AMERICAN ISSUES PROJECT

At Last, the Obama Model for Economic Policy

There may be states with poorer economic conditions than California, but perhaps none with more self-inflicted fiscal wounds. The state legislature, controlled by one party for decades, keeps spending record amounts of money, in boom times and bust. Its electorate uses a free-wheeling referendum system to continually approve bond issues for pet projects while maintaining flinty opposition to the taxes required to repay them. They kicked out one governor for bad management of the state's finances – and Gray Davis may be the happiest man in California these days for it. Unemployment has passed 11% on its way to 13% or more by the end of the year, according to analysts.

This week, though, the Golden State has reached its nadir. The legislature, facing an unprecedented $24 billion shortfall and a cash crisis, boldly did … nothing at all. A bid to cut the budget by less than 15% of the shortfall died in partisan bickering, forcing the state into a de facto default. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will start preparing to pay the state's bills with IOUs, and the bond rating agencies will likely reduce the state's bonds to junk status shortly afterwards.

All of this has been widely known, thoroughly reported, and understood by most of the nation – indeed, most of the world. Everyone comprehends the lesson of California's free-spending, interventionist governance – except, apparently, the White House. In hailing the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House late last week, President Barack Obama demanded quick action from the Senate, and told them to look at the economic powerhouse of California to see how the nation can lower its energy demand while succeeding at providing jobs and an expanding economy.

“In the late 1970s, the state of California enacted tougher energy-efficiency policies. Over the next three decades, those policies helped create almost 1.5 million jobs. And today, Californians consume 40 percent less energy per person than the national average -- which, over time, has prevented the need to build at least 24 new power plants. Think about that. California -- producing jobs, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the country, and yet they have been able to maintain their energy usage at a much lower level than the rest of the country.”

Does anyone at the White House ever brief the President on the economic crisis? California's unemployment has been higher than the national average for years, thanks to a flight of capital from the state's onerous taxes and workers-comp regulations. This year, though, the problem has been particularly bad. The state has had double-digit unemployment since the beginning of the year, which means less energy needed for economic production, and the economy of the state teeters on depression.

As for its energy usage, the Washington Examiner explains how the state has reduced its need, and it wasn't through smart planning. California has lost 21% of its manufacturing base since 2000, which produced a sharp drop in energy usage – as well as a big drop in revenues for the state and higher unemployment. Energy costs in California are much higher than in the rest of the nation, as much as 50% higher for residential rates than the average. That amounts to a big tax on California residents, which is one reason more people are fleeing California than entering it.

This brings us back to the cap-and-trade bill that just passed the House. Eventually, the costs of such a system will place the same kind of tax on everyone in the nation for energy consumption, and not just on electricity. The cost of refining gasoline will increase as refiners have to buy carbon credits. The same will happen to heating oil in parts of the country.

Worse, the costs will compound to consumers of every good and service in the nation. Energy cost increases kick off an inflationary cycle that we last saw in the gas-price hikes of 2008. Manufacturing will cost more, as will transporting goods to market, and the overhead for retailers will increase as well. Each of these will add the higher costs to the price of the goods and services all along the distribution chain. Who pays for the all of these increases? All of us do. The effect will go far beyond our utility bills, just as it did when gas prices shot out of sight last year. Everything we buy will cost more money.

At least we finally see what Barack Obama's fiscal and energy policies will lead us. Obama wants to create the same disastrous results across the entire nation that have ruined the economy and government of California. And when he does, we will have nowhere to run.

Edward Morrissey's Bio
Ed Morrissey writes for Hot Air, where he also has a daily political talk show. Ed has written for the Washington Post, the New York Post, the New York Sun, and has made numerous television and radio appearances. He lives in Minnesota with his wife, son, and two granddaughters.

Comments

Linda C wrote re: At Last, the Obama Model for Economic Policy
on 07-02-2009 1:36 PM

You ask, "Does anyone at the White House ever brief the President on the economic crisis?"  I wonder if anyone at the White House understands the crisis.   If they do, it seems likely that this crisis is part of some overall plan to bring us to our knees.  Don't waste a good crisis, eh?

Dosta wrote re: At Last, the Obama Model for Economic Policy
on 07-02-2009 1:37 PM

Another great post Ed, when will people start using common sense and stop letting these politicians pull the wool over their eyes? What kills me is all these policies Obama and the dems are trying to push have been tried or being tried now and have failed miserably.

Its a shame people are so easily bought with promises of free money or healthcare that they pretty much sell the souls.

Chris A wrote re: At Last, the Obama Model for Economic Policy
on 07-02-2009 4:47 PM

It seems improbable that the policy decisions made by the Obama administration are the result of a profound ignorance of the laws of economics, although it is possible.  In the end it does not matter where this massively stupid course we are on comes from. Day by day it becomes clearer to me that our system is being intentionally destroyed to facilitate the implementation of a "new economy" more in tune with the president's ideological view of the world.  The reality is proving worse than my pre-election fears.  What puzzles me are the polls.  How can so many be so economically illiterate?

Baxter Greene wrote re: At Last, the Obama Model for Economic Policy
on 07-02-2009 9:31 PM

I think if America would read more international papers, these disastrous actions by Mr. 57 States would become clearer:

China News: Obama's Economic Reform Is In Conformity With Marxist Doctrine

gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/.../china-news-obamas-economic-reform-is-in.html

. This way of doing things is in conformity with the Marxist doctrine of the Communist Manifesto in which Marx foretold a capitalist financial crisis. The American Foreign Policy magazine offered a very Marxist "prescription" suggesting that the "whole financial sector be turned into a public utility" -- perhaps one could say, "centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." (Communist Manifesto)...

I am sure Obama is on the phone every night with his marxist terrorist friend Bill Ayers on what to do next.

blokcom wrote re: At Last, the Obama Model for Economic Policy
on 07-10-2009 11:21 AM

this is not a response to Edward Morrissey.

"China News: Obama's Economic Reform Is In Conformity With Marxist Doctrine"

They (the so-called left, and to some extent some of the so-called right), may hold the basic kernels of the Communist Manifesto, of Marxism, but this is more in tune with British Fabian Socialism, which is really one in the same but of a different method excluding Marxist economics. Rather than revolution right now, the Marxist/Leninist way, the Fabian, who is patient, will take his socialism by persuasion rather than coercion even if it takes decades to accomplish. Yes there are still Marxists world wide but the influence in my opinion is not as strong as the Fabian. This may be because of Fabian influence in banking and other holders of power such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who have not absolute influence but help promote the Fabian cause. So articles like this may be telling a truth but not the whole truth. The author may be ignorant of Fabianism and its influence. Reading the differing views into socialism/communism will lead you to Fabianism, in particularly, if you read the works by the Fabians since 1884. It has been said that the west was responsible for planting the seeds of socialism in China, a claim I am still trying to uncover.

Obama has said they will consider Keynesian economics (I heard him say this on CNN or MSNBC), for example:

www.npr.org/.../story.php

John Maynard Keynes was a Fabian Socialist.

In the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Macmillian 1968) on the subject of 'economic planning' a descriptive excerpt says: "Present-day planning is rooted partly in socialism, partly in modern economic ideas as expressed in national accounts, Keynesian theories, and anticyclical policy generally."

I would say that it more than partly rooted in socialism. It is more socialist than the encyclopedia suggests.

In today's emerging system of socialist policy, it would be wrong to call it outright socialism. It would be wrong to call Obama an outright socialist let alone a Marxist. Socialism is the first phase to communism after capitalism. Capitalism and democracy can coexist in a socialist country. The question then arises, "is it really socialism"? Was Russian really communist? It may have been at first, but in the end is it really state capitalism, with an elite class ruling over the masses? I would say it's state financial monopoly capitalism with socialist elements. Today, we as a world society are emerging into something else. It's a little bit socialism, a little communism, with capitalist knobs and levers where you can vote, or something like that. To some, it all ends up being the same thing-totalitarianism. A thing I think is true. We are coming into a new synthesis in time. A new world system based on different isms rather than a 'socialism' of any kind.

All this is just barely scratching the surface. A study into the UN's plan of action, Agenda21, will assure anyone that their is indeed a plan to "socialize" the world. If the Fabians didn't take part of this document I would be surprised.

Inbcbgpy wrote re: At Last, the Obama Model for Economic Policy
on 07-15-2009 10:12 AM

tq3AEI