3 posts tagged “obama”

As many of you already know, the Obama administration forced Chrysler into its current bankruptcy, and into the sale to Fiat.  While Chrysler had serious problems before the federal government stepped in, what the Obama administration has done should raise the hair on all of our necks.  There are so many things wrong with this situation, but the primary issue at stake for all of us is how Chrysler's secured creditors are being treated.

Investment 101 teaches us that bonds are a safer investment than stocks (albeit lower returns, etc.).  So, if you were the state of Indiana, and you invested in secured Chrysler bonds as part of your state's pension plan, then you have become a secured creditor for Chrysler.  This means that if Chrysler ever files for bankruptcy, you are first in line to get your money back.  However, with the Obama Administration, not so much.  Chrysler's secured creditors were owed roughly $6.9 billion, and the Obama administration put them in the back of the line - behind the UAW - and has told them they will have to deal with $.29 on the dollar.  This is such a devastating, short sighted and "cronyistic" move.  Indiana took their case to the Supreme Court (after the 2nd Circuit punted the ball), and it appears the Supreme Court is not going to hear the case (even after issuing a temporary stay).  Complicating this picture even further is the fact that members of Obama's team called the lawyer representing Indiana a "terrorist", they've taken other abitrary actions such as mandating a huge cut in their marketing budget, and the funds poured into Chrylser originated from the TARP bailout passed under Bush - which neither administration has used to buy up "toxic assets" as they were intended.  It's arguable that the use of TARP funds for auto bailouts its illegal (and the authority granted to the Treasury unconstitutional).

Aside from TARP being the biggest government finance sham in our history (and aside from it basically granting the executive branch their very own slush fund), the rule of law is being arbitrarily discarded in favor of special interests and political paybacks.  If this sale goes through as is, and the secured creditors get royally screwed (as it now appears they will), we are going to see investment capital flee our country at an alarming rate.  After all, who wants to invest in so-called "safe bonds" (whether it be a state or company) if the federal government can step in and 'dictate' that you will only get $.29 on the dollar as a secured creditor, but non-secured creditors who also happen to be big donors to your party will get much more?  Those investors will take their money to countries that actually honor private agreements.  As the situation with Indiana demonstrates, the flight of that investment capital from our nation, and the "rule by fiat" attitude on the part of our federal government will hurt the pensions, retirements, state & local government funds (and more) where each of us live.  The sad thing is, we've done all this before - in the 1930's.  We prolonged the Great Depression by "economic experimentation", protectionism and "punish investors" policies.  All three ingredients are present today as well, so buckle up and hold on tight.

Oddly enough, one definition for the word "fiat" reads: "an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, esp. by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it"

A good opinion piece (with many stats and facts) on this issue can be seen here.

(Cross-posted with my other blog: http://incrementalthought.com/)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much ado has been made recently linking President Obama to President Lincoln by both the President himself and the press.  The most obvious similarities, of course, are that both come from Illinois and have served in the Illinois legislature.  The more ‘picturesque’ comparison acts as a metaphoric historical “bookend” - in that Lincoln freed the slaves, and now we have the first African-American president.  Obama deliberately mimicked Lincoln’s historic train ride as he made his way to Washington for the inauguration.  But how much do the men really share in common?  Is it fair to compare what is arguably the most politically inexperienced president ever to take office to one of the most revered figures of our history?  Is this audacity or just hopeful thinking?

As so often happens today, true history is glossed over.  We hold in our hands a diamond of the past, yet we forget the intense pressures that forged such a gem.  We take them for granted – thinking that each generation has any number of such men, it’s just that only some make it to an office like president.  We praise them in retrospect, but conveniently forget how harshly they were ridiculed.  We marvel at the eloquence of their speeches passed down to us, but how many of us know of the contempt Lincoln’s peers felt for him and his shortened-speech style?  How many are taught of the turning point in Lincoln’s life and writings that led to his later speeches like the Gettysburg Address and his second inaugural address?

I think it’s premature at best to be comparing Obama (or any new president for that matter) to a monumental leader like Abraham Lincoln – at worst it is outright unabashed hubris.  Be that as it may, I thought it fitting to review (and perhaps compare to Obama) some of Lincoln’s qualities and values.

Lincoln & the Press

Abraham Lincoln had only one year of formal school.  He was only elected president because of a split in the Democratic Party – and he only received 40% of the popular vote.  The press was acidic: calling him a “disgrace to the nation”, and saying his short speeches only “emphasized the lack of the needed qualities, intelligence and education” to be president.  A Baltimore Sun editorial read, “We do not believe the Presidency can ever be more degraded by any of his successors, than it has been by him, even before his inauguration.”  Contrast that to the press Obama has received.  The Pew research group recently revealed a poll that showed 70% of Americans believed the press was completely backing Obama during the campaign.  Juan Williams pointed out that “Mr. Obama was forced to give a speech on race as a result of revelations that he'd long attended a church led by a demagogue. It was an ordinary speech. At best it was successful at minimizing a political problem. Yet some in the media equated it to the Gettysburg Address.”  And I’m sure everyone remembers the infamous “tingling leg” comment by Chris Matthews.

Lincoln, God and Tragedy

President Lincoln was deeply religious by the end of his life, though he never declared he was a member of a particular denomination.  His belief and trust in God grew in intensity as his time in office progressed.  He was remarkably non-judgmental, and yet never afraid to discuss God in his speeches, correspondence and conversations.  Consider some of these quotes:

 “I am almost ready to say this is probably true – that God wills this contest [the Civil War], and wills that it should not end yet.”

“I expect to maintain this contest until successful or until I die, or am conquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsakes me.”

“In the very responsible position in which I happen to be placed, being a humble instrument in the hands of our Heavenly Father, as I am, and as we all are, to work out his great purposes, I have desired that all my works and acts may be according to his will….”

John Bright – a fellow statesman (helping prevent conflict between the US and Britain during this time) and very influential on Lincoln, asked “Is not this war the penalty which inexorable justice exacts from America, North and South, for the enormous guilt of cherishing that frightful iniquity of slavery, for the last eighty years?”

You see, men like Bright and Lincoln believed that “God’s hand in the course of events is seen in the working out of an objective moral law”.  WOW!  Contrast that to today’s ubiquitous moral relativism.  The word “sin” in and of itself is viewed with scorn and disdain, much less any sort of overarching “meta-narrative” behind morality.  These men were men of principles and ideals.  They were truly ideologues – a word that modern liberals want to paint as a bad thing – and they, like Obama in his inaugural address, are dismissing “tired ideologies” while they try to convince us that they are above such ‘petty’ disputes and concerns.  Lincoln’s worldview was stamped with the belief in a real and personal God, a belief that moral absolutes existed, a belief that we – as mere mortals – could seek the Almighty and, as best as we could, “endeavor to do my best in the light he affords me”. 

Lincoln endured such relentless personal and political agony – the fact that he persevered under the weight of his burdens has amazed historians since.  He lost his 11 year-old son Willie in 1862.  His brother-in-law, Confederate General Ben Hardin Helm, was killed in 1863, and his widow Emily came to the White House to both be comforted by Mary Lincoln, and to comfort the Lincolns on the loss of Willie.  The tragedy of the Civil War permeated every aspect of Lincoln’s life – even time at the dinner table with family.

In 1862, after repeated Union defeats on the battlefield, Lincoln composed “Meditations on the Divine Will”.  It was not written to be read, and was later found by his secretary.  Out of the crucible of suffering, prayer and faith, Lincoln emerged a different man.  From this point on the tone and content of his speeches changed to what we treasure today.  This was not a meticulously crafted PR & Campaign image – but the revelation of a soul dependent on God, and endeavoring with all his might to find himself fulfilling God’s will for his life and troubled nation.  Contrast that with Obama’s condescension towards such religious people when he said they were “clinging to their guns or religion” with “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”.

Lincoln and Principle

Lincoln’s principles were based on a firm belief in right vs. wrong – moral absolutes were a given.  His conviction that slavery was wrong stemmed from his belief in God – that it did not matter what the abilities of a man were, what mattered were his rights as a human being made in God’s image.  While many today pride themselves on supposed pragmatism, Lincoln wrestled deeply with the conflict of principles, and made hard choices on which principles were to be esteemed higher than others.  For example, preserving the Union was foremost in his mind, and emancipation was secondary – yet deeply intertwined with the first.  He commiserated with others in similar internal conflicts.  Lincoln – in a private message to Eliza Gurney (a Quaker) – wrote “Your people have had, and hare having a great trial.  On principle, and faith, opposed to both war and oppression, they can only practically oppose oppression by war.”

With preserving the Union at the forefront, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and effectively gave the ok for citizens to be tried before military tribunals.  A Maryland Circuit court overturned Lincoln’s decision, but Lincoln ignored the ruling.  Contrast that with one of the first executive orders of the current Obama Administration: an order to close Gitmo within the year, without having a clear plan to handle the detainees currently housed there.  (It’s worth noting that the tribunals at Gitmo have been upheld twice in bi-partisan votes in Congress.)  In effect, the worst terrorists in the world have rights under Obama that not even some citizens had under Lincoln.  Lincoln’s steely nerve to stand up to the judicial branch would lead to an uproar in liberal circles today.

So What’s the Deal?

So as the Obama/Lincoln comparisons continue, I pose this question:  What is it that the purveyors of this idea really want?  What they want is Lincoln’s legend and mythology.  They want to borrow from his glory and use it to paint a picture of Obama that simply is not the case.  They conveniently leave out the things that made Lincoln the man he was – qualities, that if possessed by a candidate today, they would decry with outrage and shock.  Obama may yet be a great president (I have my deeply-rooted doubts), but he has not endured anything close to the visceral treatment Lincoln received from the press.  He has not persevered through agonizing defeat upon defeat as he worked night and day to keep the union from dissolving.  He has not endured the average loss of 10,000 soldiers per month, nor has he experienced the pain of losing extended family on opposing sides of the conflict.  He has not faced a moral dilemma like the abolition of slavery – where any mismanagement of his cause could erode the remaining Union support entirely and jeopardize everything they had been fighting for.

Barack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln.  And the fact that his supporters and his party attempt to ride the coattails of historical giants from Jesus to Moses, and from Kennedy to Lincoln, only highlights how little he has done, how little we know of him and his character, and how long these 4 years will be if we discover that we’ve elected nothing more than a lucky megalomaniac.