Paul Krugman, "The Timidity Trap": I Dare You. I Double Dare You.

Surely you remember how, back in the beginning of 2013, Paul Krugman declared, in response to a "notion" advanced by a Guardian columnist, that he was not interested in becoming Obama's Treasury Secretary, because he had more influence writing op-eds for The New York Times (see: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/the-outside-man/). We are now left to wonder whether Krugman might have been considered for the job, had it not been for his audacious decision to decline the position before it was ever offered. We'll never know.

In any event, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Timidity Trap" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/opinion/krugman-the-timidity-trap.html?_r=0), Krugman derides Obama, one of the "good guys" who "never seem willing to go all-in on their beliefs," for his half-hearted economic policy. Krugman writes:

"The classic example is the Obama stimulus, which was obviously underpowered given the economy’s dire straits. That’s not 20/20 hindsight. Some of us warned right from the beginning that the plan would be inadequate — and that because it was being oversold, the persistence of high unemployment would end up discrediting the whole idea of stimulus in the public mind. And so it proved."

Gee, what a pity that Krugman was not made Treasury Secretary. He could have doubled down on Obama's stimulus, providing us with more Solyndras, while taking America's debt, now at an unsustainable $17.5 trillion, to the stratosphere.

Go ahead, Paul. Tell Obama, whose second term is a bust, that you've changed your mind, and if he's willing, you're willing - to replace Jack Lew and to take spending to a new level in order to revive an economy that is treading water.

I dare you. I double dare you.

Thomas Friedman, "From Putin, a Blessing in Disguise": Was Hitler's Annexation of the Sudetenland Also a Godsend?

Does Putin's annexation of Crimea have a silver lining? Thomas Friedman seems to think this is the case.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "From Putin, a Blessing in Disguise" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/opinion/friedman-from-putin-a-blessing-in-disguise.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Friedman says that if there is to be "a new cold war," he wants to see an "earth race," as opposed to a "space race," which will bring about a new American energy policy. Tom Terrific writes:

"I want America to lead in developing an energy policy that will weaken the oil-and-gas-autocracy of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and, as a byproduct, produce the technologies that will mitigate climate change, make America a global technology and moral leader and ensure that the next generation can thrive here on Earth."

His conclusion:

"I would hate to see Obama spend the next two and half years just counting healthcare.gov sign-ups. He needs to recognize that Putin’s Crimea adventure has created the opportunity for a legacy project of moving America into a clean energy future — a move that would make us stronger, Putin weaker and the world safer."

Whoa! Less than a month ago, Friedman told us that the Cold War was forever over (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/opinion/friedman-dont-just-do-something-sit-there.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0):

"The Cold War was a unique event that pitted two global ideologies, two global superpowers, each with globe-spanning nuclear arsenals and broad alliances behind them. Indeed, the world was divided into a chessboard of red and black, and who controlled each square mattered to each side’s sense of security, well-being and power. It was also a zero-sum game, in which every gain for the Soviet Union and its allies was a loss for the West and NATO, and vice versa.

That game is over. We won."

Well, even Tom now seems to recognize that the "game" is not over, and in fact Putin has Obama caught in a devastating pincer movement, given Obama's dependence upon Russian goodwill involving the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Regarding Friedman's call for "an energy policy that will weaken the oil-and-gas-autocracy of Russian President Vladimir Putin," there is of course no mention by Tom of Solyndra or the US national debt, which Obama has taken to an unsustainable $17.5 trillion.

All of which is not to say that Obama cannot pressure Putin. As I observed in a previous blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/thomas-friedman-three-faces-of.html), freeing Europe from dependency upon Russian gas need not take much time at all. If Friedman were to spend a few minutes reading a Commentary article entitled "Will Israel Be the Next Energy Superpower?" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/will-israel-be-the-next-energy-superpower/) by Arthur Herman, he would quickly realize that salvation is to be found in Israel's enormous gas discoveries off its Mediterranean coast.

However, channeling Israeli gas to Europe might also demand that Obama put an end to his ideological war with Netanyahu, and this might be too much to demand of a president who has made the weakening of America's alliance with Israel a keystone of his foreign policy. Note Obama's luncheon with Palestinian Authority President Abbas, during which Obama called for "a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people," but refused to acknowledge the necessity of a neighboring nation which safeguards the existence of the Jewish people (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/obama-sucks-up-to-abbas-no-state-for.html).

Interestingly enough, even Friedman in this op-ed seems to understand that the Affordable Care Act is headed for disaster and will not provide Obama with the legacy that he is so desperately seeking.

But I digress from the thesis of Tom's opinion piece, i.e. Putin's annexation of Crimea is "a blessing in disguise." I can only wonder, if we were back in 1938, whether Friedman would also regard Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland as a godsend . . .

Paul Krugman, "The Big Shrug": Where Is Tanzania?

Later this month, Obama will be traveling to Tanzania. Now I know that many of those who read this blog are professors, doctors, psychologists and law makers, but honestly, if I were to give you a map of Africa this very moment, how many of you would be able to pinpoint Tanzania? Frankly, if you wanted to get lost for a week or so, as scandals swirl around you, it sounds like a pretty good place to disappear, and this is where Obama will be traveling at the end of the month. Moreover, were it not for the fact that Tanzania, as noted by Dana Milbank in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s ill-advised visit to Tanzania" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-obamas-ill-advised-visit-to-tanzania/2013/06/07/397b00fa-cf88-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?hpid=z2), "has been in a multiyear diplomatic dispute with the United States over human trafficking," Tanzania might be a wonderful place to weather out the PRISM, Verizon, Benghazi, AP/Rosen and the IRS storms.

But let us not forget that in addition to PRISM, Verizon, Benghazi, AP/Rosen and the IRS, there is also the "small" matter of America's stagnant economy and an unacceptable level of unemployment.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Big Shrug" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/opinion/krugman-the-big-shrug.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman asks:

"So how, in those long-ago days, would we have reacted to Friday’s news that the number of Americans with jobs is still down two million from six years ago, that 7.6 percent of the work force is unemployed (with many more underemployed or forced to take low-paying jobs), and that more than four million of the unemployed have been out of work for more than six months?"

Me? I would say that Obama has done an awful job of managing the economy since becoming president - yeah, I know, he inherited it from Bush. But heck, it's been more than four years since Bush departed, and Obama's name isn't even mentioned once in Krugman's op-ed.

Krugman concludes:

"The tragedy is that it’s all unnecessary. Yes, you hear talk about a 'new normal' of much higher unemployment, but all the reasons given for this alleged new normal, such as the supposed mismatch between workers’ skills and the demands of the modern economy, fall apart when subjected to careful scrutiny. If Washington would reverse its destructive budget cuts, if the Fed would show the 'Rooseveltian resolve' that Ben Bernanke demanded of Japanese officials back when he was an independent economist, we would quickly discover that there’s nothing normal or necessary about mass long-term unemployment.

So here’s my message to policy makers: Where we are is not O.K. Stop shrugging, and do your jobs."

"Policy makers" should do their jobs? Is Obama a policy maker? Or is he simply someone who is told by his closest senior advisers of disasters after the fact, so that he can claim that he read about them like the rest of us in the newspapers?

Whom in Washington would Krugman have shower additional federal stimulus upon the economy? The EPA? It can of course bankroll more Solyndras, but also note newly surfacing allegations of EPA discrimination against conservative organizations as described by John Steele Gordon in Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/06/10/now-the-environmental-protection-agency/#more-826874). The IRS? They can make more "Star Trek" movies and continue hosting lavish conferences costing millions of dollars. Or perhaps, the NSA, which is doing its part to heal the economy by building a new $2 billion facility in Utah, where it will store and process details concerning your telephone and Internet activity.

US unemployment remains at a disastrous level, but who is ultimately responsible for championing a recovery? At the moment Obama can be found with China's Xi Jinping in a desert retreat named Rancho Mirage (see: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-xi-latest-leaders-escape-california-desert-retreat-070547701.html). Later this month, after reemerging from this mirage, Obama can be "found" in Tanzania.

Good luck to the unemployed and underemployed among us.

Paul Krugman, "Hawks and Hypocrites": A Great Idea for Getting Even With Your Children

From Paul Krugman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hawks and Hypocrites" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/opinion/krugman-hawks-and-hypocrites.html):

"Contrary to the way it’s often portrayed, the looming prospect of spending cuts and tax increases isn’t a fiscal crisis. It is, instead, a political crisis brought on by the G.O.P.’s attempt to take the economy hostage. And just to be clear, the danger for next year is not that the deficit will be too large but that it will be too small, and hence plunge America back into recession."

My goodness, those nasty Republicans are still up to their tricks. Let's get even by allowing the federal government to orchestrate a few more Solyndras.

But what does the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office have to say about this? Simple (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43539):

"For fiscal year 2012 (which ends on September 30), the federal budget deficit will total $1.1 trillion, CBO estimates, marking the fourth year in a row with a deficit of more than $1 trillion. That projection is down slightly from the $1.2 trillion deficit that CBO projected in March. At 7.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), this year’s deficit will be three-quarters as large as the deficit in 2009 when measured relative to the size of the economy. Federal debt held by the public will reach 73 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year—the highest level since 1950 and about twice the share that it measured at the end of 2007, before the financial crisis and recent recession."

Or in plain English, US current-dollar GDP of some $15.8 trillion is less than US federal debt, which is in excess of $16 trillion. If the federal government increases spending, the only way it will ever be able to return its debt is by printing money, and this is not a bad idea if you are intent upon getting even with your children.

New York Times Editorial, "Jobs and Politics": No Mention of $16 Trillion Debt

In an editorial entitled "Jobs and Politics" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/opinion/jobs-and-politics.html?_r=0), The New York Times calls for additional spending by the US federal government to create jobs, given Friday's dismal employment report. Of paramount importance to the Times, the report should not encourage voters to support Romney:

"But properly understood, the report should not encourage voters to support Mitt Romney. That’s because boosting tepid job growth requires stimulative fiscal policy — including spending to rehire teachers and to rebuild schools, roads and other infrastructure, as well as loan modifications for underwater homeowners. Mr. Obama has proposed all of that, while Republicans have blocked such measures and the Republican agenda rejects them."

Additional stimulative government spending? To encourage ventures such as Solyndra? To rescue GM, again teetering on bankruptcy, a second time? Will David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe manage this new program?

Even more to the point, what will be the source of this funding? According to a March 2012 CBS News article (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/):

"The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

. . . .

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services."

Moreover, it was just announced by the Treasury Department that US debt is over $16 trillion (see: http://news.yahoo.com/us-national-debt-hits-16-trillion-republicans-blast-031301848.html). How would the Times finance this new round of stimulation?

Borrow more money from China? Okay, but how does it get paid back? Where is Obama's detailed deficit reduction plan? In fact, it doesn't exist, but why should that matter to America's responsible citizenry?

Paul Krugman, "We Don’t Need No Education": Worse Than Dishonest

Do you like challenges? Read Paul Krugman's latest New York Times op-ed, "We Don’t Need No Education" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/opinion/krugman-we-dont-need-no-education.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). Now read it a second time. What's missing?

Answer: There's not a single mention of the US ground war in Afghanistan, which is bleeding the country white for no reason whatsoever. How in blazes can you discuss federal spending, federal budget deficits and economic malaise without relating to this boondoggle? Beats me.

Krugman writes:

"Conservatives love to pretend that there are vast armies of government bureaucrats doing who knows what; in reality, a majority of government workers are employed providing either education (teachers) or public protection (police officers and firefighters)."

Well, I don't think there can be any argument that there is a vast army of brave American soldiers in Afghanistan "doing who knows what," and it's high time to bring them home, before any more die or are maimed.

The US federal government, which is running trillion dollar deficits, should lend money to bankrupt state and local governments to hire teachers and policemen? I agree. It's far more productive than making Solyndra-type loans, but let's first put an end to that insane war that Obama escalated.

Obama is avoiding the issue of Afghanistan as we approach November, and so is Krugman. This is worse than dishonest.

Paul Krugman, "The Austerity Agenda": Should My Spending Be Your Debt?

Writing from across the Atlantic, Paul Krugman in his latest New York Times op-ed, "The Austerity Agenda" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-agenda.html), again argues the case for spending. Krugman observes that when questioning austerity in London, he inevitably is met with the same answer he hears in New York:

"The bad metaphor — which you’ve surely heard many times — equates the debt problems of a national economy with the debt problems of an individual family. A family that has run up too much debt, the story goes, must tighten its belt. So if Britain, as a whole, has run up too much debt — which it has, although it’s mostly private rather than public debt — shouldn’t it do the same? What’s wrong with this comparison?

The answer is that an economy is not like an indebted family. Our debt is mostly money we owe to each other; even more important, our income mostly comes from selling things to each other. Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income."

But shouldn't Krugman be asking if your spending should be my debt, and if my spending should be your debt?

When government spends, it indeed becomes our debt. And when government spends at an unsustainable level, its citizens are inevitably crushed by the repayment burden.

Moreover, when individuals or non-governmental agencies spend or gamble wildly, this does not and should not become the government's debt. However, this is exactly what has happened in the instances of the big banks, which teetered on the brink of failure just a few years ago, and in the case of Solyndra.

Instead of spending at an unsustainable level, i.e. printing money that must ultimately lose its value, might it not be a better idea to first put an end to a meaningless war in Afghanistan, which is bleeding the economies of both the US and UK white? In the case of the US, I'm confident that better use can be made of the $8 billion being burned every month in the wilds of central Asia. Peculiar how this issue is not being debated by Obama and Romney.

Krugman, "Here Comes the Sun": Krugman Wages War Against Brooks

In case you haven't noticed, a war has erupted on the op-ed page of The New York Times with ultra-liberal, Nobel economist Paul Krugman lashing out at David Brooks.

In his prior NYT op-ed entitled "Oligarchy, American Style" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Krugman took a nasty swipe at fellow New York Times columnist David Brooks, who had the audacity to opine several days earlier in an op-ed entitled "The Wrong Inequality" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/brooks-the-wrong-inequality.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), that the lack of higher education is the most important barrier to economic equality. Krugman wrote in a veiled reference to Brooks:

"Whenever growing income disparities threaten to come into focus, a reliable set of defenders tries to bring back the blur. Think tanks put out reports claiming that inequality isn’t really rising, or that it doesn’t matter. Pundits try to put a more benign face on the phenomenon, claiming that it’s not really the wealthy few versus the rest, it’s the educated versus the less educated."

Today, in his op-ed entitled "Here Comes the Sun" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/krugman-here-comes-solar-energy.html?hp), Krugman would have us believe that solar energy is the wave of the future, while demeaning the possibility of allaying America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil by means of domestic oil shale. Krugman claims:

"Fracking — injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels — is an impressive technology. But it’s also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads.

. . . .

Let’s face it: a large part of our political class, including essentially the entire G.O.P., is deeply invested in an energy sector dominated by fossil fuels, and actively hostile to alternatives. This political class will do everything it can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels, directly with taxpayers’ money and indirectly by letting the industry off the hook for environmental costs, while ridiculing technologies like solar."

In case you didn't notice, David Brooks's prior op-ed, "Shale Gas Revolution" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/brooks-the-shale-gas-revolution.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), was devoted to the potential benefits of oil shale and fracking:

"So far, the Obama administration has done a good job of trying to promote fracking while investigating the downsides. But the general public seems to be largely uninterested in the breakthrough (even though it could have a major impact on the 21st-century economy). The discussion is dominated by vested interests and the extremes. It’s becoming another weapon in the political wars, with Republicans swinging behind fracking and Democrats being pressured to come out against. Especially in the Northeast, the gas companies are demonized as Satan in corporate form."

Neither Krugman nor Brooks mentions that there is an alternative to fracking: Microwaved oil shale releases its fuel.

Solar power? I'm in favor of that, too. Anything that will relieve the US of its dependence upon foreign oil, create jobs at home, and improve the balance of payments.

Meanwhile, however, Krugman tussles with Brooks as The New York Times continues to founder.

Nicholas Kristof, "Crony Capitalism Comes Home": His Worst Opinion Piece Ever

Nicholas Kristof has written many fatuous New York Times op-eds. In one 2010 opinion piece entitled "New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06kristof.html), Kristof began by stating:

"The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies."

Apparently, Kristof was blithely unaware that our bodies consist of chemicals, but ignorance has never prevented him from foisting twaddle upon the The Times's readership.

Kristof today introduces the readership of The New York Times to a new bugaboo, crony capitalism, in his latest op-ed, "Crony Capitalism Comes Home" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/opinion/kristof-crony-capitalism-comes-homes.html?hp). However, Kristof begins with a defense of the Occupy Wall Street movement:

"Whenever I write about Occupy Wall Street, some readers ask me if the protesters really are half-naked Communists aiming to bring down the American economic system when they’re not doing drugs or having sex in public.

The answer is no. That alarmist view of the movement is a credit to the (prurient) imagination of its critics, and voyeurs of Occupy Wall Street will be disappointed."

Is it remotely possible that Kristof is unaware of the findings of pollster Douglas Schoen (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html) concerning the views of OWS protesters? Schoen determined:

"Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda."

Nicholas can deride the critics of OWS with inapposite sexual innuendo, but these statistics are indeed frightening.

Before going further astray along the fuzzy directions of this op-ed, let's return to its purported subject, i.e. crony capitalism. Although Kristof tells us that Lawrence Summers once opined that crony capitalism was to blame for the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, and he would have us believe that crony capitalism is to blame for America's current economic ills, he never troubles to define this term.

Allow me to assist Kristof. Crony capitalism involves a system whereby governments extend permits, grants, loans, tax credits, and other favors to connected persons in the business community.

Hey, doesn't that remind you of what happened with respect to Solyndra? Needless to say, Kristof doesn't go down that path.

Instead, Kristof provides a laundry list of distinguished persons who call for "structural change," recommend "broad-based job creation," and warn against "too much inequality" in a capitalist economy. But none of these persons are saying that the US is a banana republic suffering from crony capitalism.

Anyone familiar with this blog knows that I have long derided past excesses of America's financial institutions. I favor reenactment of Glass-Steagall; I favor reinstatement of the Uptick Rule. However, unlike Kristof, I do not perceive the United States as a banana republic.

Kristof concludes:

"So, yes, we face a threat to our capitalist system. But it’s not coming from half-naked anarchists manning the barricades at Occupy Wall Street protests. Rather, it comes from pinstriped apologists for a financial system that glides along without enough of the discipline of failure and that produces soaring inequality, socialist bank bailouts and unaccountable executives.

It’s time to take the crony out of capitalism, right here at home."

I am no apologist for the financial system, and I don't wear pinstripes. (As I type this blog entry, I am wearing sweat-stained gym shorts and a t-shirt covered in dog hair.) I do believe in correcting excesses without crashing the system. And unpleasant as it may have been, had Citibank and AIG not been rescued by the federal government, we would probably be back in the days of barter, with cow manure, for use as fertilizer to grow your own food, one of the world's most precious commodities.

Winston Churchill once said:

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

I think the same is true of capitalism as it pertains to systems of economics.

Obama, Solyndra, the Banks and Wall Street: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

We are more than a year away from the 2012 presidential election, yet Obama is already in full campaign mode, seeking to blame others, i.e. the banks and Wall Street, for America's persistent economic woes. Obama's October 6, 2011 press conference was illustrative of this offensive (in both senses of the word) strategy:

"So I'm going to be fighting every inch of the way here in Washington to make sure that we have a consumer watchdog that is preventing abusive practices by the financial sector.

I will be hugely supportive of banks and financial institutions that are doing the right thing by their customers. We need them to be lending. We need them to be lending more to small businesses. We need them to help do what traditionally banks and financial services are supposed to be doing, which is providing business and families resources to make productive investments that will actually build the economy. But until the American people see that happening, yes, they are going to continue to express frustrations about what they see as two sets of rules.

. . . .

What I think is that the American people understand that not everybody has been following the rules; that Wall Street is an example of that; that folks who are working hard every single day, getting up, going to the job, loyal to their companies, that that used to be the essence of the American Dream. That's how you got ahead -- the old-fashioned way. And these days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren't rewarded, and a lot of folks who aren't doing the right thing are rewarded.

And that's going to express itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again we're getting back to some old-fashioned American values in which, if you're a banker, then you are making your money by making prudent loans to businesses and individuals to build plants and equipment and hire workers that are creating goods and products that are building the economy and benefitting everybody."

Ah yes, the old-fashioned American value of making prudent loans to enable businesses to build plants and hire workers to create products that benefit everybody. And I suppose that the half billion dollars in federal loans granted to Solyndra provide an example of this rock solid, old-fashioned American value?

Let there be no mistake: I am in favor of reinstating both Glass-Steagall and the uptick rule in order to prevent predatory financial practices. On the other hand, Obama and friends have demonstrated their own incompetence in providing federal loans and are hardly in a position to furnish financial oversight by way of a "consumer watchdog." Given the warnings about the legality of the Solyndra loans from within Obama administration (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-obama-and-rahm-emanuel-pushed-to-spotlight-energy-company/2011/10/07/gIQACDqSTL_story.html?hpid=z1), this scandal appears ready to enmesh the highest echelons of the West Wing and even the president himself.

Federal supervision of the banks and Wall Street? By all means, but who will guard the guards?

Thomas Friedman, "Help Wanted: Leadership": But Where Is Leadership Defined?

I read the title of Thomas Friedman's latest New York Times op-ed, "Help Wanted: Leadership" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/Friedman-help-wanted-leadership.html?_r=1) with excitement. After all, I have long been bemoaning the lack of leadership in the White House and wrote of this flagrant failure more than a year and a half ago in a blog entry entitled "Did You Take Leadership 101 in College" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-you-take-leadership-101-at-college.html):

"Do we wish to be led by leaders? Leadership on the battle and playing fields is critical to winning, but can we subsist without leadership, for example, in the White House? Notwithstanding Axelrod's success at portraying him otherwise, Obama is not a leader: he is extremely intelligent, but by all accounts is slow to make decisions and is reluctant to rule by fiat. Some have called Obama a Wilsonian president, but is there still room in the Oval Office for such a person, who perhaps represents the antithesis of leadership, in an unforgiving twenty first century which brooks no delay?"

Regrettably, Obama has done little in the interim to dispel this assessment, and I wondered whether Friedman had reached a similar conclusion, albeit belatedly. But having read through Tom's column and conducted a word search, the word "leadership" appears only twice in the text of the op-ed, and there is no attempt at a definition.

So what does Friedman say in his essay? Sadly, we are presented with the usual tripe involving a "Grand Bargain":

"We know what to do — a Grand Bargain: short-term stimulus to ease us through this deleveraging process, debt restructuring in the housing market and long-term budget-cutting to put our fiscal house in order. None of this is easy and the economy will not be fixed overnight; it will take years. But there is every chance it will get healed if our two parties construct the Grand Bargain we need."

We know what to do? Who is this mysterious we? Apparently Tom thinks he knows what to do. As I understand it, Tom equals we.

But where is there anything novel in what Friedman suggests? We've already seen short-term stimulus, which included money showered upon the Department of Energy, which gave rise to Solyndra, and funds shoveled into the maw of the Justice Department, which spawned $16 muffins. As billionaire Solyndra investor and major Obama campaign contributor George Kaiser stated following the announcement of Obama's 2009 stimulus package:

"There's never been more money shoved out of the government's door in world history and probably never will be again than in the last few months and the next 18 months."

A lot of good that did us, and today, to the chagrin of fellow Democrats, Obama appears to have reversed course, and is focused on budget-cutting.

There are ordinarily many different routes to achieve any given goal, but leadership is demanded by those at the head of the convoy. What is leadership? Friedman fails to provide an answer. Again, as observed in "Did You Take Leadership 101 in College" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-you-take-leadership-101-at-college.html):

"Although I think 'leadership' should be studied and can perhaps be improved, this does not mean that it can be practiced on a 'virtuoso level' by almost anyone. What are its components? Certainly, charisma, which cannot be taught, is one of them. Add to the list, a willingness to accept risk - again something for which we are not all wired or suited. Abundant confidence and an ability to make snap decisions? Absolutely, but once again, owing to genetic and environmental factors, this is not present in all of us.

What about intelligence? I'm sure it's helpful for any prospective leader, but in and of itself does not make for leaders. Perhaps someone out there can tell me the average IQ of an NFL quarterback - I am certain it is not inordinately high. Also, although I was never impressed with the raw intelligence of Ronald Reagan, he was certainly a leader."

Although intelligent and a talented orator, Obama is a procrastinator and not capable of leadership. Can he guide us through the current economic morass? Probably not; however, time and seasonality will also play their role in an ultimate recovery.

Meanwhile, the Republicans appear hard pressed to offer anything more palatable. Is Romney really the best leader they can offer?

Nocera, "The Phony Solyndra Scandal": Joe Decides It Wasn't Criminal

I observed in a previous blog entry how the op-ed pundits of The New York Times were maintaining a stony silence concerning the Solyndra scandal. Well, Joe Nocera, in a column today entitled "The Phony Solyndra Scandal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/the-phony-solyndra-scandal.html?hp), has now broken that silence and informed us that there was no scandal at all, and that he will stand on his head in Times Square if former Solyndra executives spend a day in prison. Nocera writes:

"It’s not going to happen, for one simple reason: neither they, nor anyone else connected with Solyndra, have done anything remotely criminal."

These are bold words coming from a journalist, as opposed to an attorney specializing in criminal law, particularly before all of the facts are known. Nothing "remotely criminal"? Perhaps. However, the FBI took the trouble to raid the home of one of these executives, and I would guess that the FBI, which presumably obtained a court order to conduct the raid, does not agree with Nocera.

Nocera goes on to say:

"The company’s recent bankruptcy — which the Republicans are now rabidly 'investigating' because Solyndra had the misfortune to receive a $535 million federally guaranteed loan from the Obama administration — was largely brought on by a stunning collapse in the price of solar panels over the past year or so.

The company’s innovative solar panels, high-priced to begin with, became increasingly uncompetitive in the marketplace. Solyndra didn’t have enough big commercial customers to create the necessary economies of scale. And although Harrison and Stover remained optimistic up to the bitter end — insisting six weeks before the late-August bankruptcy filing that the company was going to be fine — they ultimately failed to raise additional capital that would have allowed Solyndra to stay in business."

Solyndra had the "misfortune" to receive a half billion dollar federally guaranteed loan? There are thousands of US companies which would go to enormous lengths to obtain such funding.

Moreover, if the company's "innovative" solar panels were "high-priced to begin with," why would the company seek to manufacture something that is not competitive in the market place? As solar industry analyst Peter Lynch explained to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-solar-company-fails-after-getting-controversial-federal-loan-guarantees/2011/08/31/gIQAB8IRsJ_story_1.html):

“'You make something in a factory and it costs $6, you sell it for $3, but you really, really need to sell it for $1.50 to be competitive,' Lynch said of Solyndra. 'It was an insane business model. The numbers just don’t work, and they never did.'”

Given that Solyndra's panels had, as acknowledged by Nocera, grown "increasingly uncompetitive," and given that they had already drawn drawn all but $8 million of the $535 million loan before filing for bankruptcy (see: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/211417/20110909/solyndra-ceo-brian-harrison-bankrupt-layoffs-solar-green-energy-stimulus-package-obama-greentech-med.htm), Nocera would have us believe that Solyndra's executives "remained optimistic "up to the bitter end"? I don't know about you, Joe, but I would not feel "optimistic" after consuming almost all the cash from a half billion dollar loan while continuing to manufacture an uncompetitive product. Who in their right minds would extend more cash to such a company?

Needless to say, no mention by Nocera that "the Government Accountability Office issued an unusually blunt assessment of the Energy Department's loan program in general, concluding that the department had 'treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others'" (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/solyndra-collapse-waste-half-billion-obama-gop-critics/story?id=14424323&page=2).

Sorry, Joe, but criminal or not, Solyndra needs to be investigated, and the basis for the inquiry has absolutely nothing to do with embarrassing the president, as you would have us believe.

Maureen Dowd, "Egghead and Blockheads": America Headed for No Desirable Choice in 2012?

In her latest op-ed "Egghead and Blockheads" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/opinion/sunday/dowd-egghead-and-blockheads.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Maureen Dowd compares the plot line of the 1962 film "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" with the duel she envisages for the 2012 presidential election:

"At the cusp of the 2012 race, we have a classic cultural collision between a skinny Eastern egghead lawyer who’s inept in Washington gunfights and a pistol-totin’, lethal-injectin’, square-shouldered cowboy who has no patience for book learnin’."

Obama is "inept in Washington gunfights"? Sorry, Maureen, but given what we know at this early stage of the Solyndra scandal, I think you could have shortened the sentence to "inept in Washington," or shorter still, "inept."

I also hate to break the news to Maureen, but we have yet to see the results of a single primary. Sure, there have been polls, but the Republican convention is months away, and Perry is less than a shoo-in as his past antics become better known to the national electorate.

Dowd would have us believe that "Republicans are now the 'How great is it to be stupid?' party." She concludes:

"So we’re choosing between the overintellectualized professor and blockheads boasting about their vacuity?

The occupational hazard of democracy is know-nothing voters. It shouldn’t be know-nothing candidates."

I agree that the current Republican field of presidential candidates induces stupefaction: If the Republicans were only to nominate someone of substance, the presidency would be theirs for the taking. However, I also don't think it's fair to label the likes of Bobby Jindal (accepted by both Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, and ultimately a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford) as a "blockhead." Paul Ryan and Chris Christie are also no dunderheads, yet not one of these three young men is willing to step forward and offer America a viable alternative to the change we once believed in.

Sad, yet can you blame them?

[As kindly observed by a reader, Mitt Romney received simultaneous JD and MBA degrees from Harvard, graduating with honors from the law school and finishing as a Baker Scholar at the business school. He is obviously no "blockhead."]

Joe Nocera, "Killing Jobs and Making Us Sick": What About "Creating Jobs and Making Us Sick" at Solyndra?

In a previous op-ed, Joe Nocera described a lawsuit brought by the National Labor Relations Board brought against Boeing for opening a plant in nonunion South Carolina. Nocera said that the N.L.R.B. action exemplified how Democrats hurt job creation and promised in a future column to show how Republicans are also guilty of standing in the way of employment. Today, in a New York Times op-ed piece entitled "Killing Jobs and Making Us Sick" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/opinion/nocera-killing-jobs-and-making-us-sick.html?_r=1&hp), Nocera alleges that the Republicans' refusal to properly fund the new food safety law is just such an example:

"For years, the food industry and consumer groups have been aligned on the need to modernize the nation’s food safety inspection system. “Food-borne illnesses” — an outbreak of salmonella or E. coli, for instance — are a problem not just for consumers but for industry as well. Recalls are expensive. Sales shrink, even for companies not involved in the recall. Lawsuits ensue. Employees lose their jobs. It can take years to recover from a food scare.

. . . .

When President Obama submitted his 2012 budget to Congress, he asked for $955 million for food safety, a $120 million increase. The increase was necessary, of course, because without the fee, the F.D.A. was going to be hard-pressed as it began the expensive process of changing how it inspected food.

Needless to say, that increase never had a chance either. With the House firmly in Republican hands, it slashed the agency’s food budget by $87 million, to $750 million. That was a staggering $200 million less than the White House had requested, an amount so low that it will make the F.D.A.’s already difficult task nearly impossible."

Well, as someone who almost died from E. coli poisoning earlier this year (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/02/israel-apartheid-e-coli-and-jimmy.html), I am fully cognizant of the danger from E. coli outbreaks. On the other hand, nowhere in Nocera's column does he detail the number of jobs not being created owing to the reduction of the F.D.A.'s budget for food safety.

Of course, Nocera does tell us that when food-borne illnesses occur, corporate sales shrink, lawsuits ensue and employees lose their jobs - all the more reason for grocery manufacturers to carefully test all their ingredients. Regrettably, however, this does not cause Americans to eat less. If a product of Company X is found to be tainted, Americans are not going to stop eating. Rather, they will more likely to buy instead from Company Y or Company Z. How does this impact upon the job market? Forgive me for being irreverent, but if anything, an E. coli outbreak keeps the lawyers and the legal system busy for years to come.

Moreover, does Nocera wish to claim that there is no fat to be trimmed from the F.D.A.'s food budget? Is the F.D.A. so efficiently run that a 9% cut in its budget is going to destroy its ability to operate? Facts and statistics please.

Sorry, Joe, I would have liked to see you make your point, but this column is a non sequitor.

But as long as we're discussing job creation and the involvement of the federal government, where, Joe, is your column about Solyndra. For that matter, where is there an op-ed from any of the pundits of the New York Times analyzing this scandal, which is certain to rock the Obama administration over the coming year.

Jon Stewart was not afraid to poke fun at this pustule (see: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/09/16/140534741/jon-stewart-skewers-white-house-on-solyndra); however, as best I can see, The New York Times seems to be avoiding the issue like the plague, or apropos Nocera's column of today, like a salmonella outbreak.

But then why would The New York Times not wish to delve into this delicate matter, which could well prove the final nail in Obama's 2012 coffin (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/09/solyndra-final-nail-in-obamas-coffin.html)? Has The New York Times grown overly politicized? My goodness, who would have ever imagined?

Solyndra: The Final Nail in Obama's Coffin?

If you thought that the defeat of Democrat David Weprin in New York's 9th district is Obama's biggest concern, you are mistaken. The stench from the half-billion-dollar loan to bankrupt solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra continues to grow. In a Washington Post article entitled "Solyndra loan: White House pressed on review of solar company now under investigation" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-pushed-500-million-loan-to-solar-company-now-under-investigation/2011/09/13/gIQAr3WbQK_story.html?hpid=z1), written by Joe Stephens and Carol D. Leonnig, we now learn that WAPO is in possession of e-mails that are highly incriminatory of the White House:

"The August 2009 e-mails, released exclusively to The Washington Post, show White House officials repeatedly asking OMB [Office of Management and Budget] reviewers when they would be able to decide on the federal loan and noting a looming press event at which they planned to announce the deal. In response, OMB officials expressed concern that they were being rushed to approve the company’s project without adequate time to assess the risk to taxpayers, according to information provided by Republican congressional investigators.

. . . .

'We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra at the end of the week),' one official wrote. That Aug. 31, 2009, message, written by a senior OMB staffer and sent to Terrell P. McSweeny, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, concluded, 'We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews.'

White House officials said Tuesday that no one in the administration tried to influence the OMB decision on the loan. They stressed that the e-mails show only that the administration had a 'quite active interest' in the timing of OMB’s decision."

This scandal is not going to disappear and will accompany Obama throughout the 2012 campaign. It will be interesting to witness the administration's attempts at damage control, which will ultimately necessitate firings of senior West Wing staff.

Watch Obama's hair grow grayer in the coming months, as the dark side of solar energy panels emerges.