Obama and the banks

When the clutch/herd/murder/band/covey/swarm of advisers around Obama saw the stock market rally Monday at even the hint that Scott Brown might win, they squashed it on Wednesday with Obama's announcement of more bank regulation. I never had an economics course, but I was listening to Michele Bachmann, the lone voice of sanity in Minnesota (and the next legislator I'll support), yesterday who says Pelosi has painted a bulls eye on her forehead. Let me paraphrase until I can look her up. "Just get out of the way--no more new regulations or taxes and reduce what we already have. The economy will start to turn around in a quarter." Obama's move was a real smack down for any even considering saving the economy, a pay back for Tuesday's vote. I think he was responding to Brown's clear message, "Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don't Mirandize terrorists. Don't raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests." Krauthammer link.

But how was this portrayed by WaPo, which continues to carry his water even after all the disastrous moves (I won't call them mistakes, because I think they were intentional) with the economy, national security, and the environment of his first year. Here's what showed up in my e-mail--"The populist brushfire that has burned through Democratic fortunes this week threatened Friday to claim Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, imperiling his nomination for a second term and sending an unsettled stock market tumbling for the third straight day." Not a peep that the stock market tumble was as a direct result of Obama's announcement. Nope--just those stupid independent voters, those misinformed racist chicken littles out there running around like their heads were cut off. Why did this hurt the economy when unemployment is over 10%--and much higher here in Ohio?

"Daniel Ariens, whose company manufactures and markets snowblowers and lawnmowers, works closely with two regional banks in Chicago. If you want to stimulate the economy, he says, you can't keep "beating down on people who finance the infrastructure of this economy."

Todd Teske, CEO of Briggs & Stratton Corp., is concerned about who will pay for more regulation. "I've heard this has the potential for driving up costs for the banks," he said. "To the extent those costs are passed on to their customer base, that becomes problematic."

"Uncertainty over financial regulatory authority and what it means to the largest financial providers to the economy is not good," Keith Sherin, chief financial officer of General Electric Co., said Friday. GE is challenging some proposals in Washington that could change how its bruised finance arm, GE Capital, is structured, regulated or taxed. A recently proposed Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee could cost GE Capital $500 million, after taxes, for a full year." WSJ Link

Could the problem be that no one in the Obama administration has ever worked for any sector other than the government which only sees higher taxes and more regulations as the way to recovery and/or growth? Think about it. Gov. Granholm of Michigan is one of his economic advisers.