The Economist continues to suffer disappointment in Obama after putting him on the cover twice late in the Presidential campaign and endorsing him. In the 14 - 20 March issue, it notes
At market close on March 11th, despite a rally this week, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 16% below its level on the Friday before Mr Obama took office. At this point in Roosevelt's presidency, 54 days in, it was up 35%.
In truth, he had long promised to spend more on health care and alternative energy and to raise taxes on the rich, so little in the budget should have surprised investors.
A bigger dent to confidence comes from Mr Obama's style, not his substance. His many backers on Wall Street had taken his conciliatory manner and selection of centrist economic advisers as evidence that he would govern moderately despite, as a senator, having consistently voted on the left. They have been taken aback by his combative tone.
But the Obamabears' biggest fear is that Mr Obama's remedies are not up to the task of fixing America's deepening recession.
Mr. Geithner's own efficacy has been hamstrung by the fact he remains his department's only Senate-confirmed official: 17 other top Treasury jobs requiring Senate approval remain vacant. In 2007 the Treasury website listed 120-odd officials, from Hank Paulson, the then treasury secretary, down. The current version of the same webpage lists just one: Mr Geithner.
All this has left foreign officials and domestic bankers frustrated at the lack of consultation from the Treasury.
Whatever the cause, the strain on the Treasury is encouraging the view that Mr Obama's agenda is being driven by political advisers and Congressmen, both more attuned to voter's rage than to market confidence.
Clearly The Economist's confidence in Obama continues to erode, along with that of many others who supported him while believing he was someone very different than anyone with any wisdom would have understood him to be. They close with a quote from a former Bill Clinton aide who advised Obama to focus on the financial crisis or risk the loss of confidence Jimmy Carter suffered. Meanwhile, the market is still down 40% since it became fairly clear that Obama was going to win the presidential election in September 2008.
No one can trust him for a lot of reasons. First, his tax problem. Highly unlikely it was an honest mistake. 2nd, he was a main author of TARP, which has yet to be effective. 3: He lied about the AIG bonuses. He knew, bonuses flew; and now the story changes because of outrage. We don't have honest people. They must have another agenda, otherwise they'd be totally honest.
ReplyDeleteIt is well documented to a point there is not a question they are not telling the truth. Here is why O and G are spewing misinformation!
http://tinyurl.com/cuer6d
Hi Pro,
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify, the comments you made in your first paragraph all seem to apply to Geithner, but only the third item seems to apply to Obama himself.
Given that the government kept AIG on life support, the bonuses probably had to be paid, unless those individually under contracts were willing say to give up their bonuses in order to keep their job or for some other voluntarily negotiated reason. But, these bonuses would surely not have been paid had AIG gone bankrupt as failed companies are supposed to die.