What I expect from Obama

What I expect from President Obama is pretty much summed up here:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/obamas-first-choice.html

Almost every economist will tell you the stimulus has to be massive in order to have any real impact. Even Marty Feldstein, who headed Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors, told Congress it had to be $800 billion. My own view is at least $900 billion. But a price tag like that scares Republicans and so-called “blue-dog” Democrats who worry about government debt.

So here’s our new president's strategic choice. He can flight for the biggest stimulus politically possible – twisting arms and counting noses to get a bare majority in the House and sixty votes in the Senate. That’s how Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush got their huge tax cuts, and how Bill Clinton got his first budget through Congress.

Or Obama can aim to get the backing of a much larger majority than he needs to get the stimulus enacted – including a majority of blue dogs and Republicans. To do this he’d likely have to settle for a smaller stimulus package – one that may not be enough to jump-start the economy.

Why would he ever choose the second strategy? Because his goal is not just to get the biggest stimulus package he can squeeze through Congress. It’s to get a Congress that’s mostly united behind whatever stimulus package emerges. This would ensure that Republicans and blue-dog Democrats take some ownership of the package, and therefore responsibility for making it work.
[...]

It’s not the strategy his predecessors used to get their economic plans enacted. It’s not hardball politics, and it may not be the best move for the economy in the short run. But given the challenges our new president and our nation face over the long run, this may be the smartest politics and smartest economics.

Bailout: Lack of oversight leads to this

Don’t say that we weren’t warned. We were warned repeatedly.

So, while disgusting, this comes as no surprise:

When the nation’s chief financial officers begged Congress for $700 billion of taxpayer money, they said it was about saving banks. They didn’t say anything about saving bonuses.

Despite monumental losses, some Wall Street firms will still be giving out big bonuses this year — even firms that were bailed out by the government.

Goldman Sachs, which accepted $10 billion in government money, and lost $2.1 billion last quarter, announced Tuesday that it handed out $10.93 billion in benefits, bonuses, and compensation for the year.

Goldman Sachs noted that the figure is down 46 percent from a year ago and that seven of its senior executives are forgoing bonuses this season.

“Bonuses across Goldman Sachs will be down significantly this year,” a bank representative told ABC News. The spokesman refused to disclose the size of the bonus pool or how much of the compensation fund of $10.93 billion was planned for bonuses, but some employees are reportedly being given more than $200,000 in cash.

Make them give it back or make this company go into bankruptcy.