their jobs by a process of risk-aversion and risk-management that would guarantee failure anywhere but in a government bureaucracy.

Normal people are an abstract curiosity to them. Moreover, Barack Obama has an unusual personal history that removes him even further from the experience of 99.999% of Americans.

So, Obama and his staff do what educated people are trained to do: they do studies and analyze data. Then, Obama and his staff do what politicians have always done, they manipulate the data.

The economic policies put in place by Barack Obama have not been focused on improving the living conditions of his constituents.

They have been narrowly focused on improving the economic indicators.

Why? Because improving the economic indicators is easier, more measurable and less messy. And because it is easy, in the government environment, to forget that the indices are not reality.

Is Barry lying when he says things are better? I don't think so. I think that he honestly believes that the map is the territory, that people live by the economic indicators - that things are better.

What he "knows" and how he "knows" it are the issue/opportunity/problem here. The only reality check is an election. And elections do not give reality checks to the 98% of the bureaucratic iceberg that is unelected.

How knowledge is recognized, used and transmitted - meet the many-headed hydra of Memetics!


UPDATE: A few days after this posting, the Washington Post picked up on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081100988.html?hpid=topnews

The Necessity to Define Failure Before the Next Election

Republicans and Conservatives are realizing immense and unpleasant truths: even when the Obama Presidency is patently wrong and patently failing, the critical issues and critical failures do not and will not sell themselves.

• The media available to move opinion are biased and shifting.

• The decisive votes cast in 2008 - and those that will be cast in 2010 and 2012 - were cast by Gen-X'ers and Gen-Y'ers whose educations were purged of context - civics, ethics, history and geography. Jon Stewart's television show is "teaching" these folks what they didn't get in school - unless someone provides a countervailing point of view in acceptable and comprehensible terms.

Gen-X and Gen-Y do not know what failure looks like.

They know only what a loser looks like.

• What the Right should do is establish "The Of-Course Task Force" to promulgate the certainty that Obama will be a one-term failure. A cottage network must be built to describe endless reasons, rationales, scenarios and speculation to prepare people to believe it.

The Of-Course Task Force should be writing ubiquitously not just about how Obama will fail but also about what Hillary will do and how the Dixie Chicks will feel. In order to prepare Gen-X and Gen-Y, the strengths and weaknesses of those demographics must be accepted and utilized - the obsession with entertainment and celebrity, as well as the confusion and hunger for something that makes sense.

• There are only two scenarios for the preservation of the American Republic - swing voters are prepared or panicked. Unless our republic is going to be wagered on the likelihood of panicking swing voters with war or terror or economic disaster, the task of the Right now is to define (but not illustrate) failure. The present reality is that internet propaganda, counter-intelligence and counter-propaganda have been and are handled much more deftly by the Democrats.

The face of failure must be presented in a hundred ways, so that voters will expect to see it, will know to look for it and will recognize that failure when they see it. Issues and events must be made obvious (the "of course!"). The preaching of a campaign (even an extended campaign like 2008) will not affect those not already prepared to change their minds.

• A long, patient and focused program is called for to alter the context of the coming campaigns - by making what is now unthinkable into what is expected and, thereby, self-evident and obvious. Somewhere in-between unthinkable and obvious is the point where things become "edgy" where late-night comedians and pundits think they are clever. Jon Stewart suggesting that Democratic appointees might pay their taxes is an illustrative and constructive step.

Three years is enough time to accomplish these changes; one year is probably not. The 2010 election will turn on panic or it will not turn.


UPDATE: Michael Barone supplies opinion and statistics from the Nov. 3, 2009, election on the peculiar patterns of younger voters.