The Man is at the Door

When I was back there in liberal arts school
There was a person there
Who put forth the proposition
That government can effectively allocate capital
Effectively allocate capital
Effectively allocate capital

Government cannot effectively allocate capital!

Can you find me soft asylum
I can't make it anymore
The Man is at the door.

      - with apologies to Jim Morrison and The Doors
        ("The Soft Parade")

See today's ABC News story on (only) the latest "green energy" jobs fiasco. Another $535 million simply down the drain.

The disturbing thing about the White House positioning of its upcoming so-called "jobs speech" (now scheduled for Sept.8, before the NFL game, more deference than the White House originally gave to the Sept.7 Republican candidates debate) is the focus on jobs, not to mention the contorted avoidance of the S-word (stimulus). This is nutty. If the goal is economic growth (and it should be), then the strategy should not focus on "jobs" but rather on the efficient and effective allocation and use of capital, which can then create jobs and lead to growth. Open markets do this quite well, while central planning has never worked and will never work.

Where will The Man lead us next Thursday? Alas, undoubtedly more big government ideas, centralized allocation of resources, taxpayer backstopping of politically selected corporate risk-taking, and more obstacles and denigration laid on corporate management.

The One

President Obama, in his July 15, 2011 press conference, declared:

"I am willing to take down domestic spending to the lowest percentage of our overall economy since Dwight Eisenhower[~18% of GDP]."

Since it's difficult to square this statement with Obama's political history and personality, let alone the last two and a half years of his term in office, we offer three plausible interpretations.  Obama is (pick one, there really can be only one):

1. baldly lying, i.e., in hyper-campaign mode
2. mildly lying, i.e., omitting the highly qualifying words "discretionary" or "entitlements excepted"
3. announcing to a startled Tea Party that he is, in fact, "The One!"

The Polarization Excuse

Politico.com reports today in an article "Poll: No Love for Obama on Deficit" that the President's numbers are moderating but still generally bad. In an attempt to find some encouraging interpretation (not news), author Jennifer Epstein starts to slice the salami:

But on other issues related to the economy, the numbers aren’t quite as grim for Obama. There, 37 percent of Americans say they back his economic policies, while 60 percent said they disapprove. But substantial partisan polarization exists over the issue, with 9 percent of Republicans, 32 percent of independents and 68 percent of Democrats saying they support his handling of the economy.

I can't really tell her intent here, is this a suggestion the "numbers aren't quite as grim" because of polarization? Is it not "quite as grim" that only 32 percent of independents (that might otherwise be counted on for blowing with the winds) approve? Does polarization somehow imply that people's opinions are somehow fixed by their own personal polarization, whatever that might mean, and thus of not as much concern to the White House (or the media)?

I find this paragraph to be quite confusing and generally troubling.