More frustration with the man at the top

From Andrew Grove:

We have gone through months of chaos experimenting with ways to
introduce stability in our financial system. The goals were to allow
the financial institutions to do their jobs and to develop confidence
in them. I believe by now, the people are eager for the administration
to rein in chaos. But this is not happening.

Until the administration does this, we should not embark on
attempting to fix another major part of the economy. Our health-care
system may well be ripe for a major overhaul, as are our energy and
environmental policies. Widespread recognition that all of these
reforms are overdue contributed to Barack Obama's victory in November.
But if the chaos that resulted from initiating such an overhaul were
piled on top of the unresolved status of the financial system, society
and government would become exhausted. Instead, the administration must
adopt a discipline; not initiating a second wave of chaos before we
have a chance to rein in the first.

The point is, all administrations, including this one, have a finite
capacity to deal with the details of monumental problems — and the
financial system's troubles certainly are monumental. Equally important
is that society has a finite capacity to understand what created the
problem, what the likely solutions are going to be and, most important,
what can be expected from the new order of things and when.

And here is Howard Fineman on Obama losing the faith of the "establishment":

• The $787 billion stimulus, gargantuan
  as it was, was in fact too small and not aimed clearly enough at only
  immediate job-creation.
• The $275 billion home-mortgage-refinancing plan, assembled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is too complex and indirect.
• The
  president gave up the moral high ground on spending not so much with
  the "stim" but with the $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded
  as it was with 9,000 earmarks.
• The administration is
  throwing good money after bad in at least two cases—the sinkhole that
  is Citigroup (there are many healthy banks) and General Motors (they
  deserve what they get).
• The failure to call for
  genuine sacrifice on the part of all Americans, despite the rhetorical
  claim that everyone would have to "give up" something.
• A
  willingness to give too much leeway to Congress to handle crucial
  details, from the stim to the vague promise to "reform" medical care
  without stating what costs could be cut.
• A 2010 budget
  that tries to do far too much, with way too rosy predictions on future
  revenues and growth of the economy. This led those who fear we are
  about to go over Niagara Falls to deride Obama as a paddler who'd
  rather redesign the canoe.
• A treasury secretary who
  has been ridiculed on "Saturday Night Live" and compared to Doogie
  Howser, Barney Fife and Macaulay Culkin in "Home Alone"—and those are
  the nice ones.
• A seeming paralysis in the face of the
  banking crisis: unwilling to nationalize banks, yet unable to figure
  out how to handle toxic assets in another way—by, say, setting up a
  "bad bank" catch basin.
• A seeming reluctance to seek
  punishing prosecutions of the malefactors of the last 15 years—and even
  considering a plea bargain for Bernie Madoff, the poster thief who
  stole from charities and Nobel laureates and all the grandparents of
  Boca. Yes, prosecutors are in charge, but the president is
  entitled—some would say required—to demand harsh justice.
• The
  president, known for his eloquence and attention to detail, seemingly
  unwilling or unable to patiently, carefully explain how the world
  works—or more important, how it failed. Using FDR's fireside chats as a
  model, Obama needs to explain the banking system in laymen's terms. An
  ongoing seminar would be great.
• Obama is no socialist,
  but critics argue that now is not the time for costly, upfront spending
  on social engineering in health care, energy or education.

Other than that, how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln?

Comments