Freedom of BLEEP

About 2.5 million, according to Obama’s economic recovery plan. And the joke is on you, the American tax payer, because you’ll be footing the bill.

OK, sure, switching to energy efficient light bulbs is a fundamentally sound idea. The problem is that Obama mentioned this as one of the top three ways that jobs will be created through his recovery plan. There just aren’t that many light bulbs to replace! Furthermore, many government facilities have already upgraded to energy efficient utilities because it’s such an obvious way to cut costs. That’s right, it’s already been done!

This aspect of the recovery plan is possibly the most short-sighted solution to unemployment ever proposed. In less than six months, light bulb changers across America will be left in the dark again, wondering why they don’t have a job. Unless of course, Obama comes up with another bright idea - perhaps they could rake leaves in our national forests.

Unfortunately, the recovery plan doesn’t get much better than this. The next component of Obama’s plan grants “use-it-or-lose-it” appropriations to states and municipalities. This means that local governments will be spending tax dollars on things that they don’t really need just so they don’t lose the “free” money. Didn’t Obama once say he wanted to cut wasteful spending? Well, now you can expect to see even more extravagant pork barrel bills go through as we pave our streets with gold.

The third component of the recovery includes putting new computers in our schools. Again, new computers would be nice but it doesn’t solve the problem at hand! How many steps are involved in setting up a computer, maybe three? And it doesn’t exactly require a computer science degree to install Math Blasters. Purchasing the computers will cost 100 times more than the labor, and most computer components are manufactured overseas. We could probably create more jobs by simply shipping boatloads of cash to Asia.

Earlier this week, we discussed how president-elect Obama has played a central role in bringing the U.S. economy to its knees. Now let’s consider how his actions since the election have worsened the situation.

1.) For the incoming administration, economic advisers will be among the most consequential appointments. Yet even the New York Times disagrees with Mr. Obama’s decision, stating that two of his key advisers “have played central roles in policies that helped provoke today’s financial crisis. [...] unless they recognize their past mistakes, there is little hope that they can provide the sound judgment and leadership that the country needs to dig out of this desperate mess.”

2.) Obama has promised to raise capital gains taxes. Investing is risky - especially in today’s volatile market - and individuals will have less incentive to invest money if they are taxed more on their investments. This isn’t rocket science. Still, the president-elect has refused to say whether he will wait for the economy to improve before imposing his tax hike.

3.) Obama has promised to raise taxes on large corporations. Of course, the net result will be lower profit margins for the Fortune 500 and falling stock indexes. Again, Obama refuses to indicate whether he will delay the tax hike until conditions improve, which has created a great deal of unease among investors.

4.) Obama has promised more regulation for big business. Investors don’t get excited when they hear companies will have more hoops to jump through and additional regulatory penalties which can prevent businesses from expanding. 

5.) Obama endorses the Check Card bill, which will make it easier for unions to bully large and small businesses. This bill will eliminate the secret ballot, thus enabling union leaders to intimidate and coerce workers. Anyone who has taken American History is aware how overly-powerful unions can have an adverse effect on American business. Just look at what unions have done to the auto industry.

6.) Obama has promised to raise taxes on small businesses - the largest job producing segment of our economy. Sure, 95% of small businesses will fall below the tax threshold, but it’s the top 5% where a majority of new jobs are being created. Why would investors want to jump into the market when successful and growing companies are going to be punished?

On September 17, 2007 at NASDAQ, Mr. Obama said that “Subprime lending started off as a good idea.” He went on to claim the condition of the real-estate market could be pinned solely on the corruption of financial institutions.

But wait a second. Since when was subprime lending a good idea?

The very definition of subprime lending states that there is a heightened risk of default, meaning these borrowers have a history of loan delinquency or default, a recorded bankruptcy, or limited debt experience. Does it sound like “a good idea” to give these people mortgages?

So why did Obama say that subprime lending was a good idea? Because he himself pressured financial institutions to make these bad loans. While working with ACORN in 1994, Obama sued Citibank because they were NOT making risky loans to unqualified individuals.

That’s right. Obama and ACORN worked together forcing financial institutions to make extremely high-risk loans. During his presidential campaign he denied all ties to ACORN, but this clearly contradicts a published statement by Chicago ACORN Leader, Toni Foulkes:

“We have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate [...]. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.”

Obama provided legal training to ACORN workers so they could intimidate banks into granting risky loans to people with low income and bad credit. Check out this video to learn more about ACORN tactics.

So how did this all come about? How can the government force banks to make bad loans? This excerpt from a CNS News Analysis sums up the answer to that question:

According to Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman and an economist with the Foundation for Economic Education, government policy is to blame.

Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the [Community Reinvestment Act] to combat ‘red-lining,’ a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

The Clinton-Reno threat of ‘vigorous enforcement’ pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”

Stay tuned for more Obamanomics…