Barack, it's not political, it's common sense

"WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, stepping up lobbying for his record $3.5 trillion budget, called on Tuesday for an end to finger-pointing and challenged Congress to offer constructive changes."

Here's a constructive change: How about setting an agenda or political philosophy and sticking to it?

"Nearly two months after taking office, Obama is also trying to distance his economic and budget plans from mounting public anger over costly government bailouts."

Lesson one: Never confuse personal popularity and campaigning with popularity of decision making.

"The American people sent us here to get things done," Obama said. "Let's pass a budget that puts this nation on the road to lasting prosperity."

So, "getting things done" loosely translates to: "Spend as much money as possible, unless it's unpopular then blame others." This doesn't sound like CHANGE. This sounds like politics as usual! Wait a second.

SUMMARY: It's much easier to run a vague campaign as 'Not-Bush' then it is to make the tough choices and take the hits. Also, Barack stop talking for like 10 minutes. You're the President for God sakes. Make what you say important. You've become like a talking Blog.

Obama is reading this blog

In the, "Finally I've discovered a clue department" comes this:

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Monday offered a fresh package of aid to small businesses — "the heart of the American economy" — in an aggressive push to get big banks that got federal bailout money to do more lending to these struggling entrepreneurs.
"You deserve a chance. America needs you to have that chance," Obama told small business owners gathered in the White House East Room as the administration detailed various steps to get credit flowing to small businesses.

With Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner by his side, Obama said the nation has small businesses to thank for many of the new jobs, roughly 70 percent in the last decade. Geithner said as small businesses prosper, the nation does, a critical element to any economic recovery."

Wow. 70%. You're kidding. Thanks for the number to add to this post, as I didn't know the exact statistic. Isn't this like COMMON KNOWLEDGE for anyone in business older that 22. Too bad they already put so much money into everything else. Trillions for the other 30%. A few billion for the 70%. Makes sense.

And the, "You deserve a chance..." line. Gee, thanks Barack. Thanks for the chance. Couldn't do it without the help of our oldest and dearest friend as entrepreneurs — the US Federal Government. Second only in their generous and unabashed support for small business to large banks.

Stay tuned as we discover that healthy businesses don't need tons of loans to survive, and maybe, just maybe, could simply be supported for their success with either less government interference, or help with things like healthcare costs, or maybe some direct incentives for hiring full-time ... or I don't know....how about ANYTHING at all, now that I think about it.

Until then, the ingenious system of government rewards for failure and tax increases for showing a profit will simply continue. Government doing what it does best — inefficiently spending other peoples' money.

Too many reruns of Shotime's 'Weeds!?'

I'm a huge fan of Shotime's show, 'Weeds' which to me perfectly captures the sense of neo-existential, nihilistic, 'me-first' thinking that has become pervasive in California. Fund your McMansion suburban life by selling drugs. Perfect, distilled capitalism with no ethics or personal responsibility whatsoever.

Well, turns out in the New America, why stop there? Make it public policy!

"Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic State Assembly member Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale - a move that could mean billions for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion in annual sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity - milk and cream - which brings in $7.3 billion annually, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion in much-needed revenue a year, offsetting some of the billions in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget."

Perfect! Maybe we could have a giant, government-sponsored world gambling casino that sells guns and liquor with legalized prostitution and neon lights to fund the bailouts.

Wait, that sounds EXACTLY like Las Vegas.

China on Stimulus: We're no AIG!

Funny how it's different when it's your money. Just ask China:

"Premier Wen Jiabao's message is unlikely to be misunderstood at the White House. It is counting on Beijing to help pay for its stimulus package by buying U.S. bonds. China already is Washington's biggest foreign creditor, with an estimated $1 trillion in U.S. government debt. A weaker dollar would erode the value of those assets."

Anyone with half a financial clue, [like people on Wall Street] ... realize that this is just a farce and even people behind it are starting to back peddle.

"I'm approving it but don't waste it — or else."

"I'm signing it but I'm not behind all the special interest line items."

The problem is for the average American who pays their bills and repays what they borrow, it just defies common sense:

Who spends tons of money when they're losing tons of money?!

How does going into deeper debt fix bad debt?!

How does propping up poorly run companies make them fix anything?!

Isn't this sort of reckless, "borrow against the future" thinking what got us here!? How do you take money from people without jobs, process it through a bureaucracy, then try to help them by returning a fraction of what they put in?! I'm just saying.

I guess China is no AIG.

We are NOT pre-approved for a 30 year mortgage we can't afford at a 60% debt level.

Washington's Economic Self Stimulation

In a landmark and sweeping wave of the Federal Magic Wand, and despite nearly universal, factual agreement that small business is the catalyst and engine of US growth, the wise policy-makers of Washington have declared themselves as the solution to all things economic.

In this compelling breakdown of the plan, I noticed at least two things missing:

1- A, "US Business" or "US Small Business" line item. Unless you're a supplier of parks and road improvement, government/school consulting or a vague set of "Green Job" creators, good luck, you're on your own trying to grow and create jobs as usual. Literally now even a mention. Nothing. Zero. Nada.

2- A clear, concise vision of the philosophy and approach behind the plan. For example, "This is the New, New Deal." Or, "Americans know their future, and the future of our country includes the following key changes in the way we live and work: X, Y, Z. This plan starts us down that road." Can we get even a modest investor Powerpoint pitch? Or any logical explanation that makes sense to a non bureaucrat? How about just a catchy name? "Stimulus Plan." Sound like a working title at best. Even Bush was able to stutter out, "Axis of Evil." to combat the, "Threat of State Sponsored Terrorism."

I can't wait for more of the, "Mess we inherited" excuses. With 36K invested in debt for every man, woman, and child in the country, one thing is for sure:

Mess or not, successful or not — our children will inherit this, "Stimulus" like it or not.

Will there ever be an America where we don't have to wait from the, "Trickle Down" from billion dollar companies or hope that teachers, government employees and the poor, "Trickle Up" the country?!

I'm calling four more years of polarizing policy, if this effort is exemplary of "Change" in America — the pendulum simply swinging wildly again.

UPDATE: Turns out, I'm not alone in feeling the polarizing effect of this set of decisions.

The US Government: Engine of Economic Growth

I guess, "change" means relying on that dynamic catalyst for business growth, the Federal Government. A baffling strategy to me.

Richard Fund gets 300 million for sucking. More evidence bailouts don't work.

Great. So bailouts don't work. At least it's really expensive long term and looks like it won't be working short term. Good luck to whoever assumes the Oval Office next....

In related news, I welcome any large company to pay me 300-400 million for sucking, like Richard S. Fuld Jr., chief executive officer of Lehman Brothers.

AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Airlines, welfare and the American Dream

So we live in the land of opportunity, where anyone with vision can start a successful business.

The American Dream.

But what happens when anyone with a dream becomes anyone with a failed business?

Most people either keep trying or give up and get a job. Unless you are a billion dollar giant corporation defined as crucial to the economy. Or a marginalized, impoverished person defined as irrelevant to society. Then you get bailed out by the government and tax payers.

No worries, small businesses will just keep the tax revenue base going, with zero safety net and families on the line. It's our reward for success.

And people wonder why small business owners hate big government and bureaucracy. I used to be pretty neutral. But now I see that all the idealism is just what you say when you run for office, not what you do once you're there. And either way the outcome is the same. Pay. Maybe someday my company will be giant and worth billions — so I can finally qualify for some assistance from tax payers. Or fail miserably and I can go on welfare and qualify for assistance from taxpayers.

UPDATE 9-29-08: Guess some in Congress are thinking the same thing:

"I don't think the American people should have a financial gun put to their head," said Ted Poe , R- Texas . "If a mom and pop makes a bad financial decision, they go out of business."

"Every American who has played it safe and smart to avoid debt is being asked to spend the rest of his or her life paying off the debts of Washington and Wall Street ," added Rep. Michele Bachmann , R- Minn.

Source of their comments is this article.

Sarah Palin, ObamaBot, McCan't and that other guy

I'm not particularly political, but the Sarah Palin "event" got me thinking about how politics now faces the same challenge that today's brand managers know all to well — lack of control. From a brand management point of view, the race for me is now between Sarah Palin, ObamaBot, McCan't and that other guy.

In the days pre-web, all you had to do was repeat a particular message often and consistently and it would be considered fact. Today's brands are defined by consumer opinion, speculation and PR and marketing to a degree. Brands have to pass the, "sniff test" to be believable and "real."

Enter the current political race. The gloss job the media is doing for Obama is actually doing him a disservice at this point because he just doesn't feel, "real." What are this guy's problems? What challenges has overcome? What mistakes have he or his family made? Every forray into these areas quickly disappears from the face of the earth. To me he has become the "ObamaBot." Wind him up and he makes you feel good.

Same with McCan't. He can't speak publicly. He can't be better than Bush. He can't have an original thought. I'd blame the media, but he's sort of painted his brand into that corner. The only impression I have is the retread war hero story and the campaign speech screech.

So we are left with Sarah Palin, with all her weaknesses, family and faults as the only "real" brand/person that everyday people can actually believe didn't come from "political world." And every attempt to make her look worse, makes her more sympathetic.

Oh yeah, and that other guy Paul Politician... whatever he's about.

Clinton was real. Bush was real. Both maybe a little too real. But they got our votes.