House of Eratosthenes

Our sister publication asks analysts whether the administration’s economic forecasts are too optimistic. They would have gotten a more interesting discussion if their query had been “Is the Pope Catholic?” Of course they’re too optimistic. In fact, the word optimistic is too optimistic. A better choice might have been “insane”. Like Greg Mankiw, I would love to find a sucker investor who is willing to take the other end of a bet that both growth and revenue will fall short of the administration’s predictions.

Having defended Obama’s candidacy largely on his economic team, I’m having serious buyer’s remorse. Geithner, who is rapidly starting to look like the weakest link, is rattling around by himself in Treasury. Meanwhile, the administration is clearly prioritized a stimulus package that will not work without fixing the banks over, um, fixing the banking system. Unlike most fiscal conservatives, I’m not mad at him for trying to increase the size of the government; that’s, after all, what he got elected promising to do. But he also promised to be non-partisan and accountable, and the size and composition stimulus package looks like just one more attempt to ram through his ideological agenda without much scrutiny, with the heaviest focus on programs that will be especially hard to cut.

The budget numbers are just one more blow to the credibility he worked hard to establish during the election. Back then, people like me handed him kudoes for using numbers that were really much less mendacious than the general run of candidate program promises. Now, he’s building a budget on the promise that this recession will be milder than average, with growth merely dipping to 1.2% this year and returning to trend in 2010. Isn’t there anyone at BLS who could have filled him in on the unemployment figures, or at Treasury who could have explained what a disproportionate impact finance salaries have on tax revenue? These numbers…well, I can’t really fully describe them on a family blog. But he has now raced passed Bush in the Delusional Budget Math olympics.

This is an important voice — far more important than mine. This is an Obama voter. It’s not an Obama voter who was fainting at the rallies, getting tingles up her leg, screaming “There’s Just Something About Him!!” or any of that rot. This is a Main Street USA type, one who was sick to death of bloated, irresponsible spending, and voted for Obama to get something better.

That, I daresay, was the majority of The Holy One’s voting base.

I’ve bet some money that His Anointedness was going to be a one-termer, and then I said later on I’d like to double my stakes on that one if I had any takers. That was a stupid thing to say, and I’d like to retract it. What I meant to say was that I’d like to quadruple those stakes.

In 2012, He will not be getting any votes from the “There’s Just Something About Him!” folks. They’ll know there isn’t. Also, He will not be getting any votes from the “I Just Want To Be Part Of This Thing!” folks; we will have already had a black President, and there won’t be any thing to be a part of.

Oh, people will want change in ’12…far more than they wanted it in ’08. Far, far more. They’ll be hungry for change, and hungry for hope. They just won’t see Him as the Savior who can deliver it anymore.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Obama will win in ’12. In fact, his win will be bigger than in ’08. First of all, anyone stupid enough to vote for him in ’08 isn’t going to have gotten any smarter in the interim. Secondly, the republican candidate, no matter who it is, will be, according to the media, the most stupid and ridiculous candidate ever. Thirdly, now that Chicago politics have gone nationwide, there won’t be any putting that genie back in the bottle. Fourthly, Obama will have proven that he didn’t destroy the country like his critics said he would, therefore a vote against him will be a vote for the most extreme critic the media can hype as representative of the opposition. They’ll find someone, somewhere who will call him the n word, and we’ll all have to vote for him to prove we’re not racists. Again.

There’s no going back. I’ll take whatever bet you want to offer.
- JohnJ | 03/12/2009 @ 23:49
Oh, I think you can be quite smart and still be in this 52% that voted for His Holiness…or at least the 2% that put Him over the top. The illusion that surrounds Him is this notion that everyone who voted for Him was fervently devoted to His cause, like a kool-aid drinker was devoted to Jim Jones. With an electorate as frustrated as they were last year, that just doesn’t hold.

It really comes down to this: It’s obvious what He’s doing to chase away His supporters, to make people sorry they voted for Him. What’s He doing to win converts?

If the answer is “Nothing, He doesn’t need to,” then that dog won’t hunt. In that scenario, He’s just Jimmy Carter with an extra load of snobbishness. Or Bill Clinton without a strong economy to help Him to a second term. America tolerates a certain level of incompetence in Presidents, and it will tolerate a feeling of “malaise,” depression and helplessness — but not both.
- mkfreeberg | 03/12/2009 @ 23:59
Anyone smart who voted for him knew what they were supporting and aren’t going to stop supporting those policies. The stupid people were the ones who voted for him without knowing what they were supporting.

And what a politician does is related to how close it is to an election. As the election gets closer, Obama will do exactly what Clinton did and support one or two Republican agenda items. Democrats will use that as evidence of how centrist and, therefore, how awesome he is.

I hate to be cynical, but I hate being unreasonably optimistic too.
- JohnJ | 03/13/2009 @ 00:43
Poor cynic. You make me feel bad, taking your money away like that.

Let’s bet a steak dinner instead. That way, when you lose, your spirits will be lifted. Although I suspect given the circumstances that won’t be a problem by then.
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2009 @ 01:08
So is that going to be a wagyu steak dinner or the regular t-bone variety?

He’ll lose the next one. There is only so long the press can keep giving him cover fire, and in some cases they are actually beginning to give him some negative shots. Plus, when he pulls a stupid stunt like wanting veterans to pay for their rehabilitation from combat injuries using private insurance instead of the government covering it… well, let’s just say that the people in the military who DID support him probably don’t anymore.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html
- Instinct | 03/13/2009 @ 02:04
I don’t know if it’s apropos or ironic, but I won a steak dinner on the last election. I suppose I might as well have something to look forward to next time, too.

The best thing about it for me is that even if I lose, I win!

The bet is on.
- JohnJ | 03/13/2009 @ 11:24
Oh, this is gonna be a good bet. I’m at two-fer-two myself. I won a cheeseburger in ’04; in ’08, I ponied up, but I predicted it right. (Just to record for posterity that I knew what was about to happen, I dropped the two dollars in the mail the morning before Election Day.)

I make no claim to an ability to figure out what people are thinking in an immediate vicinity; you’ve read these pages long enough to know I regard myself as handicapped there, severely, like a one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest. But I am very shrewd at figuring out when these happy-happy-talkey-jokey folks run out of sales-pitch to sell. I’ve seen a lot of it. It’s never pretty. And it’s definitely coming.

Let’s make it Ruth Criss.
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2009 @ 11:29
I don’t know where I’ll be living in three years, but I’ll definitely be looking forward to either an Obama-free future or a steak dinner at Ruth Criss. I spend a fair amount of time listening to people talk about politics, and I try to also figure out why they believe such retarded things. Maybe that’s why I’ve grown increasingly cynical. I think it was Churchill who said that the greatest argument against democracy is a conversation with an average citizen.

I really do hope you win. It would be so worth it.
- JohnJ | 03/13/2009 @ 12:36
I’m just not that concerned, what with the world scheduled to end in 2012.

Things in the land of the Aztec (Mayan?) calender are falling apart just a bit too
fast to ignore the conspiracy coincidence.;-)
- CaptDMO | 03/13/2009 @ 20:29

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

RemorseThursday, March 12th, 2009

Remorse
Thursday, March 12th, 2009