new president

Listening to President Obama’s inaugural address today, I was struck by his rhetoric with respect to “apologizing for our way of life.” It was a bit unclear, but hopefully he was referring, not only to threats to our national security, but to energy consumption — the notion that we (Americans, westerners) should not apologize for the energy we consume, which enables us to live better, more productive, healthy lives.

With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

As my colleagues have noted, many of Obama’s energy and environment appointments have a long track record of supporting anti-energy policies, such as renewable energy mandates, that drive up energy costs for the rest of us. But, for a moment, it would be nice to think that our new president doesn’t want us to apologize for the energy that empowers all of us to live better lives.

Over in the UK, their own financial mess is reaching genuine crisis levels. With a trillion dollar national debt, a currency crisis and their own bank bailout (the model Paulson followed) having conclusively failed, Britain is on the edge of bankruptcy:

The country stands on the precipice. We are at risk of utter humiliation, of London becoming a Reykjavik on Thames and Britain going under. Thanks to the arrogance, hubristic strutting and serial incompetence of the Government and a group of bankers, the possibility of national bankruptcy is not unrealistic.

The political impact will be seismic; anger will rage. The haunted looks on the faces of those in supporting roles, such as the Chancellor, suggest they have worked out that a tragedy is unfolding here. Gordon Brown is engaged no longer in a standard battle for re-election; instead he is fighting to avoid going down in history disgraced completely.

The tastefully-named Iain Martin is obviously angry, but he has every right to be. Gordon Brown encouraged Britain to gamble much more of its national income on his watch than America did, all the time proclaiming he had put an end to “boom and bust.” Brown’s bust is now so large it wouldn’t look out of place in a Russ Meyer movie.

That is why Brown and his cronies will be watching today’s inauguration with an audacious hope in their hearts:

In this gloom, the Prime Minister has but one slender hope: that somehow, by force of personality, the new President Obama engineers a rapid American recovery restoring global confidence, energising the markets and making us all forget this bad dream.

If this is the case, it is plain that officials of Her Majesty’s Treasury have not read the So-Called Stimulus Bill.

UPDATE: More on Britain’s plight from the excellent Andrew Lilico.

As millions gather on the national mall today to witness the inauguration of Barack Obama, many are looking to the new president not only as a role model and the fulfillment of Martin Luther King’s dream for America, but also as a leader capable of saving us from economic disaster.

Yet, it seems that the economy may not be in as bad a shape as some would have us believe.

The Minneapolis Federal Reserve says that things aren’t that bad. In fact, they’ve made up some handy charts to prove it.

The charts place the current economic downturn into historical (post-WWII) perspective and show that currently the recession is mild.  Of course, we won’t know the length and severity of the recession until it’s over, but right now signs aren’t pointing to it being the worst economic situation since the Great Depression.

Yet that’s what we’re hearing from officials in the Obama administration.  Rahm Emmanuel said so on Meet the Press this weekend.

Even if all of this bluster were accurate and the economy were in a tailspin, there is plenty of reason not to CHANGE as Mr. Obama would have us change. In fact, many are saying that the Great Depression was extended, not curtailed, by FDR’s policies. If Mr. Obama seeks to fashion himself after Mr. Roosevelt, he may extend this recession into a depression no matter how much he “stimulates” the economy.

Hat Tip: Thanks to Bureaucrash Social member Ryan Evans for giving me the heads-up on the Minneapolis Fed charts.

As pundits bet that Sen. Hillary Clinton is a done deal for Secretary of State, today’s editorial in the Financial Times calls it a poor choice for a variety of reasons. In the piece extolling President-ele

ct Barack Obama’s picks for his economic team, the FT says that’s not the case for Hillary and hits her lack of experience, her ambitions, and her personality.

Economics aside, the biggest surprise among Mr Obama’s rumoured appointments is Hillary Clinton, whose selection as secretary of state is said to be “on track”. This is a far more questionable choice, since Mrs Clinton is so lacking in foreign policy experience. The appointment gives rise to unhelpful speculation about the new president’s motives. Is he attempting to bind his party’s wounds? His victory already did that, and governing well would assure a full recovery. Is he attempting to neutralise her as a rival for the presidency in 2012? If things go badly for him, it will take more than this to quell another Clinton bid.

Could Mrs Clinton subordinate herself to Mr Obama, and devote herself to making his presidency a success? That is doubtful and, with many far better qualified candidates available, is a risk there is no need to take.

CEI has criticized that choice for different reasons — Sen. Clinton, who has strong anti-trade, anti-globalization positions, would not temper the in-coming president’s lack of support for trade, which could cause not only more economic problems for the U.S. and the developing world but also geopolitical ones.