Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama’s Portfolio (He calls spending 'investments'. Time to look at the country's ROI)
National Review ^ | 01/25/2011 | The Editors

Posted on 01/25/2011 6:40:55 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Pres. Barack Obama doesn’t talk about “government spending,” he talks about “investing in America,” which sounds more thrilling but amounts to the same thing. And the man who fancies himself our national investment guru will no doubt take tonight’s State of the Union address to pitch us a bunch of new exciting financial opportunities, like some ephebic stockbroker just out of training. If we must endure the rhetoric of investment, it is fair to ask: How is Obama’s portfolio doing?

Compared to its slick prospectus, the Obama Fund is a dog, and its metrics — unemployment and growth — are stagnant and anemic, respectively. The Democrats promised that the $787 billion stimulus package would keep unemployment levels low — the best guaranteed return we’ve heard of since Bernie Madoff — but instead joblessness climbed from less than 8 percent to nearly 10 percent: a return of about negative 25 percent. And those shovel-ready stimulus projects turned out to be a lot like Madoff’s assets: fictional. After nearly a trillion bucks in “investment,” the most visible infrastructure improvement we have to show for it is a bunch of signs advertising the wonderfulness of the stimulus. If Obama were a rookie investment banker, would you give him a bonus for that performance? Probably not. Meanwhile, two years of unified Democratic management under Obama-Pelosi-Reid have left our national leverage ratio severely out of whack.

Obama has packed his administration with Wall Street bailout babies like JPMorgan rainmaker Bill Daley and corporate-welfare queens like General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, both of whom love “investing in America,” by which they mean “investing in politically connected enterprises such as JPMorgan and GE.” GE derives a great deal of its revenue from government contracts, including a recent Pentagon project described as a “wasteful boondoggle” by the secretary of defense himself. GE lobbied hard to fill the federal swill pail to the brim during the debate over the stimulus, and then began helping itself to the energy subsidies and green-tech goodies doled out thereafter. Mr. Daley’s banker benefactors, it goes without saying, are very much in favor of continued coddling.

It is worth noting that Mr. Immelt, who takes over for the venerable economist Paul Volcker, is the head of a panel recently renamed the “President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.” But government spending on imaginary “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects creates no jobs, and government spending on “wasteful boondoggles” does not contribute to national competitiveness. In fact, most government spending does not much contribute to the creation of jobs or national competitiveness, and corporate executives such as Mr. Daley and Mr. Immelt do not boast of a particularly distinguished record in government. That is not surprising, inasmuch as government is not a business. And with no apologies to those conservatives who occasionally fall into sloppy rhetoric, government should not be run like a business. Government, at its best, creates the conditions under which entrepreneurs can thrive and business can be done. It is not — or ought not to be — an operator in the business sphere. Such jobs as government creates (soldiers, policemen, bank inspectors) are products of necessity and prudence, and such “investments” as government makes (aircraft carriers, prisons) do not necessarily make efficient contributions to the material well-being of the nation. The defining activity of government — war — is an economic net loss, precipitated by trans-economic interests. It is true that government would do well to practice the shopkeepers’ virtues of thrift and husbandry, but these are not qualities much associated with the Obama administration or its economic advisers.

Government does not make investments. History suggests that it is not especially successful when it tries to do so, and the Obama administration has been a singularly ineffective manager of our national finances, its incompetence rivaled in modern times only by that of the Johnson administration. “Investing in America” is simply rhetorical camouflage deployed to avoid answering the simple questions: “Is this proposed spending wise? Is it the best and most prudent use of our money? Is it undertaken in accordance with our constitutional order and the proper role of government?” President Obama would prefer not to debate those questions, instead asking us to judge present outlays against future returns that may or may not live up to his promises.

Consider our recent national “investment” in education, which has seen spending more than double since 2000 with no discernable returns to anybody other than the public-sector unions: high costs, zero profit. In reality, the defining feature of government “investment” is that there is no discernable relationship between outlays and returns. And calling new spending programs “investments” — as Obama did about 15 times in his stimulus pitch and about two dozen times during his 2010 speech at Carnegie Mellon University — does not make them wise or profitable.

Congressional Republicans stand ready to meet the president more than halfway on those measures that do stand to make the nation more competitive — rediscovering fiscal probity, returning the federal government to its proper role, living within our national means — and if President Obama desires to reap returns from his remaining political capital, that is an investment worth making.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: investment; obama; portfolio; spending

1 posted on 01/25/2011 6:40:57 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Last night, I “invested” in a six pack of beer.


2 posted on 01/25/2011 6:43:59 AM PST by Liberty Ship ("Lord, make me fast and accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

shovel ready investments


3 posted on 01/25/2011 6:44:50 AM PST by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The fact that Obama and hid cronies are pulling this same stuff again indicates either how stupid they are or they are stuck on a socialist course, damn the results.

Do they think Americans are that stupid? Do they not know what the election was about? It’s just inconceiveable they are going to throw more money at the economy. And to cloak it in terms of investments is just insane. Do they not know the “stimulus” did not stimulate? Do they not know we are wallowing in debt? Are they dafffy? For Obama to come out and talk about more stimulus “investments” is the height of ignorance and arrogance. God get these loons out of there.


4 posted on 01/25/2011 6:55:27 AM PST by Rennes Templar ( Reagan: " When I was young we were poor, but the gov't didn't have to tell us we were poor")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Borrowing to invest...isn’t that called a margin? Wouldn’t the SEC frown on a 100% margin?


5 posted on 01/25/2011 7:10:27 AM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
ROI on government spending?!?! That's a laugher.

If government spending had a decent ROI, the private sector would have already done it. The reason this spending is left to the government is because there IS NO RETURN. Period.

If government spending had an ROI, then by all measures, the economy should be booming after two years of Obama.

Don't listen to Nancy Pelosi tell you that government spending has a better multiplier than private spending...that the most stimulating investment is a welfare payment. It's all BS! Private spending is expansive; it has returns; it has a multiplier >1. Government spending causes contraction; it has a multiplier <1.

6 posted on 01/25/2011 8:11:00 AM PST by Fredgoblu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson