Here’s the best commentary that I’ve read on the current economic situation:

The story so far: some capitalists behaved very badly. While this was going on, the socialists didn’t ask questions because they were too busy spending the receipts that flowed from that behaviour. Now, the socialists - who were happy to look the other way during the good times or even to delude themselves into thinking that they were responsible for them - want to use the ignominy of the capitalists to seize the kind of power they thought they had lost forever. …

In Gordon Brown’s fantasy, this is an “opportunity” to exercise control over the whole world. Not just stricter regulation by national governments of their own economic institutions, but a wondrous new level of international regulation by supranational functionaries - to be appointed by whom? A World Government agency accountable to no electorate and with no democratic mandate from the populations over whom it will wield such power? …

Meanwhile, Mr Obama - who gives the impression of being considerably out of his depth in the economic maelstrom - talks of an “opportunity” to “reorganise our priorities”. He gave a major speech last week in which he actually seemed to suggest that the present crisis had been caused by America’s failure to develop a universal health care system and to attend to the impending environmental disaster of global warming (”we made the wrong choices”), and that by focusing on these matters a way can be found out of the country’s economic problems.

Is he quite mad? Does he really believe that the banking crisis and the recession were some kind of divine retribution for the absence of universal health care, and excessive carbon emissions? …

What neither the Prime Minister nor the President can admit is what is becoming more obvious every day (and which has been admitted by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key): there is precious little that any politician can do to resolve the present economic problems. The values of assets and property are simply going to have to fall from the grossly inflated points they reached under the debt bubble to what are generally accepted to be realistic levels. Then people will start to do business again - as eventually they must - and confidence will gradually return.

… I grew up with the Left and what this looks like to me is a power grab: a seizing of the moment by the forces which always believed in state domination. The Left sees an opening here, first for telling a critical lie about the historical origins of this crisis, which was propelled as much by the Left-liberal determination to spread prosperity through easy credit to the poor, as by the greed of bankers. And then, out of the wreckage, to restructure the economy along the lines that it always wanted, complete with central controls over the pay levels in private financial institutions.

As Charles Krauthammer said:  Obama’s efforts to use the economic crisis to transform education, healthcare and energy “is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people.”

From Powerline.

In the last 24 hours or so I have seen this story in various places, and honestly, I don’t get it.  I’ve been confused all week, from Obama’s big “not a State Of The Union,” State Of The Union address, to his $3.5 trillion budget, which comes with a pretty blue cover and the words “The era of responsibility” stamped on the front.  I really can’t say it better than how Powerline put it in response to Obma’s claim to be ready to fight lobbyists, when they said yesterday, “As Obama well knows, lobbyists all over Washington are lighting cigars with $50 bills at the prospect of having $3.7 trillion worth of spoils to divvy up. Obama must think the American people–his supporters, anyway–are complete idiots.”

In the context of the Tuesday’s speech and the budget, I really can’t decide how he actually views the American people.  I described the speech to a few friends as “a bunch of statements that sound inspiring and plausible to everyone except those who get their news from somewhere other than MTV.”  He keeps throwing this “era of responsibility” tag around, and yet in reality it’s more accurate to describe it as “the era of insurmountable deficits.”  (just look at the graph here) How is that responsible?  And as often as he can Obama throws in the “I inherited this deficit from Bush” line.  Right.  So the best response is to make it 10 times worse?  And don’t forget, he actually said in his speech that he was not a fan of big government.  With a straight face, no less.

Additionally, we are now on the cusp of subsidizing mortgages.  Just think about that one- some of our neighbors aren’t able to make adequate payments on their houses, and rather than letting them deal with the ramifications of making unwise decisions, we are going to take money out of people’s pockets who were responsible, in order to help those that aren’t.  Any citizen in the country would agree that stealing and slavery are morally wrong, but a high percentage are apparently willing to look the other way when it benefits themselves.

So I ask, how does Obama see the American people?  He clearly knows that talking about responsibility is something the public wants to hear.  And he apparently knows that the majority of Americans will turn a blind eye to the fact that his actions are not coming even close to lining up with his rhetoric, pre and post campaign.  So does he think we are, as Powerline sarcastically put it, idiots?  Does he know, as J. Norman and I often say to each other, that he is the MTV President for the MTV Generation?  Has he rightly identified that the vast majority of the public is completely ignorant of basic economics and history, and is then exploiting it?

He can’t have it both ways.  He can’t talk about responsibility and do the polar opposite, all while self proclaiming his own moral authority.  If he really believes what he is saying, his actions would at least be on the same planet as his words, which they’re not.  Is a little change from business as usual too much to ask?  Apparently so this time around.

The Weekly Standard brings us a “timeless critique from Tocqueville:”

It seems that if despotism came to be established in the democratic nations of our day, it would have other characteristics: it would be more extensive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them. .  .  .

Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepherd. .  .  .

If only he could soften, bend and direct the wills of our enemies as easily as he does his flock of sheep at home.  Unfortunately, in places like Iran, actions are more important than words.

The President the other night spoke before a joint session of Congress.  In his remarks he mentioned how he does not want big government nor does he want to raise everyone’s taxes.  Does not want big government?  Coming from a man who just introduced a $3.55 trillion dollar budget?  From the man who projects that because of the sheer amount of government spending he has proposed that the budget deficit will be $1.75 trillion?  Please.  He and his Democratic colleagues in the Congress are rushing to spend our money faster (see deficit) than they can collect it from us.

If President Obama really does not like big government then he should not rely on heavy tax burdens on the wealthy.  We are talking about people who make $250,000 and up.  These are the small and medium business owners.  These are the investors.  This are the corporate movers and shakers.  Thus far, Wall Street has not been brimming with confidence every time Obama talks about more taxes, spending, and heavy regulations.

The issue is a major philosophical one.  President Obama and the Democrats in Congress believe that only the government can create the necessary jobs to help the economy–not the private sector.  In fact, they believe that the private arena should be burdened with oppressive taxes.  The problems with this line of thinking are many (see: history).  But let us keep it simple:  how often do the poor or lower/middle class create jobs?  It is the upper middle class and the wealthy in this country that create the jobs for the lower and middle class.  Through commerce people are able to buy from companies which are then able to hire more workers.

Mr. President, please be honest with the American people.  Come right out and proudly declare your love for big government and taxes.  Inform the people that you think it is time to punish the hard working and give to the less fortunate.  Revel in your desire to take from those who are paying their mortgages to help those who made unwise financial decisions.  Just come out and tell us that you embrace socialism.  But please, stop insulting our intelligence with this talk of not liking big government.

In case you’ve somehow missed it, Rick Santelli of CNBC went on a (beautiful) tirade a few days ago on the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange, decrying Obama’s new Mortgage Bailout.  In it, he calls for a Chicago Tea Party, to ask if Obama is listening.  Check out the video here and the new Facebook group here to get more information.

Thomas Sowell has an excellent article about the roots of the housing crisis that sparked our present economic downturn:

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us.  What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market’s “greed.” That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down. It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

It’s a great article, but it reveals a larger problem as well:  The media has the authority to shape an issue so that its interpretation becomes fact, regardless of the actual history.  In this instance, the cause of the housing crisis is blamed entirely on “greed” rather than misguided politicians who wanted everyone to own homes, including those who couldn’t afford it.  However, as the “first historians” (a title I despise as an actual student of history) journalist’s can shape an issue however they please.  As the ones with the megaphone, they are able to control the dialogue of the debate.  As they have a vested interest in promoting Leftist ideals - as they are overwhelmingly liberal - this is a problem for conservativism.  In this case, as the Left wants socialism, the market must be blamed in order to convince the American people to seek deliverance from the government.  Thus far, the media appears to be playing their part to perfection.

There are many reasons why I, if I were somehow to attend, would not be handed the microphone during a campaign-style Town Hall meeting.  And no, I don’t know why Obama is still doing them.  I am sure he is quite aware that the campaign is over, though you wouldn’t know that from his frequent, vague, accountability-free promises he makes nearly every day.  But I digress.  A few of those reasons are:

1) I would not sound like an ignorant idiot like this guy.  (Though at the same time I find myself thankful for Julio, as he succinctly demonstrates a great many things that are so hideously wrong in America today.  Briefly, they are: 1) rampant celebrity worship, now turned politician worship, 2) unbelievable ignorance of basic economics/business/capitalism, 3) lack of shame in asking for or receiving handouts, 4) ignorance as to exactly where those handouts come from.)

2) I probably can’t read from cue cards as well as Obama.

3) I would ask actual questions.  Like, for example: “Mr. President, can you please tell me where then constitution gives the federal government the right to intervene into the economic affairs of our country?” Or, “Mr. President, can you explain the concept of enumerated powers to your pathetic, historically and constitutionally ignorant electorate please?” Or, “Mr. President, can you please tell me how equal protection applies to members of your administration who are known tax cheats?  Does that mean that I am exempt from penalties or interest as well?  Or does this constitute what John Adams warned of, a ‘rule of men’ instead of a ‘rule of law’?  I thought we were living in an era of responsibility.”  Or, perhaps, “Mr. President, can you explain how your administration, the most ethical and and transparent government in the history of humanity, has hired numerous lobbyists, sought or hired three known tax evaders, even appointing one member who had to resign due to being under criminal investigation.  Additionally you have not required Congress to post your stimulus bill online so everyone could read it, have held closed door meetings with corporate CEOs, and are already a notorious press conference question dodger.  Please reconcile these.”

Maybe someday I’ll get up there and have my 15 minutes of talking head fame.  I’m not holding my breath though.

Excellent article by George Will about doomsday predictions:

An unstated premise of eco-pessimism is that environmental conditions are, or recently were, optimal.  The proclaimed faith of eco-pessimists is weirdly optimistic: These optimal conditions must and can be preserved or restored if government will make us minimize our carbon footprints, and if government will “remake” the economy.

It’s cunningly smart: Create a global scare in a field that confuses most people where government action to curtail the freedoms of its citizenry is the only solution.  Then, wait for the citizenry to demand that the government take away its freedoms in order to eliminate the global scare.  King George III couldn’t have done it any better.  Sadly, more people have died as a result of the “good intentions” of command economies than have ever perished as the result of what Adam Smith deemed “the invisible hand.”

The growing list of cons that “experts” were absolutely positive would lead to the destruction of the earth:

1. Overpopulation in the 1960s
2. Resource Scarcity in the 1970s
3. Global Cooling (!) in the 1970s
4. Global Warming in the 2000s

Ironically (and sadly) the only scare that had any real basis in fact - total nuclear annihilation (1950-1990) - was approached with absolute weakness by the Left, whose solutions amounted to unilateral disarmament and appeasement.  We can only wish they’d take such an approach to global warming.

With all due respect Mr. President…

Perhaps the most important reading you could do would be to read the Stimulus Bill for yourself at ReadTheStimulus.org.

The Action Americans Need by Barack Obama.  From the Washington Post.  So now he’s writing Op-Eds?  Smacks a bit of desperation if you ask me.  Maybe it should have been titled, “The Crushing Debt Future Americans Don’t Want, But Will Get Anyway.”  Also see his speech to House Democrats from the other night.

The New Great Communicator… Isn’t, by Joan Walsh.  From Salon.com.  So basically, rich people are evil and horde all the money, so all we need to do is take their money and get it to poor people who will spend it, thus saving everyone.  And all Obama needs to do is sell that point better, and he’s in the clear.  You think I’m joking, but I’m not.  Keynesian, demand side economics hard at work.  Until she runs into, you know, facts, reality, truth, history, etc.  Also see this refutation of her original (bad) premise.

A guy goes undercover into the pit of all evil, Wal Mart.  And finds?  It’s not so bad.  (via Powerlineblog.com)

Twelve Thoughts on the Election Contest Order, from Powerlineblog.com  Update on the Franken/Coleman case/election.

Republicans as Democrats, Part 1 and Part 2, by Thomas Sowell.  From Townhall.com

We Can’t Spend Our Way to Prosperity, by John Stossel.  From Townhall.com

The National Ponzi Scheme, by Walter E. Williams.  From Townhall.com.  Great article about Social Security, by one of my current favorite thinkers.

Venezuela’s Chaves says Obama has “stench” of Bush.  But I thought the world would love us now?  Also, the French are smarter than us.

Tom Daschle: Symbol of All That’s Wrong in DC, from Powerlineblog.com.

What Are They Buying? by Thomas Sowell, from Townhall.com.

Legislating the Lillie Ledbetter Lie, from Powerlineblog.com.

Fan and Fred’s Lunch Tab, from the Wall Street Journal.

The Entitlement Stimulus, from the Wall Street Journal.  Here comes socialized health care…

My Bipartisan Stimulus, by Rush Limbaugh.  From the Wall Street Journal.  Makes more sense than anything I’ve heard out of DC.

Get Over It: New Deal Didn’t Do The Job.  From the Heritage Foundation.