Obie was upbeat, markets weren't

"Beginning of the end" toward exiting the recession, President Obama's upbeat words about the stimulus bill he signed in Denver yesterday, clashed with another down day on Wall Street -- 300 points off the Dow, close to a three-year low. The bullish rhetoric was on Page 1A in the Denver Post today, whereas the bearish market reality was 22 pages in -- Page 6B. Interesting news judgment.

Additional cognitive dissonance came with the President's scare word "catastrophe" being cited in the front page headline -- while syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker was telling us on 11B that Obama himself backed away from that alarmist characterization in a chat with her last Friday. Not only were the '30s worse than now, says the Stimulator in Chief; so were the early '80s when he was in college.

Huh? Solar panels are one thing, but Barack has now entered a hall of mirrors. He can't keep his story straight. Fear one day, hope the next. Stop the bubble machine.

It was said that New York Mayor Robert Wagner set the chutzpah record by running for a second term on a reform platform against his own first term. That flipflop took four years. Obama has now done the same in four weeks.

Big spenders unhinged; price tag $3.2T

The era of big government is back -- with a vengeance. President Obama returned to Denver to sign into law his American Reinvestment and Recovery Act -- the biggest spending bill in history, conservatively priced at $787 billion. In reality, this "stimulus" encourages nothing but government dependency and the belief that you really can get something for nothing. It should be known as the American Dependency and Redistribution Act because that's what it stimulates most.

But Americans said they wanted change; now they've got it. Or do they? President Bush's biggest failure was a lack of fiscal discipline -- the inability to say "no" to big spenders, especially those in his own party. But if Bush was undisciplined, Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are completely unhinged.

With a single piece of legislation, Democrats will spend more during Obama's first month than Bush spent on the entire Iraq war. They passed the 1,073-page bill before anyone could read it -- just days after unanimously adopting a policy to require that the public have 48 hours to review legislation before it comes to a vote.

Democrats' commitment to transparency in Congress follows the same pattern as Obama's commitment to keeping lobbyists out of his cabinet -- they're for it, except when they're against it.

Bush signed a feckless $150 billion stimulus package last spring and the $700 billion TARP bailout bill plan in September and was criticized for both, from the right and the left. How many Obama voters expected the new president to follow in that same furrow, using not a shovel but an excavator?

Democrats like to claim "economists agree" that a government stimulus plan is necessary. Yet economists also acknowledge that the economy would eventually recover even if Congress did nothing.

Since the choice is between a government-induced recovery and one that would ultimately sort itself out, we should expect that government action do no harm.

Unfortunately, this stimulus is a minefield of potential and inevitable harm--if not abject fiscal disaster.

Congressional Budget Office notes that any short-term stimulative effect will wane, followed by rising government debt that actually hinders economic growth.

Then there's the cost of exploding federal deficits.

The cost of the stimulus isn't merely the $787 billion in authorized spending. It's closer to $3.2 trillion because it expands or resurrects many social welfare programs. Nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars will be required just for interest payments on debt.

Had Bush uttered Obama's simplistic "stimulus is spending" rhetoric, he would have been pilloried by the press as a know-nothing. Obama acts as if all government spending is equally stimulative, so the lion's share of this boondoggle is little more than a resurrection of the welfare state.

Welfare reforms hammered out between President Clinton and a Republican Congress in 1996 are rolled back. New entitlements are promised. These expenditures are authorized only through 2011, but the underlying programs form the foundation for a cradle-to-grave nanny state. The entitlement lobby will fight, hammer and tong, any effort to end funding, accusing opponents of "hating children and seniors," just as they vilified Republicans during welfare reform.

As the Bush administration was largely defined by the war on terrorism, so Obama's will be defined by the biggest spending bill in history, a return to the welfare state, and exploding deficits -- ultimately leading to soaring inflation and rising interest rates.

Six years ago, Bush's decision to invade Iraq enjoyed overwhelming support, but when the war effort stumbled, the public and many politicians turned on a dime and left him holding the bag. Now, public support for the stimulus appears to be a mile wide but an inch deep. Americans hope it will work but don't expect their own finances to improve.

If the economy is still struggling in a year or two with today's problems compounded by inflation and rising interest rates, President Obama will learn that he alone owns his decisions and that the Oval Office can be a very lonely place.

Mark Hillman served as Colorado senate majority leader and state treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

Partisan in chief

Everyone knows that Barack Obama went to Columbia and Harvard Law School, where he was editor of the Law Review. And though he may lack real-world experience -- so-called "life experience" -- he certainly got a good education. Much was made during the campaign of Obama's thin resume and his lack of leadership experience. But in reality, Obama is like many in the Congress for whom government and public service is not a new phase of their career, it is their career. Obama didn't enter politics after a successful decade as a corporate lawyer, judge or businessman. Rather, he came to politics in his mid-30s after spending time working the voters and religious organizations of Chicago's South Side, all as part of a coordinated plan to be a politician. . His success -- becoming President of the United States at the tender age of 47 -- is unprecedented. But rest assured that if it had taken another 20 years, Barack Obama would have stayed in the United States Senate, preparing and planning for a run at the White House. So, you'll have to forgive Mr. Obama for not knowing much about the practical, business side of economics. You see, Barack has never had a proper job in a corporation, had to hire or fire anyone or had to look at his balance sheet and make tough choices about strategy. And, of course, that goes for a large percentage of those in the U.S. House and Senate -- many of whom have been there for decades and don't have much experience at running anything. Our political class is largely divorced from real work of the kind that most voters do, and of the kind of economic challenges that most voters face. For them it is either an academic or an ideological exercise: throwing money at the problem makes people feel like something is being done. And if you can satisfy your social engineering agenda and pet projects in the process, so much the better.

And so it is that the new President and the Democrats in Congres have pushed through a "stimulus" package that has goodies for every pet cause, from environmental protection to family planning. In the process it rolls back many of the practical effects of welfare reform, and makes what is only a down payment on massive new spending on health care, alternative energy and redistributive social programs. The left now has a blank check to redesign our social structure the way it "should be" -- on the basis of equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. It isn't enough to provide a level playing field; vast sums will now be spent to ensure that those groups that have been historically oppressed now have the opportunity to get their just desserts. Call it justice, retributive style.

Retributive justice thus explains why decisions are now being made that defy both economic logic and historical precedence. Everyone knows that trying to stimulate the economy by using massive government spending while forcing banks to loan money to those who can't repay it is a recipe for an even greater disaster -- where the cure is worse than the underlying disease. And history shows clearly that past experience with this kind of centralized control of the modes of production and credit -- both in Japan in the 1990s and during our own Great Depression of the 1930s -- only makes things worse. Surely, those who now advise Barack Obama know these facts better than anyone.

And of course it doesn't matter, because what we are witnessing now is a march of hubris fueled principally by a desire to remake the nation in a kinder, gentler form, with social justice for all. Obama's choices on the stimulus package show clearly that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, he sees his role as partisan-in-chief rather than as a sober steward of a nation with serious, systemic problems. What Obama, Pelosi and the liberals in Congress have done now won't help the economy, but it will further the liberal political and social goals that they are so certain this country wants and needs. Eventually -- three, five or ten years down the road -- the economy will recover, albeit saddled with $ trillions in additional debt. But the social goals that this stimulus makes a down payment on will live on forever.

I wrote often of my fear of Barack Obama and the Democrats during the campaign. Turns out now that I wasn't nearly scared enough.

Transparency please, Mr. President

It would likely be impossible for me to deal with the crowd that will attend Mr. Obama's stop in Colorado next week.  Standing in line for a long period of time with folks that are looking at America's future through rose-tinted glasses, oblivious to the lessons history has taught would be more than I could tolerate. I would, however, like a chance to ask questions of our president: 1.  Mr. President, during your campaign you favored tax cuts for small businesses.  In recent days, you've come out with a forceful regulatory tone toward big business.  Your Stimulus Bill does not include those tax breaks for small business.   Is business, small and large, under attack in your administration?  Are the American people correct in observing that you are moving toward as much government take-over of business, in general, as you can push through?  Are you not in favor of providing incentive to Americans that may want to start a business, or grow a business to include additional hiring and productivity?

2.  Would you please explain to the American people why you believe the census should be managed by you and your administrative team?  If you are fearful that not enough minorities are being counted, it would seem most appropriate that you appoint a non-political census task force to conduct this process in a completely transparent, and certainly non-partisan way.  

3.  You have been adamantly opposed to lobbyists since the early days of your presidential campaign.  You've made assertions about not having lobbyists in your White House.  Your campaign team attacked Senator McCain for connections to lobbyists.  Of course, we know now that lobbyists are connected to your administration and yesterday, lobbyists were given the first opportunity to review your Stimulus Bill before members of Congress.  What other campaign promises can the American people expect to see broken?

4.  Your SCHIP bill was recently signed into law and was done so very quickly before the American people had a chance to examine the expansion and revisions.  Funding for this bill will be taken from tobacco taxes.  Your Stimulus Bill provides funding for a nationwide stop smoking effort.  Can you explain the reasoning as to how healthcare initiatives can be funded on one hand with a tobacco use tax, and then on the other hand, we are asked to pay for smoking cessation programs?  It would appear that the costs of the expanded SCHIP program would actually necessitate the need for every American to start smoking.

5.  You have stated that your Stimulus Bill is not perfect.  You acknowledge there are likely some mistakes.  Your vice president went further and stated it may only have a 30% chance of working.  Given our financial crisis, and your own admission that if we don't get this right, we may never recover, shouldn't the American people have a right to expect a better plan from our president, perhaps a plan that has even a projected 50% chance of working?  The fact that you have no prior business or economic experience comparable to the level of your new job and our current situation, should we not expect to see you sitting in your office every day working closely with your advisors to make sure you put forth a plan that has better than 30% odds?  Many Americans are troubled to observe your travel around the country promoting a bill that your administration admits may not have the desired outcome.  Would it not be more prudent for you to spend your time instead, working on a plan that includes historically proven positive outcomes? 

6.  Your Treasury Secretary was asked this week from whom the money will be borrowed to set your Stimulus Plan in motion.  He was not transparent.  He stated some American and some foreign investors will be loaning the government the money.  Since American taxpayers are on the hook to pay back this money, in the spirit of transparency do we not have the right to know the lending sources?

7.  During the campaign, Republicans pointed to your lack of experience and suggested the presidency is not a position that is conducive to on the job training.  You've experienced several set-backs in terms of improper vetting of high ranking appointments.  You left the White House one day unexpectedly when things weren't going well to visit a school, and you've fallen back on your greatest strength, which is public appearances rather than stay at your desk.  Would you admit that the office of the presidency has presented you with more challenges beyond your previous experience than you expected?

8.  In Elkhart, IN, you stated that private citizens will be able to email you with questions or concerns with respect to how your Stimulus money is being spent.  If Americans observe delays, waste or other problems with these public works projects, they will have direct access to you in order to report.  Another campaign promise was your claim that Americans would be able to view all policy and legislation online for 5 days prior to your signing into law.  This has not occurred thus far.  Because there is an early failure to adhere to transparency ethics, can the American people really expect to  email the White House whenever they want to report problems with the spending of Stimulus money and receive a credible response?

The list of questions could go on and on, but the reality of our life here in Obama Land tells us we will not get transparent answers.  We probably shouldn't even dare to ask.   This new transparency is about as clear as mud.

GOP shows some fight

"Thank goodness the Republicans are rediscovering their backbone under Obama," says John Andrews in the February round of Head On TV debates. Susan Barnes-Gelt scoffs that "tt's a new day and the Grumpy Old Partisans are tone deaf." John on the right, Susan on the left, also go at it this month over Obama's honeymoon, Salazar's agenda at Interior, how to fill Senate vacancies, and the future of print journalism. Head On has been a daily feature on Colorado Public Television since 1997. Here are all five scripts for February: 1. GOP SHOWS SOME FIGHT

Susan: The Republican Party is not destined to oblivion. History tells us that no political party dominates forever. On the other hand, and sadly for the country - the R's in the minority role are disciplined - consistently putting petty partisanship above the needs of the country.

John: After a big victory like the Democrats had, sweeping the White House and the Congress, Republicans have to fight back for the sake of our liberties, our pocketbooks, and our children’s national debt. If someone doesn’t stand as the loyal opposition, Pelosi and Reid and Obama could go too far.

Susan: R's have been in charge for 6 of the last 8 years. Bush inherited peace and a budget surplus. The best thing about the first weeks of Obama's watch is the emergence of Congressional moderates - D's and R's. It's a new day and the Grumpy Old Partisans are tone deaf.

John: Partisan checks and balances are essential. Fiscal responsibility was much better with divided government under Reagan or Clinton, than with one-party rule under Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush. The budget was more steady. The economy was more healthy. Thank goodness the Republicans are rediscovering their backbone under Obama.

2. OBAMA’S EARLY WEEKS

Susan: Following an historic election and inaugural week, President Obama has been plunged into the miasma of Beltway disfunction. Despite the entreaties of Republican governors, the R's in the House and Senate are playing politics with America's economy. Obama is smart and tough. He'll prevail.

John: Our new young president is gifted as a politician but totally untested as an executive. The first hundred days are testing him in a big way. With ethics problems, a pork-laden stimulus bill, and shaky poll numbers, he hasn’t exactly aced the exam. It could be a very short honeymoon.

Susan: The economy is in free-fall, Iraq, Pakistan. Afghanistan and the mid-East are in peril and his appointees await computers and phones! The partisan bickering in Congress is a distraction they are fiddling while Rome burns. The President must do what's right for the country - and ignore the Beltway baloney.

John: Mr. Obama is the biggest question mark ever chosen to lead this country – ever. The answers emerging so far are not reassuring. Will he stand tough against our enemies in Russia and China, Iran and Venezuela? Why is he cutting our defenses? How far left will he take us?

3. PRIORITIES FOR SALAZAR AT INTERIOR

John: Who is the real Ken Salazar, under that phony cowboy hat? As a senator, he was pleasant but slippery. Now as Interior Secretary, he has to really deliver for the West. Blocking energy development is not the way. We need mixed use of public lands for everyone’s benefit, Mr. Secretary.

Susan: Smart, moderate and politically savvy Coloradan - Ken Salazar has the integrity, the will and the know-how to clean up the severely degraded Department of Interior. Aided by his chief of staff Tom Strickland, he will balance the environment, energy demands, water policy and restore public, to public lands.

John: Environmentalists say Salazar isn’t green enough. Let’s hope he doesn’t pander to them. The Utah oil and gas shutdown is a bad sign. The New York Times says he isn’t tough enough. Let’s hope they’re wrong. As Senate President, I found Salazar tough as nails. And Tom Strickland will be good.

Susan; Salazar won his senate seat in moderate, center-right Colorado because he reflects the values that will serve him well as Secretary of Interior. He is intelligent, thoughtful and moderate and will balance stewardship of the nation's assets with the demands of a 21st Century economy.

4. WHAT IF THE ROCKY FOLDS?

John: Although we both write for the Denver Post, Susan, there's no doubt the Rocky Mountain News has made Colorado a better place for the past 150 years. But this recession has put the brave old Rocky on borrowed time. Competing newspapers enrich a city. Denver without the Rocky is not a happy thought.

Susan: What's happening at the Rocky is symptomatic of a larger problem: the demise of the local daily newspaper. Without a vigorous local press, democracy is at risk. The internet, YouTube and bloggers can't possibly replace a trained, full time professional press corps.

John: Think about that word “media.” Who do you want mediating for you? To stay informed as consumers, we have to pay others for news-gathering. But to stay free as citizens, we must think for ourselves. It’s okay if electronic news gradually replaces print, provided First Amendment competition keeps the media honest.

Susan: The issue is not electronic v paper. The issue is who is reporting the news. A trained professional, or a biased opionator (like you or me), an invisible blogger or script reader. Yes it will be possible to get in-depth info - but much tougher especially at the local level.

5. LET VOTERS FILL SENATE VACANCIES

John: Governors in four states, deciding alone like absolute monarchs, recently appointed powerful new members of the United States Senate. In Illinois, New York, and Delaware, the process was a clown show. Here in Colorado, Bill Ritter's pick of Michael Bennet was clean but strange. Let's have special elections to fill Senate vacancies.

Susan: We agree on this one John. An open US Senate seat is too rare and too important. No single individual should be the sole decider. And - the re-elect rate of appointed senators is less than 50%, the public ought to decide from the get-go.

John: Under the 17th Amendment, special elections for Senate vacancies are the preferred option. State Sen. Mike Kopp wants to mandate them in Colorado. US Sen. Russ Feingold wants a similar change to the federal constitution. If Coloradans had voted right after Salazar left, dark horse Michael Bennet would not have won.

Susan: We don’t know who might have won in an open election. That's the point - candidates articulate a message, work to build coalitions work hard to earn support and then the voters decide. Not the newspapers, not the elites, not the governor. That's democracy.