Obama's brings the pitchforks and torches against BP

Jazz Shaw at Pajamas Media recently looked at the remarks by Congressman Joe Barton and had this to say:

But while the remarks could certainly qualify for some sort of MTV Music award for inept commentary, and Barton has already been forced into a mea culpa, one nagging problem remains. The Texas congressman’s statements were politically tone deaf … but he was also correct.

He goes on to explain how, while BP should by no means avoid responsibility for this mess, it is not the President's place to force them into paying damages.

We do, in fact, have laws in this country which cover precisely this type of scenario. Plaintiffs in large scale disputes such as this have a right to petition in court and have a third party arbitrate disputes, collect funds, and disperse them to the injured parties. But in each case one of two things happens; either the company does it voluntarily to improve their public image or a court directs them to take this action. There is no provision for an elected official from the executive branch to simply order such an action by fiat.

True, BP may have been under no legal constraint to follow Obama’s dictate. But given the fact that their popularity around the world right now isn’t exactly at an all time high, the president pretty much had them over a barrel of oil. And it does, as [John] Hawkins opined, carry the stench of being “lawless, creepy, and dictatorial.”

 He concludes with the following:

It would be a shame if the Gulf Coast denizens who rely on fishing and tourism for a living actually wind up waiting longer and receiving less because of President Obama’s desperate need to appear as if he’s doing something — anything! — in the face of this Deepwater Disaster film which simply refuses to go away. And even if the slush fund works perfectly and everyone is paid in a timely fashion, the day may yet come when savvy legal minds will find time to ask the president exactly where he found the constitutional authority to demand such a solution from a private company without the benefit of a court.

 I am all for BP paying for as much of this mess as they can. But they are not solely responsible in this mess. Not when we hear reports of would-be cleanup vessels being stopped due to insufficient life vests. Didn't the President just say this is a crisis? In crisis situations we don't stand on largely-irrelevant bureaucracy.

I, frankly, never thought it was appropriate to hold Bush responsible for the response to Hurricane Katrina. I do not think it's appropriate to hold Obama responsible for the Gulf Oil Spill, either. But the Democrats, in insisting on the former, have reaped the latter. What we need from the President is leadership--someone to cut through all the red tape to get the best and most resources into play to clean up the mess. A single call from Obama could have had the Coast Guard out of the way in no time. Let the courts handle who is to blame and who has to pay for it. Let BP come forward voluntarily with an offer of some initial pay-out to help those affected.

Unfortunately we have a President who does not know how to lead, but does have a habit of reaching for his bat whenever big business is involved. His need to beat up business goes beyond sticking up for the little guy. Little guys are employed by big businesses, too, after all. No, his need to bash business approaches the pathological. His need to be seen bashing big business borders on the narcissistic. Meanwhile we still have an oil slick problem, and all the leaders who could be doing something about this are wrapped up in some sort of Pyrrhic kabuki. 

Don't You DARE Call This a "Merit Increase"

Congress has voted themselves a pay increase and a petty-cash increase, and Obama is dining on expensive wine and steak. Meanwhile the economy continues to slide, unemployment rises, and wages are falling. But that, they tell us, is the fault of Bush and Rush.

The only trouble with that theory is that the stock market had started to stabilize in January. We were actually seeing increases. Then Obama took office and every new program or policy or casual remark by government official is met with another market drop. He can't blame THAT on Bush. He can't blame THAT on Rush Limbaugh.

We're hearing nothing but hypocrisy from the Democrat establishment in Washington. Americans, we are told, need to tighten our belts and brace for things to get worse before they get better. We need to be responsible. We need to not buy houses we can't afford.

Washington is not leading by example. They are spending money they don't have, won't have, and may never have. They are attacking the rich as the heart of the problem, and yet are prepared to raise taxes on them as if they're the only solution. They are rewarding their supporters with spending and pork. Our President, who not that long ago was talking tough on earmarks is now refusing to see earmarks anywhere he looks.

Americans are expected to sacrifice for their country, while our Democratic government are determined to feast on the offerings--and demand more.

They can blame the GOP all they want for being the "Party of NO", but the reality is that their "No" is nearly pointless. The Democrats have shut them out of every discussion, and while Obama has at least appeared to want to listen, he didn't use any of the ideas he heard.

Pelosi and Reid have gone a step further by saying that the GOP cannot possible have a good idea worth listening to because every single idea they've ever had in the past eight years are useless and the very cause of the mess we're in. Such a notion is not only insulting, dishonest, and disingenuous, but inherently dangerous. They are essentially saying that every second of the last eight years were a complete and utter failure, including the government's successful response to the economic downturn after the dot-com bust and 9/11 and the steady economic growth we've experienced for at least six of the past eight years. That can't possibly be correct.

What's more, it's not as if the Democrats did nothing at all during that time. Had the GOP enjoyed the level of control the Dems now have it would be much easier to make that case. But in many, many cases the policies and budgets that got implemented were done with Democrat approval. So essentially they're contradicting themselves: "the things we did when we weren't in control were stupid, but now that we're in charge we're suddenly right."

Besides, we know that not everything done during the Bush years were wrong, because Obama has adopted many of the same policies. Remember how "launching missiles into Pakistan won't solve the problem"? How many missiles have been launched into Pakistan since Obama took office? He's C-in-C now. He could stop that if he wanted to. An all we've heard since his original order to close Guantanamo is how difficult that will actually be. It wouldn't be if he really wanted it closed. Irresponsible, yes, but not difficult. And it looks like we'll have a significant number of troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

The Democrats seem to think that having won the election translates into "we have a massive mandate to completely undo everything done in the last eight years." That is self-delusion, and a recent poll confirms that while Obama is still popular, his policies are becoming less so. So far he's been able to blame things on Bush or make it appear that it was Congress' work that he was merely okaying. The reality is that he and his team are at best too inexperienced and at worst deliberately trying to weaken the economy further.

Here's a news flash for you, Mr. President. The so-beloved Middle-Class you are out to save have a considerable amount invested in our 401Ks and retirement accounts and are depending on the stock market to turn around. It's not just the Wall Street "fatcats" (most of whom are NOT irresponsible near-crooks) who need the stock market to do well. We all do. What we have seen since January is not the normal gyrations of the market. It's a steady, rapid decline. Call your accountant. He'll tell you what your cabinet of so-called smart people can't seem to figure out.

Suck it in and show some of that fiery resolve you campaigned with. Bring fiscal responsibility to Washington. Put an end to earmarks. Cut back or postpone your programs to meet the economic realities like you said you would. Show us that Washington knows how to manage our money before you lecture us on responsibility.

The economy is continuing to slide because we're not seeing anything new from Washington. It's business as usual. It's revenge as usual. It's scapegoating and blame-deflecting as usual. We need to see leadership and accountability.

It's time you deliver.

Just Who IS In Charge?

President Obama is scheduled to give his State of the Union address tonight. I will probably watch, but I'm not sure why. He is not in control of the economy. He wants everyone to think he is. He talks like he is. The reality is different.

If Obama were really in control then careless posturing by Sen. Chris Dodd about privitizing banks wouldn't send stocks into a tailspin.

If Obama were in control they wouldn't have passed an enormous spending bill so complex that no one was able to read it before having to vote on it.

If Obama were in control his administration wouldn't feel the need to respond to criticism from Rick Santelli.

If Obama were in control he wouldn't have to hit the road to drum up support for his programs. The press would be doing it for him.

If Obama were in control he wouldn't have been caught off guard by so many of his cabinet picks being sunk by various corruption charges.

If Obama were in control we would not have so many Democratic members of Congress under investigation for various corruption scandals.

But the fact of the matter is either that the Obama who we voted into office in November is NOT the Obama who took office, or he is completely unable to do his job. Neither one is acceptable.

But the fact of the matter is this: there is no one clear voice from Washington calling the shots. There is no clear leadership. Obama is going one way, while Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Schumer are going their own ways. Tim Geithner is falling flat.

It's almost as if none of these people have met to come up with any coordinated plan. No one is in control of the message. It's almost as if they are purposely trying to break the economy down further.

I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists who believes that they're doing this on purpose in order to keep us scared enough to accept further hidden social restructuring (even Schumer was surprised by some of the provisions in the stimulus bill and vowed to roll them back). The thought has crossed my mind, but 2010 is not that far away. If they don't want to get thrown out of office they need to show clear progress by then. They would be foolish to dig themselves too deep of a hole.

But if they don't get their act together that is precisely what they will do. And they can ignore or belittle Santelli as much as they like, but they're failing to recognize what he started. Yes, HE may be a former commodities trader--a so-called poster boy for everything that went wrong with the economy--but his frustration is universal. There are a lot of people who are upset with how things are going and what the Administration is doing about it.

I am one of them. I am NOT a commodities trader. I'm a business systems analyst. I bought a house three years ago right before the top of the bubble. I had mortgage brokers encouraging me to buy bigger houses, but I knew what I could afford. I didn't bite. I didn't gamble on an adjustable rate mortgage to get more house. I knew what my budget was, and I knew how much of a house payment I could handle. I paid 20% down.

I save close to 15% of my income each year. I pay my taxes without complaint. I do not carry a balance on my credit cards. I live within my means. In short, I am responsible.

And I've had it with the government propping up all the irresponsible people. Because of all the irresponsible people I'll be losing my job soon. I am not happy about that. I am not happy to see nearly $800 billion dollars--only about 10-20% of which is actual stimulus--added to the public debt in my name, while the bulk of it is actually to appease Democrat supporters and advance socialistic agendas. Frankly, the mortgage rescue is the least of my concerns.

I'm concerned about a government that seems to have lost its mind. I'm concerned about an administration that can't control its message or its people. I'm concerned about a future that not even the people who sold us this stimulus mess will go on record saying will get better soon.

And that's probably why I don't want to listen to Obama tonight. I'm already depressed. I don't need to feel any worse.